Utilities pledge to strengthen grid for plug-ins
The future of American transportation?Yesterday, at the Business of Plugging in Conference in Detroit, the CEO of PG&E warned that even a small number of plug-in hybrid vehicles could overwhelm the electric grid if overly localized in one area and charged during peak hours.
Today, at the same conference, utilities collectively pledged to work together to develop infrastructure that can support the commercialization and deployment of plug-in vehicles.
Can utilities do a better job than oil companies of managing America's energy paradigm? Could they do worse?
Labels: plug-in hybrid vehicles
posted by Dahcredyns at
10:51 AM
19 Comments:
the thing you've got to recognize is that the utility companies in America are investor-owned and opportunities to sell more electricity, and make more money is something they have a strong interest in doing even if it means building more plants and generating more GHG.
In other words, the utility companies are not interesting in selling electricity to plug-in car for "green" ... "conservationist" reasons.
they are the same as big oil - they just sell a different product.
so the utility companies are going to tell you - "more plug-ins means more electricity use - please tell us to go and provide more capacity".
This post has been removed by the author.
Larry,
I agree.
Power companies want to make power as cheaply as possible, then sell as much of it as we are willing to buy.
Any deviation from the above pattern is simply the result of government regulation or incentives.
The only reason my utility gave me a rebate for my solar panels was because they have a gov't requiement to generate a percentage of their electrity from renewables, and they could apply my KWH's to their renewable credits to meet those requirments.
Their cries for the need for more capacity are simply a ploy to get the gov't to help pay for it.
I have a question for the folks here about plug-ins
here is an excerpt of a news report about the conference:
" Volt's engine kicks in after its battery is drained by about 70 percent, to sustain the battery's remaining charge to keep the car running for several hundred miles"
My question.. is... let's pretend there is no battery at all - and the issue is what is more efficient - a pure stand-alone ICE or a car with an ICE but it is purely a slave-powerplant for powering an electric engine.
so... basically.. if I understand hybrid technology (and I may not) - the electric engine is connected to and propels the drivetrain.
right? wrong?
how much efficiency is lost by taking any direct ICE to powertrain configuration and turning the ICE into essentially a powerplant for generating electricity?
so.. I'm assuming there is an efficiency loss in doing this but I don't know how much and because I don't know how much, I don't know how this deficit is made up such that your basic hybrid like the Prius - ends up with a bottom line of a more efficient ICE/electric/powertrain combination than a conventional ICE/powertrain configuration.
does this question make any sense to anyone?
i'm in the power play camp as well on this one. still, it seems the potential for 'better' energy exists with the utilities compared to oil companies.
in the interim, i'd prefer a more distributed and localized view of the future, at least for the short term.
larry,
i think i understand what you're asking, but I don't have any data that directly tackles that issue.
toyota recently released some efficiency data on ICE, versus hybrids, versus plug-in hybrids that suggested, at least for today, that a conventional prius is the most efficient.
i know that isn't really addressing your question, but that's the only data i have to go on.
First to answer the easy part of the questions or statement raised here.
If I produce a product let's say electricity for example, and you like my product and want more of it then as a capitalist company I will be happy to meet your needs. More product = more money. Ah yes, capitalism at work.
Now if you don't like my product or the way I produce my product, then of course you can use less of it. If you stop using it altogether then I just won't produce it. Sure hope I am not a stock holder in this venture, LOL
I don't think anyone on this form is saying electricity is bad because we sure seem to use a lot of it. AND we continue to use more of it year after year with only minor variations.
Instead what I think we are trying to say is that in some ways we don't either like the COMPANY making the product or the WAY the product is PRODUCED.
And hence we have the following. Some people either love nuclear or fear nuclear. Some love the potential of solar and others think it is just a big waste of time. Some people love oil and want to 'drill baby drill'. Still other love wind and say it will save us all. And last but not least, are those who say we need Cap and Trade to prevent a giant flood.
So there you have it - my energy story. It in the end is all about US - YOU AND ME and what we choose to do isn't it?
Do we install Low E windows in our homes to cut down on energy use? That might be a good idea. Do we have a contractor add an extra R-19 of insulation to our attics so we use less energy? Do we buy a more fuel efficient hybrid vehicle? Do we all install at least solar hot water panels on our homes? Did we all go to the last city council meeting and insist the they update the city codes to promote energy efficiency?
In the end I guess it all boils down to this doesn't it, FREEDOM. The freedom of choice.
And yes Larry G. your question of: a more efficient ICE/electric/powertrain combination does make sense but I don't know how to answer your question LOL
Tom G.
yes. what I'm trying to better understand is if the extra electric engine is similar to compact fluorescents in that even though the initial cost is higher, that over the longer run - the total cost/energy use is cheaper.
or.. for instance, a hybrid ICE/electric combo can get by with a smaller ICE than a stand-alone non-hybrid ICE can do?
this gets to the really small sub-compacts that may have ICE engines as small as some motorcycle engines but not powerful at all - barely able to get enough speed getting on the on ramps.
so this is not really a plug-in question like I originally suggested but rather a more basic question that came into my mind when thinking about he trade-offs between hybrids and plug-ins.
In the end - in my view - the configurations that have the best chance to go forward - quicker are the ones that are less costly in total after trading off energy efficiency at several different points verses total/overall efficiency which ought to lead to less costs.
an in the end - that's what at least some parts of the market will do.
For instance, we have CF's throughout our house - 95% of our lighting is CF - and we paid easily 10 times the cost of having incandescents - in fact, we have a bag full of the ones we took out.
and now.. we have lights that have not been replaced in years throughout the house.
we made the jump - when we had to pull out our wallets at the cash register and have faith that we would eventually get our money back.
we, in fact, go through this every time we buy something that uses electricity.
we pick appliances that are not our favorite unless they are also the most energy efficient and sometimes we even have to pay more for one that we like less - just to get that additional energy efficiency.
we would have to make this same calculation with any car that is billed as being more energy efficient and with a plug-in, in our case - we'd have to be convinced that the additional coal pollution would be less than the pollution coming from using gasoline.
that's why I would tend more towards a CNG/LPG hybrid that a plug-in.
The CNG/LPG would probably be equally as efficient - all things considered - as a plug-in but less pollution/GHG.
When I say we need more clarity - this is what I'm talking about.
Right now - even if we got rid of every single ICE car and went to a total public transport system that relied totally on electricity and not fossil fuels - how would we generate the power for them without using coal and CNG?
not going to happen.. right?
so we're on to LESS pollution achieved by MORE efficiency...
not NO pollution...
I would seriously doubt that anyone that frequents this group would be willing to give up all cars and all electricity that were powered/generated by fossil fuels - right?
A short lesson on the GRID copied from:
http://sites.energetics.com/gridworks/grid.html
"Annual electric revenues - the Nation's "electric bill" - are about $247 billion, paid by America's 131 million electricity customers, which includes nearly every business and household. The average price paid is about 7 cents per kilowatt-hour, although prices vary from state to state depending on local regulations, generation costs, and customer mix.
There are more than 3,100 electric utilities:
* 213 stockholder-owned utilities provide power to about 73% of the customers
* 2,000 public utilities run by state and local government agencies provide power to about 15% of the customers
* 930 electric cooperatives provide power to about 12% of the customers
----------------------------
Tom G. interjects - is it any wonder we don't have a national electric grid? Have you ever tried to get 3100 CEO's to agree on anything, but read on it gets even more interesting.
-------------------------------
"Additionally, there are nearly 2,100 non-utility power producers, including both independent power companies and customer-owned distributed energy facilities.
------------------------------
Tom G. interjects again - who was it that said we need to have a more independent distributed energy grid. Sure hope it wasn't me LOL
---------------------------------
"The bulk power system consists of three independent networks: Eastern Interconnection, Western Interconnection, and the Texas Interconnection.
-----------------------------
Tom G. Interjects - O.K. so as I understand it we have been trying for over 20 years to get everyone to agree on a set of operating standards and to combine these three [3] grids into one grid to improve system reliability and energy diversity. No luck yet. Maybe someday.
----------------------------
"These networks incorporate international connections with Canada and Mexico." end quote.
Tom G. closes
And to think for just 1/2 cent per Kilowatt hour we could have all the clean energy we need by implementing "A Solar Grand Plan".
If you turned off the coal plants tomorrow - 50% of our electricity - I seriously doubt we could "fix" it with a 1/2 cent per kWh increase on our electric bills.
I think this country would descend into chaos and anarchy.
Here's the deal. You and I have the power (no pun intended) right now to do what we say we think the govt should do.
You can fully equip your house with solar panels and reconfigure your lifestyle to live within the power you have available.
Many of us could do this right now - and I dare say that if we thought we could do it for 1/2 cent more per kwh, many of us would.
so.. I'm not buying it...sorry
and ditto with the car.
If we wanted to - we could live such that we don't need a car and could get around by walking, biking and riding transit.
however.. being self sufficient on solar AND living in an area with public transit and walking/biking abilities is a bit trickier.
tom-
obviously we have a distributed grid and distributed power, well, relatively speaking today.
however,the idea of new energy is largely based on wind corridors and a few giant solar farms.
that isn't distributed power.
what i'm saying, in regard to green energy, is that we be as local as possible. every roof in the southwest should be seen as the first step to the solar revolution, for instance.
we're going to give the utilities 10's of billions in taxpayer dollars to generate clean power, and, ultimately, profits for shareholders.
why not just start out giving the money and the power directly to the people, or at least a much bigger share.
for example, instead of bailing out underwater homeowners that could pay their mortgage with just a little help, give them a free solar array so they have free power, add value to their home, and give power back to the grid.
instead this is about power, and not just energy. and we'll spend billions in tax payer dollars that will ultimately result in a tiny percent of people reaping billions in profits - many of whom have already reaped huge profits providing dirty energy.
Larry G said: If you turned off the coal plants tomorrow - 50% of our electricity - I seriously doubt we could "fix" it with a 1/2 cent per kWh increase on our electric bills. I think this country would descend into chaos and anarchy.
Tom G responds: Well Larry you are right about the chaos and anarchy; however:
The Scientific American article called "A Solar Grand Plan" makes no mention of shutting down all coal plants or ANY OTHER type of power plants tomorrow, next year or in the next 10 years.
What it does describe is a gradual transition from the various fossil fuels we currently use to produce electricity to the use of solar to produce electricity. The plan will take about 30 years to fully implement. You should also know that some portions of the plan are already in the process of being implemented.
The article does make interesting reading and so does your challenge to install solar panels. I have already pledged to install PV solar when Cap and Trade passes. At that point in time PV solar will probably become cheaper than the power from my local utility.
Tom G.
Dahcredyns said.[in part] what i'm saying ... is that we be as local as possible. every roof in the southwest should be seen as the first step to the solar revolution,... AND instead of bailing out underwater homeowners ... give them a free solar array so they have free power, add value to their home, and give power back to the grid.
Tom G. responds. Right on target. Exactly my feeling - every home should have solar PV on their roofs in the U.S. where good solar radiation is available AND
Remember back a few weeks ago about how I thought maybe we could use a phased in gasoline tax to raise enough money to GIVE AWAY Solar PV for home owners. Wasn't going to be too painful for me since I only drive about 15,000 miles per year, about $50.00 per month as I remember. Seems like a worthwhile thing to spend $50.00 per month on - helping some less fortunate Americans.
As I remember we even had money left over to give $ billions $ away to reduce the cost of production, put more people to work and even cover shopping center parking lots so we could charge our plug-in hybrids for free while shopping.
"in a tiny percent of people reaping billions in profits - many of whom have already reaped huge profits providing dirty energy."
Tom G. responds - you will not get any arguments out of me. Whenever someone says Wall Street or Bailout I get a very bad dirty taste in my mouth. My checkbook is still short about $200,000.
Tom G.
tom-
there is a way of selling this to the public. hopefully, the politicians can start thinking more outside of the box.
but i worry, can a mainstream politician really think outside of the box?
Dahcredyns said: in part: but i worry, can a mainstream politician really think outside of the box?
Best joke I have heard all day. I did in fact Laugh Out Loud [LOL]
Politician are ______________ You can fill in the blank with anything desired. ha ha.
I don't know about the south west, but I can tell you in Virginia they are proposing new coal plants and new nukes as opposed to solar panels or adding capacity to the grid.
43 new plants are on the drawing boards
http://solveclimate.com/blog/20090716/43-new-coal-plants-would-escape-climate-bill-co2-standards
and I do not see anyone making the case that instead of these new plants we should be installing solar panels.
When I see just one of these new plants pulled back and the plans made to use solar panels instead - I'll become less of a skeptic.
until then.. you're gonna have to do a better job of convincing me otherwise.
Larry G.
You don't have to go far on the web to find stories like the following or the site you referenced.
"Most Newly Proposed Coal Power Plants Are Never Built. According to the Department of Energy, proposals to build new power plants are often speculative and typically operate on “boom & bust”
cycles, based upon the ever changing economic climate of power generation markets. As such, many
of the proposed plants will not likely be built. For example, out of a total portfolio (gas, coal, etc) of 500 GW of newly planned power plant capacity announced in 2001, 91 GW have already been
scrapped or delayed. [Tracking New Coal-Fired Power Plants: Department of Energy, 5/1/07]
Since 2006 Nearly Two Dozen Coal Projects Have Been Canceled. According to the National Energy Technology Laboratory, a division of the Department of Energy, Tracking New Coal-Fired Power Plants: Department of Energy, 5/1/07]".
end of quote
The one thing about the web is that you can find a counter argument for almost any other argument right? LOL
If I remember correctly you live in the Eastern part of the U.S. and for that region of the country a combination of solar and wind could easily replace coal. Here is a wiki graphic you might find interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Wind_Resources_and_Transmission_Lines_map.jpg
Not only do we have lots of solar in the western states, we also have excellent wind on both the East and West coasts, Great Lakes and the entire center of the U.S.
You could get some of your power from giant solar farms out west transmitted to you over the High Voltage AC or DC power grid and then some of your power from the wind farms along the East coast or from anywhere in the central part of the U.S. On off days when it is both cloudy in Arizona and there is no wind along the East coast you can get your power from the Great Lakes, from N.E. hydro power from Canada, or even from local nuclear plants or peaking gas plants. There are many, many alternatives.
We DO NOT HAVE to accept coal if we choose not to. The choice is ours.
All of this piece meal stuff doesn't seem to be working too well does it?
And as far as nuclear is concerned it to has become to expensive to use for 20% of our energy needs and I worked in the industry for 20 years and was a big supporter.
What we are building today are 1 or 2 units of a generation III variety using mostly 1980's technology. If we are going to build more nuclear plants then we need to be building generation IV or V plants using Thorium as a fuel. Of course no one has applied for any design approvals for such a plant because they to will probably turn out to be too expensive to build for 20% of our electricity.
We are starting, ever so slowly, to develop a National Strategic Energy Plan like so many other countries have. To bad we are 15 years behind everyone else on the planet.
Tom G.
yes.. I appreciate that some of them get cancelled. but some do not.. and I have yet to see solar replacing any of them.
you're right, Virginia is shown to be solar-viable but I can tell you that there is no solar proposed here right now and we have 2 coal plants and a nuke in the active planning stages.
Now in all fairness . I did find this:
"Duke Energy to Launch Solar Energy Rooftops in North Carolina"
http://solar.coolerplanet.com/News/10200901-duke-energy-to-launch-solar-energy-rooftops-in-north-carolina.aspx
so I guess I ought to be picking out what flavor hat I'm going to have for breakfast.
Very well said Larry G.
Just for future reference. Fed gov is investing in smart grid projects across the country:
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/administration-announces-smart-grid-funds/
Post a Comment
<< Home