California taking the lead again, in this case, for more widespread renewable energy production...

[JohnRBaker]

California becomes the first state to require new residential construction to include renewable energy sources:

California to require solar panels on most new homes

It's the first state where the renewable energy is mandatory.

https://www.engadget.com/2018/05/06/california-to-require-solar-panels-on-most-new-homes/

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

 

[moltenmetal]

I think we can get to 20% EV adoption without doing much of anything, really- aside from a carbon tax to make it pay for the drivers to switch. What will happen is that we'll see better utilization of generation assets at night, and a few pole transformer fires until the local utilities get that sorted out. We'll need control over individual EVSEs by the grid system operator even if we don't want to do the smart thing of permitting opportunity charging to accommodate more renewables generation, if just to keep four neighbours who all have Teslas from melting their pole transformer by turning their chargers on at 7:01 pm after the rates drop.

Getting above 20% EV adoption will be challenging, but far less challenging than doing anything else to deal meaningfully with GHG emissions. Yes, we need to do that, and no, we should not plow that ground again because we will not change anyone's mind who hasn't already made it up one way or another. Obviously if GHG emissions are not an issue, EVs do still represent the benefit of eliminating toxic emissions in the breathing zone of passersby in major urban centres, and that's worth something too- in fact it's one of the primary motivations for transport electrification in China where they're doing more of it than anywhere else in the world by far.

My converted EV uses 20% of the energy from source that it did when it was a fossil-fired vehicle, and emits 3% of the CO2 from source. That is not a small change. EVs in some parts of the world, i.e. in all of Canada aside from Alberta and Saskatchewan and maybe PEI, are an absolute environmental godsend.

 

[moltenmetal]

One also has to be careful not to confuse a joule of work with a joule of heat in these comparisons, which almost everybody seems to do. What fraction of energy use is for transport? Depends on how you value a J of work (electricity) vs a J of heat (chemical energy) entirely. And when you take it into account properly, Canada exports more J of heat equivalent in the form of uranium than we do in the form of oil and gas...

 

[zdas04]

I recently did a bunch of research on the Orkney Islands, which has no industrial load and limited commercial load, that makes the mix 70% transportation/25% residential/5% commercial. I just grabbed that number without considering that with an industrial sector and a large commercial sector the mix would be quite different. Just lazy on my part. Transportation uses 28 quads/year. This is 8.2 million GWh/year or a nameplate capacity of over 1 thousand GW, about the current capacity of the U.S.

I see "infrastructure" as "capital improvements to facilitate the productivity of many users". Roads. Power grids. Port facilities. Air ports. Not factories etc.

There are 263.6 million personal vehicles registered in the U.S. as of 2016. 20% is 52.7 million vehicles. 200,000 EV were sold in 2017, and with demand where it is, that is pretty close to current maximum capacity so it would take 263 years to put 20% of the vehicles on the road. Ridiculous number. I'm not sure what the major bottlenecks are (e.g., batteries, assembly capacity, some mineral needed for motors, or some hard-to-manufacture switch), but bottlenecks can usually be corrected. Eventually.

I participated in a study in the 1980's trying to determine why it was so difficult to get consumers to switch to CNG or LNG. The conclusion of that study was that until consumers were confident that they could refuel wherever they might want to travel they were not going to switch. The replenishment of expended energy has to be quick, dependable, and convenient. Look at diesel powered vehicles. In Europe they make up 50% of the personal vehicles on the road. Since 1990, the number of gas stations in the U.S. selling diesel has increased from "nearly none" to "nearly all", but in the U.S. diesel powered private vehicles are about 2.4% of the cars on the road. That is with a reliable fueling infrastructure. I don't expect to ever see 20% of the vehicles on the road powered by electricity.

The purported "efficiency" of EV vs. ICV is a smoke screen. A typical ICV converts about 22-30% of the chemical energy in the fuel to useful work. An EV (running on batteries) will convert something like 75% of the kW that came onboard to useful work. But step back a notch and you see that the electricity coming onboard was generated in a coal fired plant with 20% rock-to-wire efficiency. Then transported down power lines with a 3-5% environmental loss, then to an AC/DC transformer with 92% efficiency and you find that 14% of the energy in the coal is converted to useful work in the EV.

[bold]David Simpson, PE[/bold]
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[MintJulep]

Please do apples to apples Dave.

There are energy costs for transporting crude to the refinery.
For converting crude to gasoline.
For transporting gas to point of sale.

So probably "about the same"from pulling something out of the ground to moving a car a mile.

 

[moltenmetal]

Here are some accurate cycle efficiencies:

ICE car:

Crude oil: 100 J
production, refining and distribution: subtract 18 J (per the ANL GREET model, confirmed against a similar evaluation done in the EU)
Efficiency, tank to motor shaft = ~ 25%
That gives a source to wheels efficiency of about 20.5%, i.e. 20.5 J out per 100 J of source energy input

EV:

100 J of electricity input at the power plant
6% grid loss (average for NA- my own loss is closer to 3%)
Charger loss: 7%
Battery loss: 6%
(both those figures are measured values for my own car, which is home-made- in an OEM EV the total is about 10% or less)
Motor and controller loss: 10%
Efficiency, source to motor shaft =~ 74%

If you use a 60% CCGT plant to produce electricity:
production and distribution of gas = 97.5% x 97.5% (again from the GREET model)
CCGT efficiency: 60%
Source to shaft efficiency = ~ 42%, i.e. over 2x as good as the ICE

Use a 30% efficient coal plant: source to shaft falls below 22%, but still beats the ICE on an energy efficiency basis. On a CO2 basis the EV is modestly worse due to the C/H ratio being worse for coal than for gasoline.

Note however the following:

1) No grid is 100% fired with 30% efficient coal plants
2) Even in that event, there are no local tailpipe emissions from the EV

In my own locale (Ontario, where our AVERAGE grid electricity is 40 g CO2/kWH), my EV uses 20% of the source energy and emits 3% of the CO2 that it emitted from source per mile driven before it was converted. And before conversion, it was more efficient than the fleet average car, getting almost 30 miles/US gallon of gasoline.

Compare against a 50 mpg Prius and the EV still wins on a grid which is 40% fossil fired.

Worried about the embodied energy of the battery pack? It works out to about 100-250 kg CO2/kWh of pack. My own pack will give NET CO2 emission reductions relative to the car pre-conversion of over 55 TONNES of CO2 NET over its lifetime.

EVs are an environmental no-brainer in most jurisdictions, and even in fossil-heavy jurisdictions they represent a massive reduction in toxic emissions in the breathing zone of people, where in fact the dose DOES make the poison.

 

[moltenmetal]

...and since this is still the RT, I can "out" myself to you folks, assuming you will keep my Clark Kent name to yourselves for the timebeing: these articles may be amusing and informative- no need to join LinkedIn to view these. If you are having trouble viewing them, please let me know as I've heard that some readers in some countries cannot read them with only the links, in which case I will re-post them on Blogspot or somewhere else like that (or maybe Engineering.com is interested? David?)

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/so-exactly-how-much-electricity-does-take-produce-gallon-paul-martin/

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/energy-cycle-efficiency-vehicles-does-ev-really-win-paul-martin

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/hydrogen-fuelcell-vehicle-great-idea-theory-paul-martin/

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/much-ado-embodied-energy-paul-martin

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/enough-lithium-cobalt-build-ev-fleet-paul-martin/

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/part-2-battery-materials-we-dont-need-worry-paul-martin/

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/part-3-lithium-cobalt-risky-materials-paul-martin/

 

[VEBill]

One quick and easy way to track (right back to dirt) all of the embodied resources, losses, inefficiencies, investments, and related costs is to simply look at the final price.

If an EV costs (say) $0.01 in energy per mile and a fossil fuel vehicle costs $0.10 per mile, then that's a strong clue about the total embodied costs in those energy sources.

One can certainly argue that the data isn't perfect (may overlook pollution for example), but at least it does tend to be fairly close to 100% complete in summing up all the inputs - as the world's accountants have been doing exactly this for centuries.

Price is not a bad proxy for total embodied resources. I'd argue that it does a better job than trying to capture everything manually, examples above. The ability of price to capture everything (right back to dirt) is amazing.

Price also brings home that point that if it requires an EV costing $100,000 to save money, well maybe that's not as 'Green' as it appears, due to the embodied resources as indicated by the $100,000 cost of the EV. But if the new EV is only "$35,000", then maybe that's better....assuming that it's actually possible to produce them in quantities at that price.

I won't argue the point. It's just a concept to keep in mind when you're scratching around trying to sum up all the inputs manually and also trying to assign numbers. Price does that already. If they can assign a cost to pollution, then it'd be even better.

 

[GregLocock]

VE1BLL, I basically agree but don't taxes (and subsidies) distort the prices so much that the comparison becomes worthless? For example in the UK they are paying 100-150% tax on petrol.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[moltenmetal]

VE1BLL: exactly- price is an EXCELLENT proxy for embodied energy, emissions, labour and all of it. It was that alone which told me that the bad study in relation to the Prius vs the Hummer was a bad study- there was no way the outcome could be justified in the price unless Toyota was selling them for half of what they cost to make or more, whereas in fact they're making and selling them at a profit.

Initial prices are high for anything new because they are still driving inefficiency out of the manufacturing processes all along the value chain. Raw material prices (see my 1st article above about lithium ion battery materials) tell you a lot about how low prices can go ultimately, but for a minor commodity like lithium we're still in the investment expansion phase- I would expect bulk Li prices to drop again at some point, and to fall into a pit once we have a working rechargeable zinc- or aluminum air or magnesium ion battery etc.

In fact, I'd like to see a steep and sustained carbon tax put in place. That would put an end to the shell games- people making Li ion batteries using fossil energy, or distilling corn beer to make fuel ethanol using natural gas-fired stills, would all feel the pinch. And people wouldn't have to worry about lifecycle analyses, which as I said in my piece are a very blunt tool indeed- all they'll have to look at is the price (capital and operating) and they'll know what's going on.

 

[JohnRBaker]

I just read an item (it was print media so I can't provide a link) where they estimate that the cost of solar panels, installed at the time a typical home was being built, would increase the mortgage payment by approximately $40/month. It was observed that the drop in the average monthly electric bill could be significantly more than that, providing the new home buyer an immediate return on his investment.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

 

[zdas04]

VEBill,
I agree that price is the perfect surrogate for total system efficiency. As GregLocock pointed out, the problem comes in when the government distorts markets or when you use national averages for local results. Let's pick one market--Anaheim, CA.
[ul]
[li]Electric Vehicle--Chevy Volt (first generation, all electric, range 25-50 miles)[/li]
[li]Electric Provider--So California Edison[/li]
[li]Electric rate--Three tiers, first tier (0-430 kWh/mo) $0.17/kWh, second tier (431-1720 kWh/mo) $0.25/kWh, third tier (above 1721 kWh/mo) $0.35/kWh. Assume that all of the first tier is taken up by normal household loads, and that the EV doesn't push the household onto the third tier (which it very well may) so the rate is $0.25/kWh[/li]
[li]EV "fuel efficiency"--2 mi/kWh or 0.5 kWh/mi[/li]
[li]EV fuel cost--$0.125/mi[/li]
[li]Gasoline powered vehicle--Assume a Toyota Camry (29 mpg in city driving, range 450 miles)[/li]
[li]Gross Cost of gasoline today in Anaheim--$3.33/gallon ($0.115/mi)[/li]
[li]Fuel tax in California--$0.583/gallon[/li]
[li]Cost of fuel without taxes--$2.74/gallon ($0.094/mi)[/li]
[/ul]

So without the national averaging or the EPA's outrageous practice of comparing post-Carnot electricity to pre-Carnot gasoline, two similar vehicles in similar service the gasoline is slightly cheaper to operate with all-in taxes and significantly cheaper with the taxes removed. Other vehicle pairings would narrow or widen the gap, different locations will change the pricing, but none of this will change the outcome noticeably--anyone who purchases an EV because of the fuel-cost savings will be disappointed. There are certainly many motivations for purchasing an EV, but the games people play with fuel efficiency are unconscionable and should not be a reason for purchasing an EV.

[bold]David Simpson, PE[/bold]
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[zdas04]

JohnRBaker,
That is interesting. The original article that you posted said that the panels would cost $25-30k. Today's average interest rate for a 40 year fixed rate is 4.94%. Excel "pmt" function calls that $146.95/month. You said above that your total electric bill is just under $100/month. How do you recover $146.95/month from $100/month?

[bold]David Simpson, PE[/bold]
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[JohnRBaker]

This was an item unrelated to the one I initially referenced. Also, the latest item quoted a much lower incremental cost for a newly constructed home (less than $10K). The main theme of the article was that once you started to integrate solar panels into the roof-systems of new residential construction, that this could dramatically reduce the incremental cost, which would seem to be a reasonable expectation particularly if this resulted in a significant increase in the production of solar panels.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

 

[zdas04]

So it is cool to quote $25-30k in one article and then base your economics on $10k from another article. That is a pretty significant difference. I've never had a client that would have bought that line of reasoning, I guess environmental stuff doesn't have to stand up to the same scrutiny as engineering stuff.

[bold]David Simpson, PE[/bold]
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[JohnRBaker]

How am I basing MY economics on one article or the other? I was just commenting on what I had read. The conclusions drawn were those of the author, NOT mine. But are you saying that IF, due to reduced production costs and saving money by integrating solar panels into the roof structure AT the time of construction, that if this were to lead to a reduction in the added cost per residential unit to something closer to $10K, that this would NOT change the equation enough to make it potentially cost effective? Besides, history seems to be showing that the costs of renewables will continue to go down, thus making this scenario even more credible.

The trend-line is obvious... At least that's my humble and personal opinion, for what it's worth.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

 

[zdas04]

I am just pointing out that the assumptions in this field are rarely stated and are crucial to any forward looking statement. The state of CA (who have historically been very optimistic on the cost of their regulations) says that in 2020 the cost of required PV collectors will be $25-30k. Then there is an article that says in 2018 the price is $10k and dropping. Both forward-looking numbers are based on assumptions, which assumptions do you have confidence in? Too many advocates (and detractors) of universal PV/wind will always take the numbers that support their argument and ignore the ones that don't. So far in this discussion we've mostly avoided that, but the $10k number throws us deeply into advocates picking their own numbers.

The difference between the two numbers is likely storage assumptions. The state law requires storage and all of the controls that storage demands while the $10k is likely a DIY installation that relies on net metering for capacity control. Net metering (or as I call it "require your friends and neighbors to subsidize your hobby") is a fundamentally evil concept that requires the utility take the power from PV whether they need it or not, and pay residential retail prices for the power instead of wholesale prices. With schemes like the SCE tiered pricing that I describe above, it is possible that the utility will be forced to purchase Tier 2 power and sell it to a Tier 1 user (it doesn't take long for a company buying power at #0.25/kWh and selling it at $0.17/kWh to start having financial troubles). The smart meters that are being installed today help this a lot, but that project is far from complete and with the old-style meters they just turn backwards when the home is supplying power to the grid.

The trend-line that is "obvious" has a huge and increasing government subsidy built into it. I've installed thousands of solar PV units on remote wellsites over the last 30 years--those installations don't benefit from the government's heavy-handed advocacy and my costs for solar PV have a very different trend line.

[bold]David Simpson, PE[/bold]
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[MintJulep]

If roof top solar were profitable I'd imagine that there would be companies offering to lease the space on my roof from me.

There are not.

There are companies offering to lease or sell equipment to me. And to help me get a loan to do so if necessary.

 

[Compositepro]

I do believe that I have read about companies that will lease your roof and install the panels.

 

[dgallup]

Cost of fuel without taxes--$2.74/gallon ($0.094/mi)

You must have some taxes in there still, at least federal taxes and probably something else because I just filled up for $2.39/gallon with all taxes included.

----------------------------------------

The Help for this program was created in Windows Help format, which depends on a feature that isn't included in this version of Windows.

 

[zdas04]

dgallup,
The more you dig into this stuff the more confusing it is. According to the API, gasoline taxes in CA as of 04/01/2018 are $0.7313/gallon (South Carolina is $0.3915/gal on the same report). According to the Tax Policy Center state taxes in CA are $0.46 (Federal tax is $0.184 so the total is $0.644). EIA says that State and Federal taxes in CA are $0.6726/gallon. The $0.583/gallon number I used was from AAA. CA (like SC) allows local jurisdictions to add local sales tax, but that local tax is not included in Anaheim as far as I can tell (but who knows for sure?).

That is why I chose a specific location.

One possibility for the difference you noticed is that the CA air quality regulations require some pretty special blends and those are expensive. I'm not surprised that CA pays about $1.00/gallon for their environmental activism.

[bold]David Simpson, PE[/bold]
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist