A couple of interesting Green Energy articles that I read this weekend

[Steve]

Can EVs Solve Wind Power Puzzle?

One of the biggest hurdles utilities face with the addition of wind power and other renewable sources of energy to the grid is where and how to store excess generation for use when people actually need it. Until that happens, if the wind blows when nobody needs electricity, for example, the energy is wasted.

Storage is a problem, really, for energy as a whole. I've read estimates that put the amount of electricity that goes *poof* at enough to power 250 million EVs. But the problem is storage. One interesting idea I've read about which makes complete sense is for EVs to operate for the consumer as solar panels do. In Japan, they're working on a way to make the Nissan work both ways. It currently draws energy to charge, but with a 24kwh battery pack, in an emergency, if it could be reversed to feed power to the house, it could keep the lights on for quite a while (or the fridge).

The extension to this logic is, what if on a smart grid, the EVs draw power when it's being discarded anyway, and then the car owner would have the option of selling it back to the grid at a high cost. In other words, if I'm hibernating on a Saturday and not driving anywhere but the corner store, I could feed the grid during the day and receive credit on my energy bill for it.

Now, add a smarter EV as outlined in the article above and we're starting to put pieces together.

And then, what if we could triple the output from our wind farms?

Japanese breakthrough will make wind power cheaper than nuclear:

Interesting stuff.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Can EVs Solve Wind Power Puzzle?



Storage is a problem, really, for energy as a whole. I've read estimates that put the amount of electricity that goes *poof* at enough to power 250 million EVs. But the problem is storage. One interesting idea I've read about which makes complete sense is for EVs to operate for the consumer as solar panels do. In Japan, they're working on a way to make the Nissan work both ways. It currently draws energy to charge, but with a 24kwh battery pack, in an emergency, if it could be reversed to feed power to the house, it could keep the lights on for quite a while (or the fridge).

The extension to this logic is, what if on a smart grid, the EVs draw power when it's being discarded anyway, and then the car owner would have the option of selling it back to the grid at a high cost. In other words, if I'm hibernating on a Saturday and not driving anywhere but the corner store, I could feed the grid during the day and receive credit on my energy bill for it.

Now, add a smarter EV as outlined in the article above and we're starting to put pieces together.

And then, what if we could triple the output from our wind farms?

Japanese breakthrough will make wind power cheaper than nuclear:

Interesting stuff.

Yes, it is interesting, thanks for posting it.

With regard to the first article (the smart EV), this is a logical step. Of course, it won't have high impact if EV adoption is not high. Public utilities also manage power consumption in various ways, including installing programmable limiters in people's houses that let them turn off a water heater (for example) for periods of time when needed to even out consumption peaks. This is generally done in conjunction with a credit to the consumer's bill for being a good citizen and letting them do that. We had one in NC, but I frankly didn't care for it. In exchanged for a $2 monthly credit on our utility bill, we sometimes had cold water showers in the morning because the water heater was off all night.

With regard to the second article (increased efficiency), I expect that all types of energy technology will increase. Better batteries, better generation, better motors, etc. That's all good!

Your statement about storage is correct, and I've commented on it before on MT. Most traditional and some alternative energy sources are used not because anyone wanted to pollute the earth or were evil, but because they are not affected to a large extent by the storage problem, or by the problems of scalability.

As we know, with solar power, if there's no sun, you got no power. If there's no wind, same problem. And we can't control the supply (sun, wind). These issed could be addressed by post-generation power storage, and in some cases they are. Batteries, for example, or conversion of electricity to heat and even to motion (flywheels) have all been tried. They work, but they tend to be very inefficient. In addition, they tend not to be able to ramp up to meet high demand quickly. One has to build one's generation and energy storage to meet peak load, not typical use.

Traditional power sources don't have these issues. Fossil fuel remains unburned until needed; then output can be ramped up quickly to meet requirements. Very little loss due to storage inefficiencies. Nuclear power as well. This also applies, to a lesser extent, to hydroelectric generation and to some alternative sources such as geothermal. That's why they have been traditionally chosen. It's not just a matter of the cheapest; it's also a matter of the cheapest that can meet peak demands.

However, one can consider a hybrid approach, which draws on the same theory as hybrid cars. Use solar power, wind power, whatever you got that's green, to feed the main power supply. Use the traditional sources to ramp up to meet peak demand.

Of course, this is not economical to implement everywhere. It means two powerplants (at least) instead of one. And many places already have their infrastructure in place. In such places, perhaps the alternative power can be used (actually it is) as supplemental. But wherever new generation is required, or old tech goes offline permanently due to age-related shutdown and new power generation is needed, consider 'green' as the primary and 'traditional' as the peak demand source, just like a hybrid car.

 

[Steve]

Ultimately, I find reason to be optimistic. I've said many times that I'm not a hippy. I'm not particularly interested in being "green" for its own sake. But I like to think that I'm practical, and I see controllable, sustainable energy as being fundamental to our country's security and future needs.

It's heartening to see so many projects so close to bearing fruit.

Since I've owned the Nissan EV, I've driven over 3500 miles at just a smidge over $100 in electricity. If I could sell electricity back to the grid for credit on my bill, the car could almost be paying for itself in savings.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Since I've owned the Nissan EV, I've driven over 3500 miles at just a smidge over $100 in electricity. If I could sell electricity back to the grid for credit on my bill, the car could almost be paying for itself in savings.

It's cost per mile; but we've had that discussion before (grin).

 

[Monroe]

I suffer from sticker shock when I look at hybrid cars.

Where I currently live, if I put power back into the power grid, they'll pay me for it.

http://www.hydroone.com/Generators/Pages/Feed-inTariff.aspx

 

[Steve]

It's cost per mile; but we've had that discussion before (grin).

I remember, but historically, I turn over cars every 4 years or so anyway. I have the dough and like buying new cars.

I have given some thought to that since we talked, and one thing did occur to me. I agree with your logic, if we deal strictly with the single transaction of purchasing a car, as though it exists in a vacuum. But when we look at the entire life cycle of a car, it opens things up a bit more. In other words, when people purchase cars, they typically upgrade, so it's reasonable to assume that whomever purchased my 2008 Mazda5 upgraded in some way. It all trickles down until at some point a gas guzzling beater ends up in the junk yard.

So, presuming that "cost per mile" is your primary driver (no pun intended) when purchasing a car, it may be years (if ever) before you take the plunge with an EV. Hypothetically, a guy sells you a '96 Metro for $3000. You buy it because cost per mile is ridiculously low. Insurance is low. Maintenance is low. MPG is terrific.

Chances are, the guy who is selling the Metro is doing so because he's getting something better.

Now, let's go back in time. It's pretty likely that the guy who bought your "new to you" '96 Metro in '95 brand new did so because they liked the fuel economy. And they traded it in because they found something else that suits their needs better, an upgrade. If cost per mile is still a large consideration for this person, they probably purchased a newer car that is also very efficient, introducing another "greener" car onto the highways. Until it eventually lands in the hands of the guy who sells it to you.

Two general presumptions I'm working on. First, that people tend to buy cars that improve in areas which the person considers important. In other words, people for whom efficiency is a concern typically don't change their mind. They will always consider efficiency when they buy a car. Second, that cars have life cycles, and when you talk about new car sales, it really needs to consider the expected life cycle of that car. This would include more than just the guy who drives it off the lot brand new. New cars become late model used cards. And so on.

And if I can get money back from the electric company that equals to or exceeds the cost to charge my car, plus all of the savings in maintenance, the EV becomes very attractive to me. Downright sexy.

 

[Monroe]

Interesting Steve. I used to like used cars when I lived in the UK. I like doing my own maintenance and minor work. One breakdown on the side of a highway, on a black night, in the middle of nowhere, during an icestorm and I was effing done with used cars. :flame:

 

[Carol]

The North American power grid, infrastructure, and our electrical appliances are tuned for 60.000 Hz. This includes the generators that turn to generate AC power, and the the battery chargers that receive this AC power and convert it to DC. I highly doubt availability of power will be communicated by changing the frequency of the AC power generated.

The PNNL graphic implies that the Smart Grid technology will be communicated by a wireless data collection system. This, in my eyes, is far more likely. Power companies everywhere are testing data collection technology on the lines of individual consumers so they can get replace their human meter readers with an automated system. Once the network infrastructure is in place, more can be done than just collect meter readings, I would guess that PNNL is exploring to see how power availability can be communicated to the devices of the power consumer.