Desired website: Google Environment

[jducoeur]

I was thinking this morning about my next car. I'm hoping that my good old Camry gives me a few more years, mostly because I have a specific car I want, that isn't available yet: an optional-plug-in Prius. That is, exactly the current Prius, but with a plug in *addition* to the gas engine, so that I can get the range of the gas engine when I need it, but can run off the plug for short-range commuting. (Yes, I know that you can retrofit this onto the car, but I generally feel more secure when it's built in from the factory. Toyota is working on it, but it sounds like it'll be a couple of years before it's ready for prime time.)

But that led me to wonder: how sure am I about the relative merits about the electric vs. gas? I mean, yes, there are oft-cited statistics like "120 MPG equivalent" when you plug the car in -- but surely that's a gross oversimplification. From an *environmental* perspective (I'm not talking about cost here), there are lots of confounding factors that have to be taken into account. For example, what is my electricity mainly based on? Wind vs. coal makes a dramatic difference in the environmental impact of my electricity, and finding out the actual percentages isn't simple. (Yes, I can tell the power company "I want green electricity", but that really is just influencing the mix, rather than giving me entirely greener-based power.)

Moreover, there's another oft-cited statistic, that half of all electricity is lost in transmission. I *assume* that the amount of loss is proportional to where I am, though -- that there's a big difference if I'm 1000 yards from the power plant, as opposed to ten miles away. (Physics types should please tell me if that assumption is incorrect.) But I haven't the slightest clue how long the wires are between me and the nearest power plant, much less how the other plants in the grid factor into that. Figuring out how much electricity is being lost getting to *me* is quite difficult even to approximate realistically, and I would expect that to make a significant difference in the actual environmental footprint of this theoretical plug-in car.

So I find myself wishing for a website that would allow me to give the location of my house, and which would produce a *realistic* estimate of what my electricity looks like environmentally. I have no idea what the business case for such a website would be (and heaven knows, I don't expect it to be simple to write), but with awareness of environmental issues on the rise it seems like it ought to have a market. If Google wants a next project for their "organize all the information in the world" push, that might be a worthwhile thing for them to tackle...

Comments

[talvinamarich.livejournal.com]

But if you let people get an accurate view of what the grid looks like, the terrorists win.

[corwyn-ap.livejournal.com]

While there is some islanding in the grid, for the most part it, is just a big network. While you might be close to a hydro power plant, that power comes in spurts; another local gas plant is only on for peak times; large possibly far away plants are likely taking the constant load. It is extremely complicated. At best you could get a picture of what your actual mix looks like at the moment.

That said, I think the exercise is mostly moot. If you are using 1 kWh of completely green electricity off the grid, that just means someone else's mix is slightly higher in other sources.

So, the solution is either to get a really local source (i.e. put up some solar panels, a wind generator, a micro-hydro turbine, or whatever. Or pay some money to change the overall mix, that is pay actual green suppliers through one of the systems available. It won't change the mix you use, but will change (very slightly) the overall mix, and push in the direction of getting the whole grid more green.

If you feel like doing hero's work on the issue, you might see if you can get a feed-in-tariff bill passed in Massachusetts. You can see the one B and I and a group we are a port of are working on here in Maine here: http://www.midcoastgreencollaborative.org/Feed_in_tariff_info.html

***

A website which might be useful for the problem, is one which makes the state of the current grid load available to all users. Then you could plug in your hybrid when there was excess capacity (which would be even more green than solar PV power). This is basically what is hoped for in the 'smart grid', however as it is user driven and web based, it would be vastly more cheaper to implement.

I think I will see if it is possible... might be a huge help. Thanks for stirring my mind in this direction.

[umbran.livejournal.com]

I *assume* that the amount of loss is proportional to where I am, though -- that there's a big difference if I'm 1000 yards from the power plant, as opposed to ten miles away. (Physics types should please tell me if that assumption is incorrect.)

It is true in a basic theoretical sense, but not in a practical sense. The power coming into your house is not form a single source, or even just a couple of local sources.

There's a whole mess of sources, and they all feed into a large shared regional grid. At different times of day, different sources come on and off line. Sometimes energy is even shared between the regional grids. So, some of the power you use can come from far away, even if you only live 1000 yeards from a generation facility.

[talvinamarich.livejournal.com]

This is sufficiently remote in time and sufficiently obscure to share, now.

One of my close friends is an information security specialist. That's corporate-speak for "professional hacker", of course.

A few years back, I was chatting with him over IM and he was kvetching about the latest client he had been assigned to. He very carefully did not name the client, nor did he give any particular clue as to where they are geographically.

Put simply, he had been contracted to do an assessment on the control systems for a hydroelectric dam. At first, he thought he would have to travel to the site. To his horror, he learned that this would be a remote job. Done from his couch, like so many others.

"Why is this system connected to the Internet?"

"Oh, but everything is connected to the Net these days!"

"Yes, but...why is THIS system connected to the Internet?"

"But everything is connected to the Internet!"

So he was sitting there trying to write a polished, professional, detailed report that boiled down to, "WHY do you have the computers running a hydroelectric dam connected to the INTERNET? WHY?!"

I have never pressured him in any way to tell me whose dam it is. Partly because I know he would sooner take that info to his grave, but mostly because I am afraid he would say something like "TVA", and that would mean they are ALL that way and they are all STILL that way!

[umbran.livejournal.com]

If this was surprising, then he didn't understand the system in full, because there's a legitimate answer.

The systems at the dam must communicate with the systems controlling the rest of the power grid. They *cannot* successfully operate independently - there are things that can happen out in the rest of the grid that can damage the generators - power backwash is a stone bitch.

So, you're either using the internet, or you are maintaining an entirely separate network infrastructure across the entire country.

[talvinamarich.livejournal.com]

Which has now been compromised by foreign governments.

"Separate network infrastructure" sounds more and more attractive.

[umbran.livejournal.com]

Until you look at the price tag. And how Titanic-like a separate infrastructure would be.

No, it is better to lean how to secure and adapt, rather than try to armor plate.

[jducoeur]

I dunno -- I rather suspect that umbran is right here. The government's record on managing gigantic organizational projects is awfully weak. (Back when I was at Intermetrics in the early 90s, one of our largest contracts was doing IV&V on the rebuild of the air traffic control systems -- that turned out to be an unholy disaster, I gather.) The Internet succeeded, I suspect, in large part precisely because it was developed in a large decentralized way.

Could the government build a whole separate infrastructure? Yes. Could it build something that was as robust as the Internet, and more secure? Maybe, but I'm honestly a bit skeptical. I mean, it *is* possible to use the Internet reasonably securely -- it just requires a lot of knowledge, care and discipline. If they don't have that discipline, I'm dubious that any solution is going to be genuinely secure...

[cvirtue.livejournal.com]

Seen this?

"The US government has admitted the nation's power grid is vulnerable to cyber attack, following reports it has been infiltrated by foreign spies."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7990997.stm

[talvinamarich.livejournal.com]

Yep.

*sighs*

We never learn.

Plug-in hybrids

[metageek.livejournal.com]

I really don't understand why the automakers are taking so long to bring plug-in hybrids to market. The aftermarket conversions for the Prius have been around since 2005 or earlier, but Toyota still doesn't have a stock plug-in. They plan to get the plug-in Prius into fleet testing this year, but they won't say when it'll hit the open market. At this rate, the Volt might beat them to market (November 2010)—but the Volt costs $40,000.

Oh—and the prototype plug-ins Toyota has shown have an electric range of just 6 miles.

Re: Plug-in hybrids

[jducoeur]

Yeah, but I gather that's a battery-technology issue: the prototype is still built on older-tech batteries.

I suspect that the slowdown is a combination of factors, not least price. The Prius, for all its fancy tech, is still a fairly cheap car, so they probably perceive an expensive battery pack as commercially unviable for it. Plus, at their scale, it's probably a billion-dollar bet, and if they screw up it could damage the Prius brand, which is gold at this point.

So I can understand taking it slow and getting it right, much though it might annoy me personally. Although I do agree that their window of opportunity is closing, and they need to get their asses in gear if they're not going to have someone else really steal their thunder...

Re: Plug-in hybrids

[metageek.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but I gather that's a battery-technology issue: the prototype is still built on older-tech batteries.

<dig, dig>...you're right. It still uses NiMH; the production model will use lithium-ion, like the Volt. From what I've read, the Volt may have more advanced batteries (they've spent a lot on their battery technology), but we'll have to wait and see what that means for their range. If the Prius comes out with less range than the Volt, it won't be eligible for as much tax credit, which will mean they'll have to hold their price down to compete.

Although I do agree that their window of opportunity is closing

Oh, yeah. If we have $4/gal gas again this summer and next, and the plug-in Prius isn't out in fall 2010, the Volt will get to set expectations.

Re: Plug-in hybrids

[serakit.livejournal.com]

Is the $4/gal gas this summer likely?

Re: Plug-in hybrids

[metageek.livejournal.com]

I don't know—but I don't know any reason why not. Nothing important has changed since last year.

Re: Plug-in hybrids

[jducoeur]

*Blink*. A massive economic collapse counts as a fairly significant change, I think. Keep in mind that the economics here are non-linear, so a fairly modest difference in demand makes a *huge* difference in price.

So as I remarked to serakit above, I think it's unlikely that we'll see a return to high prices this summer. It would require either that the oil producers impose serious discipline on their output (which they always *want* to do, but rarely succeed in, so I think it's unlikely), or a massive economic rebound (which would be lovely, but seems very unlikely this year)...

Re: Plug-in hybrids

[metageek.livejournal.com]

A massive economic collapse counts as a fairly significant change

True; I was leaving that out, partly because it was already well advanced last year. But you're right; it hadn't spread as far. There will probably be less demand this year.

I was thinking about the other causes of last year's spikes: the war, and speculation. The war is still going, and there's no reason to expect the speculators to sit on their hands this year.

So, yeah, I guess this year's peak will probably be somewhere between $3 and $4.

Re: Plug-in hybrids

[jducoeur]

Wow, I *so* don't agree. The speculators are driven by herd instinct, and are mostly right now more panicked than the general populace. They're not coming anywhere *near* oil until it looks like the economy is recovering. The whole nature of speculators (and the reason they cause bubbles) is that they mainly pile into what the common wisdom says is a Sure Thing.

As for "the war", that's too broad a term. The focus has shifted from oil-rich Iraq to oil-poor Afghanistan -- that makes a very big difference. Iraq is stabilizing (gradually, in fits and starts), and its oil supply doesn't appear to be in nearly as much danger as a year or two ago.

And frankly, neither really had *that* much to do with the price of oil anyway. The serious economists were always pretty clear that the growth of the Chinese economy was the principal cause there. And while that hasn't been *totally* devastated by the recession, it's quite badly hurt, and will take a while to return to its 2008 levels.

So I'd be surprised to see $3 this summer, and wildly astonished to see $4. The fundamentals driving the price have changed considerably, and it's going to take more than a few months for them to recover...

Re: Plug-in hybrids

[metageek.livejournal.com]

...yeah, that all makes sense. OK, never mind.

Re: Plug-in hybrids

[jducoeur]

Just to Silverwing a bit: one article I read today indicated that the Chinese are working *very* hard to stimulate internal demand, to make up for the loss in exports. I still suspect it'll take until next year to make the difference, but if this was wildly successful, it would probably be felt in the oil price...

Re: Plug-in hybrids

[jducoeur]

IMO, not this year. The price of gas correlates strongly (far more than linearly) with the economy -- I can explain in more detail face-to-face, but suffice it to say that gas is a commodity with limited supply and relatively inelastic demand, so prices spike sharply when demand exceeds easy supply. A difference of only a few percent in demand can make a massive difference in price. But until the economy recovers, demand should stay soft.

So putting that together with my economic expectations: I think it's unlikely that prices will spike again this summer, because while I think it's likely that the economy will have bottomed out by then, I don't expect things to have rebounded much. *Next* summer, though, it's possible that we could see a return to high prices (and it would probably be a good economic sign if so)...