27 ms·

Coal is used to establish a lower bound.

by brg 5y ago

skolsuper 5y ago
And maybe as the type of generation used for the marginal difference in energy required. If your country generates 90% of its electricity from hydroelectric and 10% from coal, you might still use coal for the comparison because hydroelectric power would be slow to add and the extra electricity for EVs would have to provided by coal
- erosenbe0 5y ago
  This is an important point. I live in Illinois which is over 60% carbonless mainly through aging nuclear investments. It would be naively optimistic to suggest that marginal demand will be only 40% fossil fuel since the nuclear will not be replaced.
- derriz 5y ago
  Assuming that it's more likely that marginal demand will be met by coal than by renewables makes no sense to me. Coal is rapidly been retired as a source of electricity generation - 85% of generation capacity being retired in 2022 will be coal[1] - and there hasn't been a new large coal plant built in the US for over a decade[2]. In Europe the amount of electricity being generated by coal is half of what it was at its peak. Meanwhile, renewables now make up about a 87% share of new electricity generation capacity in the the US[3]. Europe is similar. Pricing the CO2 emissions cost of an EV using the dirtiest and fastest declining electricity source (coal) does not seem fair or honest to me. [1] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50838 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50838 [2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-the-u-s-ever-build-another-big-coal-plant/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-the-u-s-ever... [3] https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/solar/renewables-are-87-of-new-u-s-generating-capacity-so-far-this-year/#gref https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/solar/renewables-are-87...
  - skolsuper 5y ago
    Still... if you plan to add 100MW of renewable this year and retire 100MW of coal, then demand goes up by 100MW, do you now add 200MW of renewable instead, or do you delay the retiring of the 100MW of coal?
derriz 5y ago
That makes little sense to me. Your analysis would result in the conclusion that charging an EV in France (90% carbon free electricity) causes the same amount of CO2 emissions as using one in South Africa (90% fossil fuel electricity). The expansion of EVs has coincided with a massive drop in coal electricity share and a massive increase in solar PV and wind share, globally. Assuming that expanding EVs are being powered by coal is odd to say the least. Especially given that (at least where I live) 70%+ of EV charging is done at home, mostly using off-peak electricity, which tends to have a much higher renewable share.

Coal is used to establish a lower bound.

by brg 5y ago

Coal is used to establish a lower bound.

And maybe as the type of generation used for the marginal difference in energy required. If your country generates 90% of its electricity from hydroelectric and 10% from coal, you might still use coal for the comparison because hydroelectric power would be slow to add and the extra electricity for EVs would have to provided by coal

erosenbe0 5y ago
This is an important point. I live in Illinois which is over 60% carbonless mainly through aging nuclear investments. It would be naively optimistic to suggest that marginal demand will be only 40% fossil fuel since the nuclear will not be replaced.
derriz 5y ago
Assuming that it's more likely that marginal demand will be met by coal than by renewables makes no sense to me. Coal is rapidly been retired as a source of electricity generation - 85% of generation capacity being retired in 2022 will be coal[1] - and there hasn't been a new large coal plant built in the US for over a decade[2]. In Europe the amount of electricity being generated by coal is half of what it was at its peak. Meanwhile, renewables now make up about a 87% share of new electricity generation capacity in the the US[3]. Europe is similar. Pricing the CO2 emissions cost of an EV using the dirtiest and fastest declining electricity source (coal) does not seem fair or honest to me. [1] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50838 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50838 [2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-the-u-s-ever-build-another-big-coal-plant/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-the-u-s-ever... [3] https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/solar/renewables-are-87-of-new-u-s-generating-capacity-so-far-this-year/#gref https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/solar/renewables-are-87...
- skolsuper 5y ago
  Still... if you plan to add 100MW of renewable this year and retire 100MW of coal, then demand goes up by 100MW, do you now add 200MW of renewable instead, or do you delay the retiring of the 100MW of coal?

derriz 5y ago

That makes little sense to me. Your analysis would result in the conclusion that charging an EV in France (90% carbon free electricity) causes the same amount of CO2 emissions as using one in South Africa (90% fossil fuel electricity). The expansion of EVs has coincided with a massive drop in coal electricity share and a massive increase in solar PV and wind share, globally. Assuming that expanding EVs are being powered by coal is odd to say the least. Especially given that (at least where I live) 70%+ of EV charging is done at home, mostly using off-peak electricity, which tends to have a much higher renewable share.