Thanks for the help :p, Rafa.

I don’t know the answer to this. Perhaps the answer is something like this?:
http://ipp.nasa.gov/ innovation/ innovation111/ 4-advtech3.html

For #1, see Archer, C. L. and M. Z. Jacobson, 2007: Supplying baseload power and reducing transmissions requirements by interconnecting wind farms. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 46, 1701-1717. This looks at interconnecting just wind farms; IMO, the next step is to look at interconnected wind and solar farms.

For #4, have you read the paper by Ausra’s David Mills and Rob Morgan, Solar Thermal Electricity as the Primary Replacement for Coal and Oil in U.S. Generation and Transportation. They are saying they could power 93% of the US 365×24 with solar alone and their own TES. Unfortunately, Ausra has not release enough information on the proposed storage technology to properly evaluate it. I hope it is real.

For #5, Are you familiar with the work of Kempton and Tomić? (http://www.udel.edu/V2G/) For me V2G is a last resort, not a first choice, but it may be a useful last resort. However, I do know people who think it will accelerate the deployment of plug-in vehicles, by allowing people to earn money selling electricity back to the utilities at premium (i.e. peak) pricing.

For #6, please note I think hydrogen makes little sense in many cases. However, there may be places where electrification is not cost-effective, and hydrogen made from solar or wind is far more land efficient than biofuels. For example, we should electrify most of the rail lines across the world, but there may remain some where electrification might be cost-effectively postponed by using a carbon-neutral fuel. Hydrogen from wind might therefore have a small role to play (perhaps 3%? of energy, and so twice that of electricity). As strategy #6, reducing production when there grid needs the power, and increasing production when the grid has an excess could be helpful (the issue being whether this increases the capital cost too much).

The biggest issue that I see is that CSP+TES is far from the east coast, and the east coast has less hydro as well. This makes several of the above strategies weaker there. On the other hand, offshore wind looks pretty good off the east coast (west coast waters are often deeper, making things trickier).

So as you predicted, I think the smart grid is quite important, but I think V2G is just one of several strategies.

I very much would like to see the situation pictured in your graph transpire. Based on the fact that the graph contemplates that the only traditional base load generation will be nuclear and dam-based hydro-electric, I assume that you contemplate that there will be storage technologies that permit us to convert solar and wind power into base load power.

Considering that the graph eliminates all fossil-fuel resources in about a quarter of a century, I am assuming that the scenario would require the full scale build-out of a state-of-the-art smart grid and that the storage devices in fact would be the batteries in the plug-in hybrids.

I would love to see it. If it happens, it will be the most dramatic change in power delivery technology in this country since Sam Insul decided to go with central generating stations and Westinghouse for AC power transmission — throwing out the local generating stations and the limited DC power transmission to which General Electric (and Thomas Edison) then were committed.

I am working on framing my questions for you in a more intelligent manner. I am poring over the data in the EPRI/NRDC study so that I can frame my questions properly.

One thing that the EPRI/NRDC report does not report (and, God only knows why they would not have reported this) is that (very much speaking in favor of plug-in hybrids) catalytic converters evidently are not very effective for the first four or five miles of driving after a cold start-up. Assuming that 70% or more of all vehicle trips are after cold starts and are for fewer than 10 miles, build-out of a plug-in hybrid fleet would have a substantial benefit of eliminating the pollutants not captured by catalytic converters during the first few miles driven after a cold start.

I asked the friend who identified this benefit whether he knew if plug-in hybrids contain heating elements that warm the catalytic converter before the internal combustion engine kicks in. He did not know. Do you?

Since the EPRI-NRDC study does not explicitly identify this benefit, did they take it into account? If they did not, then the air quality benefits that they calculate even in the conservative (i.e., no change in power generation technology) case are low. (I know that EPRI asserts that the benefits in the conservative case — as calculated — are substantial. But my review of the reams of data laying out the results of this case suggests otherwise. My dim view of that case becomes much brighter if EPRI left out an important additional benefit.)

Note I separated wind into two categories, one for plug-ins, one general electrical consumption. CSP is big because of the possibility of TES, but whether one builds HVDC from Arizona to Massachusetts and New Jersey is unclear. Offshore wind may be what fuels much of the East coast.

The negawatts model in the spreadsheet assumes the US adopts the efficiency standards of the 10 best states at the Federal level. The model starts out with the US population divided into two groups: efficient (initially the 10 most efficient states) and inefficient (initially the 40 least efficient states). Population growth goes into the efficient group (since it is housed in new, efficient buildings), and also each year 5% of the inefficient group moves to the efficient group (e.g. remodels that have to meet current standards). Note that total power consumption declines until 2025, despite population growth and EVs.

Well, one can hope…

Thanks again for your very intelligent and thoughtful response. I need to think about some of what you had to say before I can respond appropriately.

But, I do not think that the addition of wind resources needs to be proportionate with PHEV load. After all, there are wind resources that are great (truly great) base load resources. They exist in the Dakotas, much of Nebraska, Kansas, and the Texas and Oklahoma panhandles. Let’s build all of the windmills that we can in these places and the extension cords to get the power they generate to the population centers.

Remember that in the short-term PHEV load is insignificant. In the long-term we should make sure the smart grid technology is there to deal with the PHEV load (e.g. 240 TWh/yr in 2030, 730 TWh/yr in 2040, 1,000 TWh/yr in 2050). In the medium-term (2020? perhaps 20 TWh/yr) I think hacks can help us muddle through.

Also, my utility has an E-9 rate for EV charging: http://www.pge.com/tariffs/pdf/E-9.pdf
Note that peak is 14:00 to 21:00 M-F summer. Off-peak is 00:00 to 07:00. For a separate meter for the EV, summer off-peak is 5.7 cents vs. peak 28.4 cents per kWh, winter off-peak is 6.4 cents vs. part-peak of 10.2 cents per kWh. The 5x difference in summer peak vs. off-peak is likely to be strong encouragement for folks to use the charge-after-midnight feature of their PHEV.

Jon wrote, “Now, with smart grid technology, we might be able simply to prevent people from charging their cars when “green” resources are unavailable. So, for example, if one were to want to charge one’s car on a day that the wind does not blow (or at a time when the wind is not blowing) or if their are insufficient “green” resources to charge all of the vehicles seeking to be charged, the utility might simply shut off service to the plug-in hybrid’s charger.”

That is basically what I was suggesting.

Jon wrote, “Also, we might simply require office buildings where charging facilities are installed also to have solar panels installed.”

Interesting idea! Parking lots are often good places for PV, and they end up shading cars, which reduces AC. There are a number of “park and ride” lots in California with PV shading for the vehicles and chargers. For example:
http://www.evchargernews.com/regions/95687_6.htm

Jon wrote, “Even if we did have the smart grid technology that would permit utilities to control when plug-in hybrids are charged, I am not sure that the vehicle owners would stand for it. I myself would be pretty upset if I were not permitted to charge my vehicle on a hot May night because the wind did not happen to be blowing that night.”

Are you sure? If you were a Coulomb Tech customer (link above), you would have the option of paying a “charge anytime” rate, which would be high, or a “charge based on availability” rate, which would be low. I would choose the low rate, and suffer the indignity of 1 more visit to the gas station each year.

Also, you talk about the cost of smart grid technology, but Coulomb Tech plans to use a single cell phone connection per block, and then local wireless to get it to cars/chargers. This seems like a nice low-cost way to do it and aggregate data.

Jon, have you looked at the PNL study linked to in the FAQ? They look at some of the issues of concern to you.

Jon wrote, “We are going to be charging them with power plants that can be cycled and dispatched for about four to six hours a day.”

That may happen in some cases, but I doubt that the overall picture will find that to be as significant. Conversely, you may find that PHEVs in many cases use power that would be “spinning” otherwise. That’s a freebie, right? Besides, a lot of the plants of the type you mention above are NG, which is quite clean (even though fossil).

Ultimately I would like to see this country to find a way to build wind power proportional to the PHEV load, and charge PHEVs following the wind energy produced. That is the long-term solution, IMO.