Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dept. of Energy: enough power for electrics

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dept. of Energy: enough power for electrics

    How to make the middle east irrelevant 101;

    Scientific American article....

    BTW: a range of plug-in hybrids (PHEV) are due from the big 4 automakers very soon.

    Spare Power Sufficient to Fuel Switch from Gas to Electric Cars

    Existing U.S. power plants could provide enough juice to switch 84 percent of the 220 million American vehicles on the road from gasoline to electricity.

    Rumors of the electric car's demise appear to have been greatly exaggerated, with so-called plug-in hybrids making the rounds from Los Angeles to Washington, D.C., along with the sporty, new all-electric Tesla Roadster on offer. Now a new analysis from the U.S. Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) offers more good news: existing electric power plants could fuel 84 percent of "light duty" vehicles if all 220 million cars and trucks converted to electric power overnight. "We're delighted to see solid third-party confirmation of what the people who know best--the utilities--have been saying for sometime," says Felix Kramer, plug-in hybrid owner/evangelist and founder of Calcars.org.

    The analysis noted that the capacity of the U.S. power infrastructure is underutilized. Every evening--and during days of low demand--there is a large amount of spare capacity that could easily be tapped. By charging cars and trucks with electricity at night, American drivers could reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil while potentially cutting power prices as well. "Since gasoline consumption accounts for 73 percent of imported oil, it is intriguing to think of the trade and national security benefits if our vehicles switched from oil to electrons," notes PNNL energy researcher Rob Pratt. "Plus, since the utilities would be selling more electricity without having to build more plants or power lines, electricity prices could go down for everyone."
    >
    Last edited by Dr Mordrid; 13 December 2006, 17:50.
    Dr. Mordrid
    ----------------------------
    An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

    I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

  • #2
    Another idiotic article where the authors (and the DoE) have not done their calculations. They lick their thumb and hold it in the air to see which way the wind's blowing. Work it out in joules or kWh and you will see the evangelist hasn't got a clue, other than to promote blackouts in urban areas. One point is that there may be underutilisation, but not nearly as much as is pretended, of generating capacity, but there certainly isn't of distribution capacity, especially in suburban areas. Just imagine millions in California getting home from work at, say, 1830 or 1900 and plugging their car in to their domestic supply. It would blow every breaker from Mexico to Oregon. The high power infrastructure is to distribute juice to factories and city centres, not to homes. For example, CA's biggest utility, Southern California Edison Company, sold 53,768,625 MWh to non-residential users but only 24,684,999 MWh to residential users in 2001 and this proportion is similar to that of all the other major utilities. A little calculation will show that, if this pipedream were to come about, residential consumption would increase by a factor of between 2 and 3, based on a mean daily vehicle usage on electric power of 50 km or ~30 mi. (This assumes no major change of vehicle size/type.)

    Now, there is another factor which show that this ridiculous. If you look at http://eed.linl.gov/flow, you will see that US transportation uses 26.5 quads of energy. The total distributed electrical energy (for all purposes) is 11.9 quads, of which 8.4 goes to residential/commercial consumers (if we take 50% as a ballpark figure, based on CA being exaggerated), so we can assume <6 quads are used by just residential consumers. As "73% of imported oil is used for gasoline", this would account for 17.7 quads (not counting any from indigenous oil), which is patently stupid as total transportation uses only 26.5 quads, including diesel fuel for trucks and rail and kerosene for planes.

    Let's assume that this utopian dream came about. Although distributed electricity is 11.9 quads, wasted energy in generating it is 26.3 quads. IOW, the generating industry is only 31.2% efficient in transforming their energy input into electricity. Let's imagine, by a miracle, we shift, say, 11.9 quads from transportation to distributed electricity, doubling the latter and reducing the former to ~55%. That means doubling the 38.2 quad electric power sector input. As nuke and hydro are currently fairly fixed, that means the extra 38.2 quads will have to be supplied by coal and NG, both fossil fuels emitting large quantities of polluants, including CO2. As a battery/electric motor combination is only typically 80-85% (say 82%) efficient, the overall efficiency will be only 31.2/100 x 82/100 x 100 = 25.6%, which is much lower, fuel to wheel, than an ICE. Net result: more GHG and pollutant emissions.

    These guys should smoke tobacco, rather than other substances.
    Brian (the devil incarnate)

    Comment


    • #3
      ...
      notes PNNL energy researcher Rob Pratt. "Plus, since the utilities would be selling more electricity without having to build more plants or power lines, electricity prices could go down for everyone."
      So if demand goes up costs will come down without new capacity?
      Has any market in history ever worked like that?

      Given a static supply, demand increases = price increases.
      Isn't it just that simple?
      Chuck
      秋音的爸爸

      Comment


      • #4
        Sort of agree with Brian here - this article flies in the face of any numbers I've ever run... and goes against common sense too.

        However, if you're going to have a large number of cars in the future that are mild hybrids with a battery for regenerative braking, collectively they could in theory (coupled with smart meters) act as a nationwide battery, allowing a higher proportion of supply that is de-coupled in its variability from demand variations (ie wind, nuclear, marine). However it would need a fundamentally different sort of transmission grid - one that is geared towards distributed generation (and with this, storage), and not what most western countries have - a highly centralised grid.

        EDIT for clarity: this is talking about possible scenarios for >30years in the future.
        DM says: Crunch with Matrox Users@ClimatePrediction.net

        Comment


        • #5
          This talks about overnight unused capacity which now pretty much goes to waste.

          Use that capacity and the mean revenue/hr goes up, allowing overall rates to moderate given proper action by each states utility regulatory body.

          Believe me; here in Michigan windfall profits of this nature would result in moderated rates or a rate freeze for several years.
          Last edited by Dr Mordrid; 14 December 2006, 07:58.
          Dr. Mordrid
          ----------------------------
          An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

          I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by cjolley View Post
            So if demand goes up costs will come down without new capacity?
            Has any market in history ever worked like that?

            Given a static supply, demand increases = price increases.
            Isn't it just that simple?
            No, it is not in a competitive market in some cases. Most notably in cases where fixed costs are large relative to marginal costs. Example:
            You run a market stand where you sell tomatos. Your costs are:
            $1 per tomato
            $10 for the market stand

            You do not have to make a living or profit.

            You sell 10 tomatos a day

            Price per tomate must be total cost (=$10 for stand + $1 x 10 tomatos) divided by tomatos sold (=10) => $20 / 10 = 2$ per tomato.

            Because of something, you can sell 100 tomatos each day
            Price per tomate must be total cost (=$10 for stand + $1 x 100 tomatos) divided by tomatos sold (=100) => $110 / 110 = 1.1$ per tomato.

            IF you increase your price while the market is competitive, others will undercut your price.

            With electricity, the fixed cost is the cost of the infrastructure which is indeed large compared to the marginal cost of producing electricity.
            Join MURCs Distributed Computing effort for Rosetta@Home and help fight Alzheimers, Cancer, Mad Cow disease and rising oil prices.
            [...]the pervading principle and abiding test of good breeding is the requirement of a substantial and patent waste of time. - Veblen

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Dr Mordrid View Post
              ...
              Then the mean revenue/hr goes up due to the recharging, allowing overall rates to moderate given proper action by each states utility regulatory body.
              ...
              I understand the idea. But has anything like that ever really happened?
              Chuck
              秋音的爸爸

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Umfriend View Post
                ...
                IF you increase your price while the market is competitive, others will undercut your price.
                ...
                But electricity is not sold in a competitive market to consumers.
                Look at the dismal history of electricity deregulation here in the US.
                Chuck
                秋音的爸爸

                Comment


                • #9
                  Examples of where it has happened: Electricity (due to competition), mobile phone rates (increased demand combined with competition and huge fixed costs relative to marginal costs of calls), CPUs(?)
                  Join MURCs Distributed Computing effort for Rosetta@Home and help fight Alzheimers, Cancer, Mad Cow disease and rising oil prices.
                  [...]the pervading principle and abiding test of good breeding is the requirement of a substantial and patent waste of time. - Veblen

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Umfriend View Post
                    Examples of where it has happened: Electricity (due to competition), mobile phone rates (increased demand combined with competition and huge fixed costs relative to marginal costs of calls), CPUs(?)
                    You know of someplace where electric rates to private consumers have declined in the last 10 years?
                    I'll bet there isn't a single place in the US where they have declined over any significant time period.
                    Especially without an increase in supply.

                    The other things you mention all have massive changes in supply/productivity associated with them.

                    The claim in the article was that an increase in demand with NO accompanying increase in production or availability would lead to a price decrease.
                    I just don't believe anything like that has ever happened.
                    Chuck
                    秋音的爸爸

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Umfriend View Post
                      Examples of where it has happened: Electricity (due to competition), mobile phone rates (increased demand combined with competition and huge fixed costs relative to marginal costs of calls), CPUs(?)
                      Exactly. Michigan's power system is now competitive and this has caused rate moderation by the local utility.

                      Basically the distribution infrastructure is considered a "public resource" so Detroit Edison has to share access at reasonable rates. Now other companies can purchase power from cheaper sources (TVA hydro for example) and sell it here at a discount over Detroit Edison's lines.

                      Same things happening to cable because of recent regulatory changes. Instead of the usual city-by-city monopolies (usually Comcast) the lines are again a public resource that all have to share under regulation by the state.

                      Some cities/areas had jumped the gun on this & now have 3 cable/net/phone companies plus the satellite companies.

                      Comcast was not pleased

                      Then there is Wyandotte, Michigan. It's a city on the Detroit River ~12 miles south of Detroit. They have a city owned power plant/grid (can use Edison in emergencies), city owned cable/net/phone and their rates are at cost....in other words CHEAP. What profits they make go towards reducing local property/school taxes.

                      Left wing/socialists? Nope. Conservative leaning, be they Blue Dog Dems or Republicans. Just tightwads
                      Last edited by Dr Mordrid; 14 December 2006, 08:41.
                      Dr. Mordrid
                      ----------------------------
                      An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

                      I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Dr Mordrid View Post
                        Exactly. Michigan's power system is now competitive and this has caused rate moderation by the local utility.
                        So your electric rates are lower than they used to be?

                        PS Highly ironic that you and I are arguing about market forces and I'm the one who believes the law of supply and demand is immutable.
                        Last edited by cjolley; 14 December 2006, 08:25.
                        Chuck
                        秋音的爸爸

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          If this diatribe from a deranged mind ever did come about, then the cost of electricity would rise because of the massive new cabling and transforming infrastructures required in residential districts. Post-fitting a >doubling of the power capacity would be enormously expensive. It is not so much the generating capacity that is an issue, although the "free" capacity at night is less than people think, generally only about 20% of the average daytime production in most places.

                          I have night storage heating in the house, which theoretically uses some of this "free" capacity. I had to wait two years before I could put it in, while the transformer and line capacity to our quarter was increased. Yes, I pay less per kWh, but I had to pay a nominal £2000 ($4200) for the three-phase installation (previously, it was single phase) - and that was just for a 40 kW installation. A neighbour who followed my example had to pay the same. That free lunch does not exist.

                          Much more efficient would be a non-plug-in hybrid, as the fuel-to-wheels efficiency of a Toyota Prius is about 35% and of a Honda Civic Hybrid about 33%, compared to 25.6% when electricity from power lines is used to drive a car. The Prius is higher because of the Atkinson engine which, alone, is about 39% efficient (some say ~42%).
                          Brian (the devil incarnate)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by cjolley View Post
                            You know of someplace where electric rates to private consumers have declined in the last 10 years?
                            Yep, The Netherlands
                            I'll bet there isn't a single place in the US where they have declined over any significant time period.
                            Guess we're simply better :d

                            The other things you mention all have massive changes in supply/productivity associated with them.
                            I beg to differ re. mobile phone rates, electricity in the Netherlands. Internet bandwidth has become cheaper as well and much of this has had to do with more efficient usage of existing carrier-tech (read copper wire). You may say that is due to productivity increase but I do not think so: not more copper was "produced", just the existing copper was used better. Put otherwise, it was underutilised previously. That is the exact argument the article submits.

                            edit: Not that "the public" is better off per se: rates go down but volume goes up and at the end of the day, revenue to the sellers increases. If revenue increases by as much as variable cost then profits remain equal and prices per unit go down.
                            Join MURCs Distributed Computing effort for Rosetta@Home and help fight Alzheimers, Cancer, Mad Cow disease and rising oil prices.
                            [...]the pervading principle and abiding test of good breeding is the requirement of a substantial and patent waste of time. - Veblen

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Umfriend View Post
                              ... You may say that is due to productivity increase but I do not think so: not more copper was "produced", just the existing copper was used better.
                              ...
                              To put it another way, they were selling a service and got more efficient at it.

                              Electricity is a tangible commodity.
                              The electric company can't sell you "better" electricity.

                              And this is what he said:
                              "Plus, since the utilities would be selling more electricity without having to build more plants or power lines, electricity prices could go down for everyone."
                              There is nothing in that about it depending on a restructuring of the market.
                              Just the bald statement that the electric cos would start charging less per unit.
                              And what would be their motivation? Just to be nice?
                              What do you think the electric co stock holders would have to say about an arrangement like that?

                              PS Come to think of it I'm an electric company (OG&E) stockholder.
                              What do you think I think of that idea?
                              Last edited by cjolley; 14 December 2006, 10:03.
                              Chuck
                              秋音的爸爸

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X