Coal powered Tesla

[4WD]

Meaning you do what Jeff does … ? Yeah, I'm not somebody who comes on here attacking EV … have already said it works based on applications and regions …

But I'm not driving in 4WD to what we call 15 mile cut to surf fish … EV not yet … Hybrid maybe …
(In my fleet of 5 … own a Fusion Hybrid BTW) …

I was commenting on making AC power from Diesel …

 

[UncleDave]

Nor am I towing my boat to the river with an EV - not at all practical.

I wasn't asking you I was asking cujet. sorry - I should have copied him vs a general reply.

I always try to avoid broad sweeping statements until I see a breakdown of the claim and underlying math myself.

UD

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted by UncleDave
Originally Posted by Cujet
But it's good for all to know that per mile, EV's use more fuel BTU's at the powerplant than a comparable hybrid would if using gas.

Are you absolutely sure thats always the case?

Yes. Qualifiers needed. Some combined cycle power plants have superb efficiency and "IF" you were to power your EV with a combined cycle powerplant (and nothing else) it's possible to match overall hybrid vehicle efficiency.

Quote: "EVs convert about 59%-62% of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels"

Source:

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml

Unfortunately, the US nationwide average for fuel burning power plants is well under 40%. Grid losses are about 6-7%. So, in the end, the modern hybrid with it's 41% eff eng, is still the MPG champ when BTU's per mile is concerned.

It's also good to know that heat is free on hybrids, while it is a major consumer of battery power on EV's.

Of course, nothing is simple and nuclear/hydro/solar/wind contribute to grid power in many locations.

 

[UncleDave]

Always enjoy the links thanks.

I've never seen the loss #'s in the petrol/ diesel delivery chain- energy to find, drill, lift, barrel, ship, refine, deliver..... to see the other side of that computation.

It'd be interesting to see both all in.

I suspect an electric powered by Nukes or PV would be the energy/mile winner.

UD

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted by UncleDave
I suspect an electric powered by Nukes or PV would be the energy/mile winner.

Nukes, no. The BTU's produced are still managed at a massive loss. As low as 33% efficient. Remember, nuke power still consumes a heat producing fuel.

PV's, you bet. Today's more efficient PV's may have an eroi of 30 to 1. Superb numbers. Please don't believe the studies that say PV's take as much energy to make as they produce. Nothing could be further from the truth. The eroi can be as short as 1 year in average conditions. Except in NY, where gloomy skies prevent PV's from ever working........ (just a little joke, with a bit of truth to it)

 

[czbrian]

Originally Posted by Cujet
Originally Posted by UncleDave
Originally Posted by Cujet
But it's good for all to know that per mile, EV's use more fuel BTU's at the powerplant than a comparable hybrid would if using gas.

Are you absolutely sure thats always the case?

Yes. Qualifiers needed. Some combined cycle power plants have superb efficiency and "IF" you were to power your EV with a combined cycle powerplant (and nothing else) it's possible to match overall hybrid vehicle efficiency.

Quote: "EVs convert about 59%-62% of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels"

Source:

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml

Unfortunately, the US nationwide average for fuel burning power plants is well under 40%. Grid losses are about 6-7%. So, in the end, the modern hybrid with it's 41% eff eng, is still the MPG champ when BTU's per mile is concerned.

It's also good to know that heat is free on hybrids, while it is a major consumer of battery power on EV's.

Of course, nothing is simple and nuclear/hydro/solar/wind contribute to grid power in many locations.


On the 41% efficient engine in the hybrid, that is just a peak efficiency so you are comparing the average power plant fleet of 40% to a peak efficiency level of the Toyota Prius? If so, that's kind of apples to oranges comparison. In reality, how much of the time is that engine operating at that peak?

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted by Cujet
Originally Posted by UncleDave
I suspect an electric powered by Nukes or PV would be the energy/mile winner.

Nukes, no. The BTU's produced are still managed at a massive loss. As low as 33% efficient. Remember, nuke power still consumes a heat producing fuel.

PV's, you bet. Today's more efficient PV's may have an eroi of 30 to 1. Superb numbers. Please don't believe the studies that say PV's take as much energy to make as they produce. Nothing could be further from the truth. The eroi can be as short as 1 year in average conditions. Except in NY, where gloomy skies prevent PV's from ever working........ (just a little joke, with a bit of truth to it)


PV's became net positive sometime in the late 80's If I recall.
Back in the day youd get 50 watts out of a pane size you get 200+ from now.

UD

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by Kestas
I like to point out that some peak electricity is generated with diesel fuel. In those cases, it is considerably more efficient to burn diesel directly in an automotive engine than to have it converted into electricity for electric cars.

Same for natural gas, if there was only a practical way to package it for automotive use.


The self proclaimed greenest state in Australia runs their peakers on diesels, because gas is to high...even 80MW of diesel engines at times...

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted by Shannow


The self proclaimed greenest state in Australia runs their peakers on diesels, because gas is to high...even 80MW of diesel engines at times...


The ultra efficient but slow to respond combined cycle plants are really cool. But as we've discussed before, those gas turbine peaker's are not super efficient and often times, burn more expensive fuels. Because their efficiency is often in the mid 30% range, they drive overall grid efficiency down somewhat.

I'd love to know by how much.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Cujet
Originally Posted by UncleDave
I suspect an electric powered by Nukes or PV would be the energy/mile winner.

Nukes, no. The BTU's produced are still managed at a massive loss. As low as 33% efficient. Remember, nuke power still consumes a heat producing fuel.


Sure, but it is 10,000 times more dense and you only use a fraction of its capacity. This is where the thermal efficiency of a steam turbine gets conflated with the medium used to generate the steam. Yes, a nuke's thermal capacity (MWth) is massively more than its electricity generating capacity (MWe) but that is simply the nature of a traditional steam generator. It's what makes the steam that sets the nuke apart from other sources, since there are no emissions, regardless of the waste heat, and the volume of fuel is tiny. Some of the SMR designs are looking at salvaging the waste heat and using it for other purposes like generating hydrogen (UHT nukes), desalination....etc.

The big issues with PV are density and CF. A typical tracker in Ontario runs at a whopping 14% CF and 10MW takes up almost 200 acres. Then of course there is the issue of intermittency, which usually results in backup gas being idled, which isn't factored into lifetime emissions, despite the necessary pairing. Nukes, despite their more traditional thermal efficiency profile, are an island, requiring no idling gas plant or massive bank of batteries. Units have generating profiles that are years in length between refuelling and/or maintenance events.

PV can work well at driving down peak demand during daytime hours, and, paired with moderate storage, could buffer the evening "surge" which tends to happen just as the sun is going down and capacity is pooping the bed, similar to the morning surge where there isn't enough exposure. With another zero emissions source like Nuclear satisfying the bulk of the base demand you can minimize gas usage. Of course an almost entirely nuke setup (France) or a Nuke/Hydro pairing (Ontario) can do just fine without PV, but IF PV is to be paired, it's best to use it for the role it is best suited, not trying to make it do baseload when it is simply incapable.

 

[Nick1994]

Does the power plant pollute more when you plug in an electric car to charge?

 

[Kestas]

Power plants have scrubbers to clean effluent. I'm not sure how it compares with the overregulated automobile exhaust.

 

[tig1]

Recently talked to a Telsa owner at a rest area in Alabama. He told me he has to re-charge every 250-300 hyw miles and it takes about 30 minutes to do that.

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by Cujet
Originally Posted by UncleDave
I suspect an electric powered by Nukes or PV would be the energy/mile winner.

Nukes, no. The BTU's produced are still managed at a massive loss. As low as 33% efficient. Remember, nuke power still consumes a heat producing fuel.


Sure, but it is 10,000 times more dense and you only use a fraction of its capacity. This is where the thermal efficiency of a steam turbine gets conflated with the medium used to generate the steam. Yes, a nuke's thermal capacity (MWth) is massively more than its electricity generating capacity (MWe) but that is simply the nature of a traditional steam generator. It's what makes the steam that sets the nuke apart from other sources, since there are no emissions, regardless of the waste heat, and the volume of fuel is tiny. Some of the SMR designs are looking at salvaging the waste heat and using it for other purposes like generating hydrogen (UHT nukes), desalination....etc.

The big issues with PV are density and CF. A typical tracker in Ontario runs at a whopping 14% CF and 10MW takes up almost 200 acres. Then of course there is the issue of intermittency, which usually results in backup gas being idled, which isn't factored into lifetime emissions, despite the necessary pairing. Nukes, despite their more traditional thermal efficiency profile, are an island, requiring no idling gas plant or massive bank of batteries. Units have generating profiles that are years in length between refuelling and/or maintenance events.

PV can work well at driving down peak demand during daytime hours, and, paired with moderate storage, could buffer the evening "surge" which tends to happen just as the sun is going down and capacity is pooping the bed, similar to the morning surge where there isn't enough exposure. With another zero emissions source like Nuclear satisfying the bulk of the base demand you can minimize gas usage. Of course an almost entirely nuke setup (France) or a Nuke/Hydro pairing (Ontario) can do just fine without PV, but IF PV is to be paired, it's best to use it for the role it is best suited, not trying to make it do baseload when it is simply incapable.



Aren't you the Candu nuke guy? Those guys have a great program.

On panel farms that sounds about right for Quebec, but the CF is radically diff in the SW I recall Topaz gets something like 24% CF

In terms of Acres/MW - not much else that land is even good for kind of like an untherwise unused roof

Totally agree about Baseload.

UD

 

[Shannow]

Even an ideally located solar with 25% capacity factor only does it in daylight hours.

To replace 1,000 MW of thermal you need 4,000MW of renewables...and somewhere to store the excess for the average 24 hours, 7 days, monthly and seasonal variations.

500MW of renewables pumping energy into the market during the day at -$100/MWh can easily push 1,000MW of thermal out of the market due to market forces and profitability.

However, that cheap power won't "orderly transition" to 4,000MW of renewables, and 23,000MWh of storage.

The South Australia "world's biggest battery" is just over 100MWh...and loses 20% of the energy that goes into it (ooops, so now we need 5,000MW of renewables), and has a round trip life cycle cost of 25c/KWh of "free" electricity that gets stored in it.

The greens will let acre after acre be covered in solar panels, but fight to the death to stop hydro or pumped storage in Oz.

Oz is starting to experience the problems with erosion of the soil under solar panel farms...stuff won't grow, and while the soil may have been next to useless, it's now carrying no protection from runoff and the like.

(Oh, and California are just starting to understand the non recyclable aspect of panels, and the toxic leachates when they are landfilled).

Not to be a total naysayer...when I was in Hong Kong, there was a part of a presentation on a particular solar investment that the company had made which was solar panels over an extensive shallow water crab farm...that was clever on multiple levels (including surveys with IR equipped drones to identify hot joints).

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by UncleDave

Aren't you the Candu nuke guy? Those guys have a great program.


Yes

I'm a big advocate of our CANDU nukes and we just signed our first SMR build deal at Chalk River, so I'm quite interested to see what that brings to fruition!

Originally Posted by UncleDave
On panel farms that sounds about right for Quebec, but the CF is radically diff in the SW I recall Topaz gets something like 24% CF

In terms of Acres/MW - not much else that land is even good for kind of like an untherwise unused roof

Totally agree about Baseload.

UD


Rooftop, to depress peak? Sure! Up here, we were building <14% solar farms on farm land. Epic fail.

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Rooftop, to depress peak? Sure! Up here, we were building div>

Uhh Yea....sounds like somebody forgot to carry the 1 on that.

UD

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by UncleDave
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Rooftop, to depress peak? Sure! Up here, we were building div>

Uhh Yea....sounds like somebody forgot to carry the 1 on that.

UD

 

[Shannow]

Thought that you guys might be interested in what's going on in OZ on Easter Saturday morning....wholesale prices on the left, and rooftop solar on the NEM on the right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelican_Point_Power_Station

Was essentially retired due to the influence of renewable prices in South Australia (they lost Northern coal station too), but has been forced to come back in to provide frequency control and security to the grid.

At the time of this snapshot, Pelican Point was generating 380MW, a considerable amount of the 500+MW that the state is exporting.

However, at $9.90 gas prices, they are paying $75 for the gas per MWh, and getting $33.56.

When they are "constrained on", such as this, a special 100 day settlement for the constrain period starts, where they negotiate with the market operator how they are to be compensated for costs, overhead, and reasonable profit during this period.

Oz market is soon (my view), going to undergo a severe market reform, with generators paid to have capacity available, not just when they make it.

(BTW, 15 minutes before that snap, it was down to $25...coalers on minimum generation were losing about $10 per MWh that they produced)

Nothing political, just sharing an observation of what happens on a nice day on a 4 day weekend when the sun is out...probably rather be driving the Tesla than taking advantage of the cheap electrickery

 

[Nick1994]

Originally Posted by Nick1994
Does the power plant pollute more when you plug in an electric car to charge?

Shannow, I'm genuinely curious.