–by Tom Owens —
As you consider buying one of the new all electric cars, some thought should be given to their environmental impacts. Since they run on electric energy, we should look at where that energy comes from and what environmental impacts that causes. There are at least three ways to consider this issue.
First, you can take the view that electric energy here in the San Juan’s is all from clean hydro. In fact, OPALCO contracts with BPA for our electric energy. BPA is predominately hydro based, with some nuclear and natural gas generation. So some people claim our electricity is clean from a CO2 point of view. The sad fact is that electricity does not follow the contractual path from BPA’s hydro to your new electric car. Our energy source is not all clean hydro.
Second, you can take the view that the electricity here in the San Juans comes from the closest generating plants. There are simple cycle and combines cycle natural gas units nearby. There are also small and medium size hydro plants in our area. At times, power comes south from BC Hydro. The Centralia coal fired plant at 1340 MW is also a potential source for us. BPA moves hydro power from east of the mountains via its transmission lines. However, we live in an interconnected world particularly in terms of electricity. Our electric system includes the 14 western US states, British Columbia, Alberta and a portion of northern Baja California. So, the idea of our electricity being supplied by the nearest plant is questionable.
Third, you can ask the question, when the 55,000 electric vehicles that our governor wants to put on the roads plug into the interconnected electric grid, how does this vast grid respond? This is a true test of our question and it is a little complicated. Please bear with me.
First, you need to understand how generating plants are “dispatched” or added to the grid as new demand comes on line. Generally, power generating companies will ensure that the lowest incremental cost (very close to the fuel cost) plants are on line first. They then add plants one at a time to meet increasing demand, up to the highest incremental cost plants, which come on line last. So what does this stack look like? Hydro, solar and wind have virtually zero fuel cost so they are on line first if they are available. Nuclear plants, in Washington and Arizona, also have very low variable cost. Next might be combined cycle natural gas plants, depending on the cost of natural gas. Mine mouth coal plants like those in Montana, Colorado, Utah and Wyoming would be next in line. Rail delivered coal plants, like Centralia would be next. Finally oil and perhaps simple cycle natural gas plants would be last. There are other issues involved in dispatching power plants like contractual constraints, transmission issues, fish migration and spawning requirements and plant operational issues, so it is not as simple as I describe.
To understand where the electricity to charge your new electric car will come from, you have to know which plant will supply your needs. The electric demand on this interconnected system changes during the day, day to day and season to season, so the answer changes all the time. The plant meeting new demand will be the plant that is the next in the dispatch order that has unused generating capacity. At times of peak load, this will be the very highest cost plant. At other times, it will be the mid-cost plants, coal for example. Rarely will it be hydro plants.
So to answer the question, “What is my “electric” car really running on?” is that your car is running on coal and perhaps natural gas, not hydro. The answer would be the same for any new load placed on the interconnected system. Likewise, if you use less energy through energy conservation or put a solar system on your home, you are reducing the amount of coal or natural gas that is being burned.
But is an all-electric vehicle still better for the environment than one running on gasoline? Perhaps it is, but not as much as you are being lead to believe.
(Owens will address that question in a future article).
Tom Owens is a retired energy industry worker with 35 years experience.
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
Thanks Tom, I have often wondered about this. Are wind powered recharging units available/economically feasible?
Thanks, Tom. I’ve been trying to get people to understand these, and other, electricity-source facts for years.
I hope that the people who have argued with me will, instead, listen to you.
We know that BPA is OPALCO’s sole source of power, and we also know that not all of BPA’s power is hydro. BPA reports its mix and explains the variations that occur at https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bpa.gov%2Fnews%2Fpubs%2FFactSheets%2Ffs-201303-Measuring-the-carbon-ontent.pdf&ei=a2RuVb2yL8j3oATZ_4KIBQ&usg=AFQjCNG7stbH6K1FNzRlHETfofIMF2tong&bvm=bv.94911696,d.cGU
But unless you are wired into the BPA control center that is supplying OPALCO (BPA has two), there is no way to find out the instantaneous power mix coming to OPALCO.
If the ins and outs of power generation, marketing and dispatch interest you (and they are interesting), by all means go into it. Just remember that the percentage of carbon inherent in OPALCO’s electric power, as well as the cost and carbon footprint, is at all times substantially less than that in fossil fuels.
To the naysayers of electric cars: Do you consider all of these ramifications every time you turn on your electric stove, run the electric clothes dryer or base board heaters? I don’t think so. If so, you should scrap all of those devices and increase your fossil fuel imprint by installing the carbon based variety. Just don’t be a hypocrite.
This ‘analysis’ simplistically implies that the energy drawn for an electric vehicle all comes off the peak-demand load. It also implies the ‘worst-case scenario’ of tens of thousands of vehicles added to apex of the system simultaneously. Given the BPA source profile, and the charging habits of electric vehicle owners I know, it’s highly unlikely that such a vehicle would be in any realistic way be “coal fueled ” in the San Juans. With thoughtful time-of-day charging, you can be pretty much assured your plug-in is primarily (if not entirely) fueled by hydro. Additionally, the charging needs of an electric vehicle can easily be met within a home solar energy system. Many of those who make the investment in an electric vehicle also invest in solar energy systems in their homes to limit their carbon footprint, making it a net zero situation.
For a truer comparison of a gasoline vehicle’s footprint here, you would need to back-calculate out everything from the electricity to run the fuel pumps, lighting and other infrastructure of a gas station to the trucking and Barging costs to bring fuel to the islands.
Theresa Haynie here for Opalco. Opalco electricity is 97% greenhouse gas-free. Using Opalco energy in place of gasoline, your electric vehicle (EV) driving costs will be 3 to 10 times less than gasoline vehicles, depending on the MPkWh and MPG, while emitting up to 200 times less CO2. This doesn’t address what happens when you charge and drive your vehicle off island using some other electric grid, however.
And Opalco members can specify “all green energy” or purchase Green Energy Blocks of locally produced renewable energy to drive 100% greenhouse gas-free.
Join us at the Orcas Energy Fair this Saturday, June 6, 2015 at the Village Green in Eastsound to learn more about CO2 and green energy. There will be Nissan Leaf EVs available to test drive.
Excellent article.Iwould love to hear Tom’s analysis in the “dirty laundry” category of the actual environmental impact involved in producing the batteries used to power “clean” electric vehicles. That subject is not covered in the large print when the virtues of “clean”electric cars are touted. Great job Tom.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. We decided a year ago after crunching some numbers to lease a Nissan Leaf.
We love this car. It’s quiet, FAST, and on a per mile cost basis about 4 times cheaper than gas. We live past Olga, and can do 2 trips to Eastsound on a charge no problem, and sometimes even 3.
These cars are PERFECT for Orcas Island. Not a long way to drive, and gas prices here are always going to be high.
And personally I’m concerned about what this Earth is going to look like in 20 or 30 years, so I’m doing what I can to make a difference now.
Thanks to everyone that took the time to comment on my article on the environmental impacts of electric cars. More points of view are far better than one. I would like to offer my views on each of your comments. If you would like to contact me to share ideas, I would love to talk to you. Please go through the editor.
Sandy your question is beyond my expertise. I would suggest you contact Rainshadow Solar on your question on wind powered recharging units.
Steve, let’s all try listening.
Bill, BPA is a major player in the western power world but by far, not the only one. Consider the interconnected grid over the 14 states, Alberta, BC and northern Baja. OPALCO has contracted for its supply of power from BPA. BPA is predominately hydro. All good. However, the electric power does not flow along contract lines. It has its own dynamics. In my view, the way to answer the question is to ask how will this vast grid respond to new load. That is what I tried to do.
Mark, you are right on the money. Every time we use electricity or for the most part any energy we should give it serious thought. I hang out my cloths rather than run the drier when I can. When I can save a little power I do so. My hope is that people will give it some real thought before buying more products that use energy. And if they must, buy the most efficient available. What I want to figure out is what impact any new load (even electric cars) has on the environment. In my view, new loads run on fossil for sure and very likely coal. That said, my next project is to figure out if a car on gasoline is better or worse than an electric car running on fossil fuel generated electricity from a CO2 point of view. That is not an easy calculation but I intend to do it and not listen to the Nissan ads.
John, I am glad you found the article simplistic. My goal was to make it understandable. The “worse-case scenario” is Governor Inslee’s project to get 50,000 electric cars on the road, not my idea. Please try to understand the concept of a connected grid (which is reality). What happens in the San Juan’s is not isolated so when we add load here, something, somewhere has to respond. That something has to be a power plant (or portion of a plant) that is idle. The highest cost plants are the ones that are idle, not the hydro. If someone is willing to put solar on the home, I want to thank them for their generosity. They are creating electric here and displacing the highest cost plant operating somewhere on the grid. That plant is fossil and likely coal. They are in fact reducing carbon emission. If they also buy an electric car, they may create a net zero situation but they also miss the opportunity to burn less fossil fuel. I am going to try to make a comparison of electric car vs a gasoline car and determine carbon pollution. I guess I just don’t trust the car vendors advertising, so I’ll do it myself. Want to help?
Theresa, OPALCO’s electricity is contractually very high in hydro. However, contracts and electricity do not follow the same rules. Please consider the reality of an interconnected grid. I cannot agree with you that an electric vehicle is 200 times less CO2 intensive than a gasoline one. I intend to calculate this next. Look at what happens when new load comes on line or when load goes off line here on Orcas. The plant that responds will be the highest cost plant on line with extra generating capacity. Hydro power is very inexpensive and would already be on line. In my view, the responding plant will be fossil fuel, likely coal. When OPLACO members specify “all green energy” they are simply paying more money for their power. This is really a good thing, because that extra money can pay the higher cost of purchasing renewable energy somewhere on the grid. Then someone, somewhere will be using that power and reducing the consumption of fossil fuel, likely coal. When they buy local renewable power, they are sort of getting that power. Again, a really good thing, as then OPALCO get less power from BPA which makes that hydro power available for someone else to consume (and not use fossil energy). I have a real concern with all utilities, especially OPALCO, promoting the increased use of electricity. Private utilities, such as PSE, Pacificorp, PGE, earn their money and profits from the investment in their systems. Hence they have every incentive to sell as much as they can, and enlarge their systems. OPALCO, on the other hand, should be thinking of how much super cheap hydro power we can get from BPA. Once we exceed our tier one cap, doesn’t the price of power go up? Did we exceed the cap in the past for like one hour? How much did that cost? In my view, OPALCO should be doing everything we can to conserve and not increase our energy usage.
Jerry, you raise an important concern, what happens to those lithium batteries? I really don’t know but perhaps we have a battery expert out there that can help us.
Chris, yes your leased Nissan Leaf must be fun to drive. Yes, the economics could well be in favor of an electric car given our gas prices and OPALCO’s low kilo-watt charges. But, if you are really concerned about what this Earth is going to look like in 20 or 30 years, let’s figure out, from a CO2 point of view, if you are in fact doing a good thing, a neutral thing or a not so good thing. Want to help me with this?
Sounds to me that the simple solution is to charge an electric vehicle at night, using off-peak power that we can reasonably assume is almost entirely hydro power, according to Tom’s analysis. That’s what we do with our Leaf, and I’d bet most other EV owners do, too.
Tom, you’re absolutely right about electrons not flowing in accordance with contract terms. So yes, under peak load conditions, drawing hydro in the Northwest can theoretically cause a draw on a coal plant across the country, but as you know, coal plants are rapidly becoming an endangered species, and the replacement power is increasingly likely to be Montana or Colorado wind. Two years ago, BPA ordered the shutdown of a lot of Washington and Montana wind plants because it had too much hydro which overloaded the grid (now under extension expansion and reorganization nation-wide), and (it argued) the excess of aeration was killing salmon (BPA has a dual role in managing Northwest river flow but it had to pay damages anyway). And you will notice that a surprising percentage of BPA power is nuclear, a power source that for obvious reasons tends to split people who would otherwise focus only on carbon footprints.
But the arguments for EVs will not be resolved by trying to measure by exactly how much EVs lower the carbon footprint, it is sufficient that with blended power, as it all is, they do overall (but arguably not every theoretical instant in time) reduce the transportation carbon footprint. And we’re not even counting the carbon footprint resulting from getting fossil fuels to our islands which has to be considerable. Electrons effectively power themselves to our county.
Beyond that (and I understand this isn’t your main concern),the economic argument in favor of EVs for local driving is overpowering. The cost per mile is greatly reduced over fossil fuels purchased in our county (as well as on the mainland). Unlike, say King County, our county is capital-poor, and needs to keep every dollar recycled in the islands. Further, OPALCO’s demand curves peak in the winter, not, as many believe, in our crowded summers. OPALCO needs to sell more power year-round, and less power when everyone’s baseboard heating is drawing power, say, on winter nights. If OPALCO can sell power on a less cyclical basis, it would not have to rely so much on its facilities charge. This in turn would encourage conservation: less wasted power. Fuel switching would save money in a number of ways- too varied to go into here.
My main point is that exactitude concerning an EVs carbon footprint is a small part of the decision of whether or not to drive an EV. Suffice it to say, they are cheaper to drive and have a lower carbon footprint than internal combustion engines.