<DrumBeat: November 14, 2006 The Oil Drum CERA Response Thread I>

160 comments on The Potential of Electrified Urban Rail and/or Electric Vehicles

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Wharf Rat on November 14, 2006 - 12:55pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Finally?

http://www.theoildrum.com/comments/2006/4/29/0555/40710/5#5

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Big Gav on November 15, 2006 - 1:44am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I'm all in favour of the electric transport system.

This idea isn't entirely new though - the "smart grid" and "vehicle to grid" energy storage concepts have both been around for a while.

Any reason why you don't consider the concept of energy storage (which helps make the case for a greater mix of renewables) and its inter-relationship with plug in electric hybrids ?

http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2005/10/richard-smalley-and-smart-grids.html
http://www.greencarcongress.com/v2g/
http://www.udel.edu/V2G/

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on November 15, 2006 - 10:27am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
A weakness in Vehicle to Grid concepts is that it will probably (battery not yet defined so I cannot say certainly) shorten the life of a very expensive battery.

Checmical battery life is usually a function of the # of cycles.  Using them on the grid could be prohibitively expensive.

Since EV technology is far from mature, nothing can be determined with certainity.

I prefer hydro pumped storage,  The US has about 8 GW installed today.

Best Hopes,

Alan

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
tstreet on November 15, 2006 - 12:56pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Even if it is decided that V2G is not a good idea, it still seems like a good idea to have G2V with the vehicle being available as an emergency power backup source. This assumes, on my part, that we currently or will have in the future situations where the wind is blowing but there is not sufficient immediate demand to utilize the electricity being generated by the turbines. Or, would it still be better to put that electricity into central storage?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on November 15, 2006 - 1:43pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
One of the conceptual innovations in this article that we are commenting on addresses that issue.

I somewhat arbitrarily place the transition from Phase I to Phase II when the US/North America can run 100% off renewables + nuke for 1,000 hours/year.#  I assume that this is a point of ever increasing renewables (+ nuke ?) and the next year will have even more hours of 100% renewable + nuke.

Strong March winds might fill up all available pumped storage and leave no option but "spilling" (hydro term) some renewable energy.  The spill at the Phase I/II boundary would be much less than 1% of total energy, but it is a trend not to be continued (IMHO).

Thus I stated "Phase I - EV not good, Phase II - EV good".

Small EVs (also called neighborhood EVs) like GEM are almost like electric bicycles, good at any time.  Their energy consumption is so low, efficiency so high and they are not suitable for high speed, long distance commuting so I support them now, in Phase 0.

OTOH, the Toyota RAV4 EV has higher consumption and can help preserve suburbia.  Let "the market" push that EV w/o gov't subsidies.

Again, I propose no disincentive for large EVs (better than ICEs) but also no incentives.  Focus gov't assistance on the "bigger bang for the buck" Urban Rail UNTIL we cross the Phase I/II boundary. Then subsidize EVs.

I have thought quite a bit about this and am working out my conceptual framework.  This is a work in progress and not a completed plan.

Best Hopes,

Alan

# The 1,000 hours/year will be mainly at night during the spring & fall.  Summer wind is at a minimum in many areas and winter is peak output but also has heating demand to absorb much wind generation.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on November 15, 2006 - 1:58pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
A subtle point.

In early Phase II (excess renewable + nuke generation for 1,xxx hours/year that can be used for pumped storage and/or charging EVs), EVs would recharge off of fossil fuels more than 1/2 of the time.  Basically all summer long the marginal generation source would be fossil fuels.  Also true for much of the winter and occasional periods in the spring & fall.

This assumes that the EVs recharge when told to do so by a central dispatch and not when the owner plugs them in.

However, once we get to a point where EVs can recharge, say, 1/3rd or 1/4th of the time from renewable sources AND that % is growing over time, it may be time to start pushing EVs to replace residual ICE uses.

This is a judgment call.

Best Hopes,

Alan

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Magnus Redin on November 16, 2006 - 10:02pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I find V2G unplugged to be a good idea for hybrid wehicles in general as a fairly heavy duty and well maintained emergency generator. Saturating society with low additional cost emergency generators is a good thing.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Big Gav on November 15, 2006 - 8:52pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
A weakness in Vehicle to Grid concepts is that it will probably (battery not yet defined so I cannot say certainly) shorten the life of a very expensive battery.

Checmical battery life is usually a function of the # of cycles.  Using them on the grid could be prohibitively expensive.

Since EV technology is far from mature, nothing can be determined with certainity.

All true at the moment.

I'm thinking more of ultracapacitors as the basis for this setup (do a search on "EEstor" for some background) - which may be a way off (or may not materialise at all) - but it does seem to be the most promising line of development, to me at least.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on November 15, 2006 - 9:15pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Think Ultracapacitor EV.  Think bad accident with larger vehicle.  Consider breaching of container and "instant" discharge.  Think electrocution of everyone in both vehicles.

Logically, if such a discharge is unlikely to happen except in bad enough accidents where fatalities are likely, it would be an acceptable new risk.

But emotionally, not so OK.

Still

Best Hopes,

Alan

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

160 comments on The Potential of Electrified Urban Rail and/or Electric Vehicles

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version