9/16/2007

Would Google intentionally mislead? You bet your ass they will.
Filed under: Energy, Economics, Technology — nobrainer @ 7:54 pm

In my last post, written after attending a 7-hour grid-reliability conference, I wrote “If anyone ever tells you anything about the electrical grid, they are probably wrong.” You’ve heard of Google? Well they’re telling people things about the grid. And they’re probably wrong. I could write a huge post on this, but I’ll settle for short, short version.

One of their initiatives is to push plug-in hybrids. That’s fine. I don’t have any issues with that. I do take issue with their claims.

In their FAQs they say

4. Will plug-in hybrids require the construction of new power plants?
Actually, studies have shown that our current electricity grid could power three quarters of the nation’s 217 million passenger vehicles.

They took that number from a paper titled “Impacts Assessment of Plug-in Hybrid Vehicles [PHEVs] on Electric Utilities And Regional U.S. Power Grids Part I: Technical Analysis.”

Let’s look to the paper. In the last paragraph of the Discussion of Results section they say [emphasis mine]:

In the short run, the expected increased utilization scenario will affect wholesale electricity markets as supplies of generation resources remain tight over longer periods. One result could be an upward pressure on wholesale electricity prices, although the persistence of higher prices will induce investments in new generation and transmission capacity. In the long-term, the supply will follow the load to meet the growing demand. The development of a new transportation load may facilitate financing of low cost base load generation and renewables that is currently lacking in the marketplace. The potential for short-term price increases and longer-term price and rate decreases needs to be analyzed further and considered as part of the public policy debate. A fuller discussion of the economic assessment of PHEVs is in the companion paper (Part II: Economic Assessment), which examines impacts to the revenue requirements and the electric rates in a fully regulated utility environment.

In other words the answer to the FAQ is “New plants aren’t required, but you’d be a complete dolt to not build them.”

collapse lawtonfunk Says:

BTW, “low cost base load” energy = nuclear power plant.

collapse nobrainer Says:

Actually the report does cover that while also including new coal plants in that category.

 
 
collapse Wha Says:

Now the fun question: What are the total affects of the new base load cola plants vs the change in emmission outputs on automobiles? EPA has driven base load cola plant prices up due to scrubbers, etc. Would it be cheaper to develope similar technology on a much smaller level for automobiles? Oh the fun the interest groups could have.

collapse nobrainer Says:

The paper (or maybe Google, I’ll have to check later) glancingly addresses the issue by assuming that it would be much more efficient to build big CO2 scrubbers at the plants as opposed to having a lot of little scrubbers on all the cars. If I had to choose, I’d make the same assumption.

Otherwise the paper is probably wrong on a number of counts. They estimate the oil savings based on current use. But in reality natural gas and oil would become more perfect substitutes and the price/energy content ratios of the two fuels would approach unity. So we could expect that the power plants would use more oil derivatives. And that does not necessarily require new plants, because many current natural gas plants are designed to also run on some grade of oil distillate.

The paper also calculates that the average price of power could decrease because so-called overnight (fixed) costs can be spread out over more hours due to higher capacity factors. But it conveniently assumes a 50% increase in fuel costs which may be horribly wrong… And it also only considers regulated utilities and not freer, marginally priced markets.