Volvo phasing out gas engines

[Dave Marshak]

... conflict is in the interest of many world leaders.

OF course that is true. That is why it is important for the US to remain engaged.

Syria is not about ISIS or Assad, Syria is about a pipeline that the Russians need to get their gas to a deep water port for better distribution to Europe.

Gas is transported more efficiently by pipeline. It is not traded much by ship because it requires costly liquefaction facilities, which have not been widely developed. IF they were developed, that would allow US producers to compete in the world market. The North American gas market is cheap, and has been for a long time. A gas market based on ship transportation would help the US more than the Russians. A Russian pipeline to a deep water port in the Mediterranean doesn't seem like a sufficient cause for war right now.

I think the Russians are worried about their own Muslim population going terrorist on them. But nobody knows what to do about that, so it's hard to understand anyone's strategy.

dm

 

[Dave Marshak]

OK, getting very political here (which I enjoy btw)...

I'm sure this thread will be locked soon. Maybe you can jump over here: http://nyskiblog.com/forums/

Bonus points if you can figure out my user name there.

dm

 

[Lauren]

And back on topic...

I found this site really interesting...https://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php#wheel

Shows average emissions per vehicle based on "well to wheel" emissions, which includes all emissions to make/refine/generate the fuel, as well as the emissions from the car itself. You can select different states and see how it varies based on how your electricity is generated. I randomly clicked on a few states and it's kind of amazing the difference. Idaho and Washington were two I clicked on that it's MUCH lower emissions to have an electric car based on the fact a large majority of their power comes from hydro. Whereas Utah, there's not a huge difference at all, as most power come from coal.

Just found it interesting, and on topic, so thought I'd share.

 

[Dave Marshak]

And back on topic...

I found this site really interesting...https://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php#wheel

Shows average emissions per vehicle based on "well to wheel" emissions...

I looked at that, and it seems like they used average electric system emissions to estimate electric vehicle emissions. WV is 95% coal, and EVs still come out ahead of gasoline. OTOH electric systems typically operate more efficiently, and with less emissions (sometimes far less) in the early morning/low load hours when you would expect to charge the battery most often, so the actual result should be even better than what that site reports.

dm

 

[Lauren]

OTOH electric systems typically operate more efficiently, and with less emissions (sometimes far less) in the early morning/low load hours when you would expect to charge the battery most often, so the actual result should be even better than what that site reports.

Just curious, how would electric systems operate more efficiently during off-hours? Wouldn't the power plants generate the same amount of emissions per KWH regardless of the load?

 

[Lauren]

I looked at that, and it seems like they used average electric system emissions to estimate electric vehicle emissions.

And I completely agree with this statement. There's probably a lot more factors to come into play, such as in NH. One of our major coal powered generation plants recently installed a 400-some-odd-million dollar system for cleaner emissions. However, I'm sure things like this weren't taken into account, instead an average of coal emissions was probably used.

 

[Dave Marshak]

Just curious, how would electric systems operate more efficiently during off-hours? Wouldn't the power plants generate the same amount of emissions per KWH regardless of the load?

The most efficient plants are on-line all hours, the least efficient plants are dispatched only when they are needed to meet load. The afternoon load can be double the early morning load, and the machines needed to meet that load may be way less efficient than average.

dm

 

[Lauren]

The most efficient plants are on-line all hours, the least efficient plants are dispatched only when they are needed to meet load. The afternoon load can be double the early morning load, and the machines needed to meet that load may be way less efficient than average.

You could also argue that there is zero help from solar during the night/low-load hours to help with generation, which would then drive the emissions to either remain the same or go up.

 

[Dave Marshak]

You could also argue that there is zero help from solar during the night/low-load hours to help with generation, which would then drive the emissions to either remain the same or go up.

It's more complicated than that.

If I plug my Tesla in, some dispatcher somewhere has to find a generator to spin up to provide that electricity. In low load hours, there are lots of more efficient plants available. In high load hours, all the efficient plants are already being used, so you have to spin up a relatively inefficient plants. The emissions from whatever plant is ramped up to meet that load are the only emissions that should be attributed to my Tesla.
Solar is different. It is not controlled by the dispatcher. It is always there (or not there) depending only on sunlight. It can't be attributed to my Tesla because it didn't change when I plugged in. OTOH solar drops out whenever a cloud passes, so the dispatcher needs to keep a generator on-line to replace it at all times. Unless that load following generator is also zero emission, solar is not really completely emission free either, because the system can't use it without something to balance load and supply when solar drops out. More batteries or other storage connected to the system would solve that problem, but we are not there yet.

dm

 

[Dave Marshak]

And I completely agree with this statement. There's probably a lot more factors to come into play, such as in NH. One of our major coal powered generation plants recently installed a 400-some-odd-million dollar system for cleaner emissions. However, I'm sure things like this weren't taken into account, instead an average of coal emissions was probably used.

That AFDC site was estimating carbon emissions. Most coal emission reductions means reducing NOx and SO2 and other pollutants, but not carbon. NOx reduction usually requires reductions in combustion efficiency, so that actually increases carbon. The only way to reduce the carbon emissions of coal is to add carbon capture technology, but I don't think that's commercially available yet.

dm

 

[Lauren]

Solar is different. It is not controlled by the dispatcher. It is always there (or not there) depending only on sunlight. It can't be attributed to my Tesla because it didn't change when I plugged in.

This is more or less my point on why it's not necessarily more efficient. During the day, there is solar generation connected to the grid producing electricity, always (provided it's sunny) contributing to the demand. Once plugged in, your Tesla is part of the demand, therefore it may (or may not) be utilizing solar energy. However, at night, there is no chance that your Tesla is using solar energy to charge, therefore I don't think it would necessarily have lower emissions during off-peak hours.

 

[crgildart]

I like that concept of the roads being giant solar panels and vehicles being able to suck current directly from the roads themselves. Of course, by then the vehicles will be autonomous and most people won't own their own. Personal cars will be like horses, kept on private property to be enjoyed on tracks and trails there off the main roads used as transportation for the masses.

 

[Dave Marshak]

This is more or less my point on why it's not necessarily more efficient. During the day, there is solar generation connected to the grid producing electricity, always (provided it's sunny) contributing to the demand. Once plugged in, your Tesla is part of the demand, therefore it may (or may not) be utilizing solar energy. However, at night, there is no chance that your Tesla is using solar energy to charge, therefore I don't think it would necessarily have lower emissions during off-peak hours.

Suppose I live where the system is all hydro, except for a few gas turbines that burn jet fuel a few hours a year to meet peak loads. (That's Vermont.) If I charge in low load hours, they just release a little water for hydro power, and my Tesla is zero emission. If the system is using all the hydro, and they need to start a GT because I plugged my Tesla in, the emissions from that jet fuel are on me. That's the correct way to think about emissions and fuel use in the electric industry.

dm

 

[Lauren]

Suppose I live where the system is all hydro, except for a few gas turbines that burn jet fuel a few hours a year to meet peak loads. (That's Vermont.) If I charge in low load hours, they just release a little water for hydro power, and my Tesla is zero emission. If the system is using all the hydro, and they need to start a GT because I plugged my Tesla in, the emission from that jet fuel are on me. That's how we think about emissions and fuel use in the electric industry.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[RachelV]

@elemmac, I think you'd enjoy this podcast, it touches on your point a little bit:
http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/reversing-the-grid/

The relevant part is about how solar panels may actually decrease everyone's net electricity cost, because they dump the most power into the grid at peak times, thereby reducing how much electricity costs spike at peak times. It's funny, though, because imho the summary of the episode was something like, "the current system is so complicated that no one is 100% sure how any one piece affects the other."

 

[Lauren]

@RachelV - I'll check it out...I'm in the car so much for work, I'm always looking for new things to listen to!

 

[Guy in Shorts]

Suppose I live where the system is all hydro, except for a few gas turbines that burn jet fuel a few hours a year to meet peak loads. (That's Vermont.) If I charge in low load hours, they just release a little water for hydro power, and my Tesla is zero emission. If the system is using all the hydro, and they need to start a GT because I plugged my Tesla in, the emissions from that jet fuel are on me. That's the correct way to think about emissions and fuel use in the electric industry.

Love when other folks take a shot at my job. I am one of the licensed power grid operators in Vermont. Your over simplification isn't too far off the mark. Balancing load to generation while maintaining 60Hz in realtime is what we do 24/7.Load may double from the nighttime low to daytime high requiring more generation during the day. The more than 600 generators in New England are run by price not emissions. That being said renewable energy sources are coming on big. Today in Vermont we had hydro supplying over 10% of the state peak load. Very clean green energy that runs day and night as needed. Solar percentage was greater than hydro but as the sun goes down we need to have enough generation to cover the evening peak. This sometimes requires the expensive gas turbines to run. Another 10% from Bio-mass or wood chip burning plants. Wind can add another 10% on some days but was rather quiet today. Since our low carbon Vermont nuclear plant was closed in 2014 most of the rest of our power is bought from Hydro Quebec. They (HQ) flooded thousands of acres of land in the top of Canada for large scale industrial hydro projects. The state of Vermont agreed to call this imported power green in exchange for a good deal on those power contracts.

Back on topic - Love my Volvo C70 that we got back in 2008 using the overseas delivery option. They took 4 grand off the price of the car, flew my wife and I over to Sweden, gave us plates and insurance good for 15 days and put us up for one night in a hotel. May take advantage for that program again.

 

[Dave Marshak]

Love when other folks take a shot at my job. I am one of the licensed power grid operators in Vermont. Your over simplification isn't too far off the mark. Balancing load to generation while maintaining 60Hz in realtime is what we do 24/7.Load may double from the nighttime low to daytime high requiring more generation during the day. The more than 600 generators in New England are run by price not emissions.

I was never an operator, but I did reliability and planning rules for a long time. In NY (and ISO-NE), the system runs by price, but the price is set by the marginal generator, as you know. (And yes, that is an over-simplification.) At least in NY, the marginal generator is typically the least efficient gas or oil generator that needs to be dispatched in any hour, so price and emissions are highly correlated. That's one reason why the greens are so supportive of deregulated wholesale electricity markets. Another reason is that solar and wind can earn far more than their operating costs in a market system.

I'm done with Volvos. My last one was the most unreliable car I've owned in a long time, and the build quality was awful. It had software issues that could only be resolved by a dealer, and the only dealer around here is terrible. Otherwise, I liked the car a lot, but it was gone when the warranty ran out.

dm

 

[RachelV]

Click-baity headline phrasing aside, here's an article about electric car market share forecasts.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...p-to-the-threat-of-rising-electric-car-demand

"OPEC quintupled its forecast for sales of plug-in EVs, and oil producers from Exxon Mobil Corp. to BP Plc also revised up their outlooks in the past year, according to a study by Bloomberg New Energy Finance released on Friday. "

 

[Harvey]

I'm sure this thread will be locked soon. Maybe you can jump over here: http://nyskiblog.com/forums/

Bonus points if you can figure out my user name there.

dm

We don't lock threads very often.