Nonsense from John Petersen

[Dan5]

My logic is that charging an EV is more efficient than pumping water and using that energy for later use.

It becomes more apparent when there is a large discrepancy between EV charge efficiency and water generation/pumping efficiency


Just making up numbers here to illustrate the point.

The baseload has to run regardless, so the emission is the emissions, it doesn't matter of it's an EV, a light, or water pumping, or the electrity dumped into the ground.

Let's say you send 50 kwhr to an EV, and the EV takes 40 kwhr (hypothetical other 10 kwhr lost to chargering, transmission, etc, etc).

If I send that same 50 kwhr to water storage and then output it, and let's say you get 12.5 kwhr out when all is said and done.

Now let's say the emissions is 50 kg of CO2.

The 50 kwhr to charge an EV would have the same impact as 12.5 kwhr of emissions.

The 12.5 kwhr would have been met by water, but it is now met by NG, coal, and other peak sources.

So for that 50 kg of CO2, you either have 40 kwhr (EV charging) or 12.5 kwhr (water pumping) or 0 (electricity gets dumped)

now switch to daytime, the EV used the 12.5 kwhr that would have been used for water pumping so you need to make it.

coal->12.5 kwhr *1010 grams/kwhr= 12.6 kg
NG -> 12.5 kwhr* 465 g/kwhr = 5.8 kg

So instead of having 50 kg of CO2 to create the 12.5 kwhr, you have between 5.8-12.6 kg Co2.

- - - Updated - - -

Or the other way to think of it is I need to eventually have 40 kwhr of power.
Which would give me the lowest emissions?

40 kwhr @ 50 kg
or
12.5 kwhr @ 50 kg + 37.5 kwhr @ 21.6375 kg (grid average)

In reality that 50 kg is a phantom value since it has to be there regardless if an EV is plugged in, running a pump, or if there was no demand

 

[JRP3]

I see the problem, power is never "dumped into the ground", and it's not an either/or choice between pumping water and charging an EV. Coal plants are ramped down at night to meet the lower demand, so regardless if X amount of power is required for water pumping, any additional demand on top of that will require Y more power, and therefor more coal use. In other words they don't just pump water for the heck of it, they pump it to have reserve for daytime peaks, and they need that regardless if there is also an EV plugged in at night. There might be a slight efficiency gain by running a coal plant at a higher percentage of capacity, but not enough to make a real difference in emissions, as I understand it.

 

[Robert.Boston]

JRP3 has the truth of it.

Back in the 1970s many of the large pumped-hydro stations were built because of the huge number of nukes expected to come on line: in some area, like New England, the expected nuclear generation would markedly exceed regional load overnight. Ramping down nukes, while possible, is stupid, so system planners built these storage facilities to sink the excess nuclear power.

If all had gone as planned, then the power from the pumped hydro would have 0 carbon attached to it.

In fact, not all the nukes were built, and many of the nukes that were built have since been retired. Consequently, pumped storage facilities aren't nearly as useful as they were planned to be. In order to turn a profit, they have to be able to buy power overnight and then sell it at a significant premium during the day to cover the 30-40% losses (when you add in the transmission system losses). This kinda went sorta okay back when coal was cheap and natural gas was dear. But in many parts of the country (e.g. New England) natural gas is on the margin 24/7, and so there just aren't that many hours when the spread is sufficient to turn a profit at pumped storage plants.

So what does this mean for carbon? If natural gas is on the margin in all hours, then pumped storage only operates when the marginal heat rate overnight is low and the marginal heat rate during the day is high. The PS displaces inefficient resources, and therefore still lowers the carbon footprint.

You can work this through with a little example that has a 7000 Btu/kWh combined cycle, a 13,000 Btu/kWh peaker, and some amount of pumped storage. As long as overnight demand falls below the rated capacity of the combined-cycle plant, the PS plant lowers carbon emissions. Adding overnight load, e.g. EV charging, reduces the amount of cheap power available to go to the PS. Of course it's still better to charge overnight than during the day.

Where PS shines is in providing ancillary services to integrate renewables.

 

[JRP3]

From a CO2 perspective, in a coal and NG area, wouldn't you be better off charging during the day, when the additional load would come from an NG peaker rather than night time coal?

 

[Robert.Boston]

From a CO2 perspective, in a coal and NG area, wouldn't you be better off charging during the day, when the additional load would come from an NG peaker rather than night time coal?

Usually, yes. The better coal units have lower CO2/MWh than some of the crap natural gas units.

 

[JRP3]

Do you happen to know the highest efficiency rating of the best coal plants? I've only seen the 33% average efficiency for coal, and 40-60% for NG.

 

[CalDreamin]

Do you happen to know the highest efficiency rating of the best coal plants? I've only seen the 33% average efficiency for coal, and 40-60% for NG.

"The average global efficiency of coal-fired plants is currently 28% compared to 45% for the most efficient plants (see graph). "
IGCC, supercritical - World Coal Association

 

[Robert.Boston]

The range of efficiency for natural-gas plants is very wide. The best plants are at 7.0 or lower (MMBtu/MWh), while many are double that and the worst are over 40 MMBtu/MWh. Here's what operates in California, e.g.: Heat Rates

 

[JRP3]

Johan Bittersen comes up with a way to put a negative spin on the Panasonic battery agreement:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1797442-teslas-new-battery-supply-contract-trick-or-treat

My favorite new quote from him in the comment section:

I have no personal knowledge of the facts,

:biggrin: Truer words were never spoken.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/179...pply-contract-trick-or-treat#comment-25216242

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Johan Bittersen comes up with a way to put a negative spin on the Panasonic battery agreement:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1797442-teslas-new-battery-supply-contract-trick-or-treat

My favorite new quote from him in the comment section:

:biggrin: Truer words were never spoken.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/179...pply-contract-trick-or-treat#comment-25216242

OK, I'm guessing that his negative view will essentially repeat his previous articles that said that Tesla only got cheap prices because Panasonic had spare capacity (I avoided the pagecount increment) and that the cells aren't going to get much cheaper because it's established technology.
Never mind that Tesla's demand made them profitable, they're rapidly amortizing newer cell research, that Panasonic is fulfilling original plans and repeating line creation and that Tesla's demand is seeing renewed focus on cost reduction over density improvement.

EDIT:
Oh, and just doing some basic math, at 7,100 cells per car, and a $100k transaction with 25% gross margin, 1% of gross margin is $250. That's $0.035 (less including warranty replacement) reduction in cost per cell needed to raise gross margin by 1%. At this point small changes make a bg difference.
Or maybe he wrote something else.

 

[JRP3]

For those who refuse to click out of principle:

While most commentary on the new supply contract has focused on the 250,000 to 300,000 cars Tesla could build over four years with 2 billion cells, I found one article from Bloomberg that focused on the business benefit to Panasonic and estimated Panasonic's potential revenue at $7 billion, or roughly $3.50 per cell. Panasonic did not confirm Bloomberg's revenue estimate and its spokesman apparently declined to comment on the issue.

If Bloomberg's revenue estimate for Panasonic is accurate, Tesla's 2-billion cell battery supply treat includes a nasty hidden trick in the form of a 40% to 75% cell cost increase that will have to be passed along to customers.

 

[MikeC]

For those who refuse to click out of principle:

He's getting worse. He used to twist actual facts and take them out of context to make his point. Now it seems like this article is just predicated on a guess from a journalist that has no factual basis at all.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

For those who refuse to click out of principle:
<Prices above current small volume rates based on numbers pulled out of thin air by a Reuters journalist>

Oh my god.

Edit: maybe these quotes should be collected for entertainment at the next annual investor's meeting. Was the Reuters journo the one Elon Musk hung up on?

 

[MikeC]

Was the Reuters journo the one Elon Musk hung up on?

I believe that was Barrons.

 

[drinkerofkoolaid]

I strongly recommend that we delete this thread. Peterson only writes these articles because they get tons of attention. The main reason he keeps writing articles is because he is making $500-$1000 per article. This thread has been viewed 48,000 times, and likely gave him 400,000 page views ($4000) because of people sharing and commenting on his articles.


Just Don't Look [Video]

 

[Krugerrand]

Nah. He's not doing it for the money. He might be doing it for the attention it gets him, but mostly he just really believes what he writes.

 

[stopcrazypp]

For those who refuse to click out of principle:If Bloomberg's revenue estimate for Panasonic is accurate, Tesla's 2-billion cell battery supply treat includes a nasty hidden trick in the form of a 40% to 75% cell cost increase that will have to be passed along to customers.

This doesn't even pass the common sense test. Why would Tesla be willing to pay 40-75% more for cells when they are actively negotiating with two other suppliers? If anything Tesla probably got an even better deal by pointing out that Panasonic is not the only supplier and that they should offer better prices if they want Tesla to keep a bulk of the cell orders at Panasonic.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

This doesn't even pass the common sense test. Why would Tesla be willing to pay 40-75% more for cells when they are actively negotiating with two other suppliers? If anything Tesla probably got an even better deal by pointing out that Panasonic is not the only supplier and that they should offer better prices if they want Tesla to keep a bulk of the cell orders at Panasonic.

You don't even need that supposition. CapOp has given numbers that show that even if you took current prices and add the cost of manufacturing capacity without discounting for reuse of technology or inclusion of capacity costs in current prices you would still come up with a number below $3.50. CapOp could be wrong, of course, but he's presented his reasoning and it doesn't involve numbers made up by Reuters journalists.

 

[MikeC]

I strongly recommend that we delete this thread. Peterson only writes these articles because they get tons of attention. The main reason he keeps writing articles is because he is making $500-$1000 per article. This thread has been viewed 48,000 times, and likely gave him 400,000 page views ($4000) because of people sharing and commenting on his articles.


Just Don't Look [Video]

I like this thread, but I don't click on his articles anymore because of this reason. For every 12 clicks he gets, he's able to buy another share of AXPW...

 

[sub]

I like this thread, but I don't click on his articles anymore because of this reason. For every 12 clicks he gets, he's able to buy another share of AXPW...

Thanks for the laugh!