patrick.net

CaptainShuddup says

I'm sorry Kerry lost the 2004 election but calling people stupid who voted against him, will do nothing help Vote in the next douche sack like Kerry other than upping the anty against his chances.

1. You're not sorry.
2. The table above lists the average IQ by states. That information is correct regardless of who the state voted for.
3. The table was quoted to demonstrate that foxmannumber1's proposed forced sterilization based on IQ would disproportionately eliminate red state reproduction.
4. You knew points 1, 2, and 3 and are trying to change the subject.

Raw says

Mile by mile an electric car will still pollute a lot less than a gasoline driven car. The percent of total electricity that comes from coal is also declining steadily as alternative fuels ramp up their volume.

Note true. I quoted Leaf versus Prius with current grid mix above. Leaf pollutes more CO2.

The grid mix in the US changes very slowly, and is mostly a matter of the relative price of coal and natgas. It fluctuates seasonally as well. Right now there is a bit of a tilt towards more natgas, but natgas prices are creeping up and we will be back to coal. The following graph shows some recent historical data:

NOW, if we were all driving and charging elexctric vehicles, we would have to more than DOUBLE electricity production. Is that going to happen anytime soon without burning a LOT more coal? No way it is! That is the point here: CO2/kWh is going to *increase* when we start adding electrical vehicles.

"Alternative fuels", apart from natgas, is a pitifully small fraction of the total.

Data graph is from http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=6550

justme,

Here's a great site with actual calculations regarding "sustainable" energy:

www.withouthotair.com

Glad to see we're getting back to the OT here...

Definitely need to increase the nuclear in that mix!

New Renter says

Definitely need to increase the nuclear in that mix!

Except that environmentalists are blocking it. Just like they block wind power.

Ironic, isn't it?

They want energy, but they don't want anyone to generate it.

I guess they believe in magic.

justme says

Raw says

Mile by mile an electric car will still pollute a lot less than a gasoline driven car. The percent of total electricity that comes from coal is also declining steadily as alternative fuels ramp up their volume.

Note true. I quoted Leaf versus Prius with current grid mix above. Leaf pollutes more CO2.

The grid mix in the US changes very slowly, and is mostly a matter of the relative price of coal and natgas. It fluctuates seasonally as well. Right now there is a bit of a tilt towards more natgas, but natgas prices are creeping up and we will be back to coal. The following graph shows some recent historical data:

I don't see anywhere that shows electric cars pollute more than gasoline driven cars.
I understand it still pollutes, because part of the mix contains coal, but gasoline is a 100% fossil fuel, and that would pollute more.

freak80 says

New Renter says

Definitely need to increase the nuclear in that mix!

Except that environmentalists are blocking it. Just like they block wind power.

Ironic, isn't it?

They want energy, but they don't want anyone to generate it.

I guess they believe in magic.

Some of them are nuts. They don't want fossil fuels, nuclear, or wind. Not much left is there?

freak80 says

New Renter says

Definitely need to increase the nuclear in that mix!

Except that environmentalists are blocking it. Just like they block wind power.

Ironic, isn't it?

They want energy, but they don't want anyone to generate it.

I guess they believe in magic.

Yes, magic in the form of solar. Preferably in the forms of invisible panels that can run on moonlight.

Raw says

I don't see anywhere that shows electric cars pollute more than gasoline driven cars.
I understand it still pollutes, because part of the mix contains coal, but gasoline is a 100% fossil fuel, and that would pollute more.

Here ya go!

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/electric-cars-may-not-be-so-green-after-all-says-british-study/story-e6frg8y6-1226073103576

New Renter says

Raw says

I don't see anywhere that shows electric cars pollute more than gasoline driven cars.

I understand it still pollutes, because part of the mix contains coal, but gasoline is a 100% fossil fuel, and that would pollute more.

Here ya go!

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/electric-cars-may-not-be-so-green-after-all-says-british-study/story-e6frg8y6-1226073103576

I'm not convinced. I'll find something that contradicts this analysis when I get back from work.

Raw says

I'm not convinced. I'll find something that contradicts this analysis when I get back from work.

Great! Looking forward to it!

Raw, it's not rocket surgery.

Electricity in the US comes mainly from fossil fuels. It's not too surprising that electric cars would generate a similar amount of pollution.

Granted, the pollution comes from a power plant and not the car itself. But when considering global warming, the emission location is irrelevant.

freak80 says

That's just it. Much of our electricity comes from coal.

Right now, some of the coal capacity is being replaced with natural gas capacity.

But then why not just buy a NGV? It's probably more efficient to just burn NG directly then to go through the myriad of energy conversions required with an EV.

I have nothing against EV's. I just don't think they're much "greener" then regular cars. And they don't have the range of regular cars.

As I've said on other threads here I'd like manufacturers to take NGV a step further and go with diesel pilot NG engines. All the efficiency and reliability of the diesel cycle with most of the emissions and low fuel costs of NG.

Raw says

I don't see anywhere that shows electric cars pollute more than gasoline driven cars.

Why have you not read the reference (link) that I posted? Here it is again, read the numbers and the calculation. Follow the further references. Convince yourself.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2012/06/508hy-20120625/comments/page/1/#comments

Raw says

I understand it still pollutes, because part of the mix contains coal, but gasoline is a 100% fossil fuel, and that would pollute more.

Wrong. You are having a mental block here, and it is probably because you do not know the important fact that coal-fired electric plants have efficiency of only 33% at best. That is one BIG reason that coal-electricicty has a huge g(CO2)/kWh. I'm repeating myself, but the grid-mix g(C02)/kWh is ALL that matters.

Do you believe me now? When it comes to energy and the environment, ignorance is very dangerous for our well-being. Please do not fall for simplistic arguments.

I'll post the text instead of the link:

Let us be VERY OVERLY generous and assume that we can generate enough electricity for electric cars using the same fuel mix (coal, natural gas, nuclear, etc) as we are using now, and as described at the page linked (everyone please follow the link and read it)

http://www.casteyanqui.com/ev/longtailpipe/

I will use the numbers from that page to prove my point. Btw, that page sets out to prove that a Nissan Leaf is CO2-better than a 30mpg Nissan Versa. Sure it is, but they are completely missing the bigger point: That a Prius is still better than the electrical Nissan Leaf!

Okay, here goes with the calculation:

According to the link, burning gasoline creates 24.50 pounds of GHG per gallon, well-to-tailpipe. Hence a 30mpg gasoline car produces 81.67
(=100/30*24.50) lbs(CO2)/100miles, as they say using the 30mpg gasoline Nissan Versa as an example. By straight calculation, a Prius at 50mpg similarly produces 49.00 (=100/50*24.50) lbs(CO2)/100 miles.

Now compare the Prius to the Nissan Leaf (100% electric) example. The webpage calculates that the Leaf (BTW a smaller car than the Prius) produces 50.72 lbs(CO2)/100miles, using our current electricity generation mix (grid mix).

Look at that number again: 50.672 lbs/100mi is greater than the 49.00 lbs/100mi number of the Prius !! !! !!

So with current off-the-shelf technology, a Prius is already slightly more CO2-efficient than a Nissan Leaf fully electric car (and very likely also slightly more energy-efficent, one would have to do the calculation, but CO2-efficency is a good proxy for energy-efficiency).

Now, a DIESEL hybrid of prius size will easily get 60-70mpg and maybe 70-80mpg. Look to Peugot, VW, Citroen for exsistence proof. Or do a back-of-the-envelope calcualtion based on a Leaf-sized 50mpg European diesel car.

I'll repeat the conclusion: A Prius plain gasoline hybrid (no plugin) is already more CO2-efficient than a Nissan Leaf. A diesel-electric hybrid is *significantly* more efficient than a Nissan Leaf.

Purely electric cars only make sense if we can generate all the electricty we need without burning coal, which we cannot for a long time. We can do BETTER than electric cars by switching to hybrid diesels NOW.

justme says

Purely electric cars only make sense if we can generate all the electricty we need without burning coal, which we cannot for a long time.

Correct.

Probably the most practical solution right now is a natural gas vehicle, assuming NG prices remain low.

If you really want to be green, live close to work and walk. Cars use a huge amount of energy per person.

I might do just that, mainly because I'm a cheap bast*rd.

How about this for some new math. In CA, 39% of plug-in EV owners have solar panels. In urban environments, I also think there is a case to be made for pollution elsewhere with EVs.

New Renter says

Raw says

I'm not convinced. I'll find something that contradicts this analysis when I get back from work.

Great! Looking forward to it!

I am so disappointed in all of you. Only an oil company can convince someone that electric cars cause more pollution. Are you guys really gonna fall for that BS? The oil companies make hundreds of billions of dollars every damn year, and the only way they can keep making their fat and filthy profits is to misinform the public so they can keep selling their disgusting product to us. They spend hundreds of millions of dollars in propaganda to convince you to buy more gas, they have the politicians in their pocket, and they control many journalists by funding their biased reports to make electric cars, the only product that can destroy the oil company profits, look bad. I urge all of you to reconsider your stand on this.
The Sierra Club does not make money from us, they have no financial interest at stake, and all they want to do is reduce pollution to make our lives, and the lives of our future generations better. Who are you gonna believe?
Thank you!
http://www.sierraclub.org/electric-vehicles/myths.aspx

Raw says

I am so disappointed in all of you. Only an oil company can convince someone that electric cars cause more pollution. Are you guys really gonna fall for that BS?

You should be disappointed with yourself instead. The sierra club page is plain wrong, and it refers to an EPRI study that assumes that 85% of the CO2 emitted by electric power generators will be captured and sequestered by 2050 . This is pie in the sky technology that is completely impossible in the near term (next 20 years), and probably never will be practical. Here is the link to the very flawed "study"

http://mydocs.epri.com/docs/CorporateDocuments/SectorPages/Portfolio/PDM/PHEV-ExecSum-vol1.pdf

The oil company propaganda is not what you think it is. Oil companies LOVE when uninformed people think that electrical vehicles will solve all our problems. Because the same uninformed people will then stop worrying about burning gasoline, and go out and buy the same stupid cars they always have, assuming that someone else is going to solve the problem.

You got snookered.

Raw says

I am so disappointed in all of you. Only an oil company can convince someone that electric cars cause more pollution. Are you guys really gonna fall for that BS?

Have you still not read my calculation? You cannot argue against a correct calculation based on correct data. The truth is staring you right in the face. This is simple science, nothing complicated about it.

justme says

The oil company propaganda is not what you think it is. Oil companies LOVE when uninformed people think that electrical vehicles will solve all our problems. Because the same uninformed people will then stop worrying about burning gasoline, and go out and buy the same stupid cars they always have, assuming that someone else is going to solve the problem.

You got snookered.

Why would the Sierra Club lie? Why?
Oil companies can lie because they want to maintain fat, ridiculous and illegal profits, but the non profits have no stake in this.

Never trust the oil companies.
Thank You

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/10/children-electric-cars

Raw says

Why would the Sierra Club lie? Why?

Why would *I* lie? why?

And you STILL haven't looked at the simple calculation. Amazing.

foxmannumber1 says

Electric cars will always be impractical for the majority of americans with current technology.
Until you can go 300 miles on a single charge with no more than 15 minutes to refill another 300 miles of charge, they are worthless compared to combustion engine cars. This technology is not even on the drawing board in any realistic way right now.

The 17,000+ miles I've driven in my Leaf in the past 15 months proves you wrong. 100% of my work commute miles have been gasoline-free over that time period.

I agree that electricity, as currently generated, produces CO2 and other pollutants, but it can be generated cleanly (solar, wind, etc.). Gasoline as the energy source definitely does produce CO2 and pollution - no way around it. I'd rather drive a car (and support a technology) that CAN use clean energy as opposed to one that can't.

rohk says

I'd rather drive a car (and support a technology) that CAN use clean energy as opposed to one that can't.

You would rather drive a car that COULD in THEORY be CO2 clean (but isn't)

than

Drive a car that _IS_ more CO2 clean than the "could-theoretically-be-clean" car that just is not, and will not be in the forseeable future.

All I can say is that you are making the wrong choice.

If you want to enable electrical vehicles, you should not be buying one. You should be spending your money on getting more nuclear and other CO2-free energy built out.

justme says

If you want to enable electrical vehicles, you should not be buying one. You should be spending your money on getting more nuclear and other CO2-free energy built out.

Correct.

Supposedly France gets something like 70% of its electricity from nuclear power. Why can't the USA do something similar?

The only realistic way to slow co2 emissions is to use more nuclear power instead of coal. Americans aren't going to give up their cars.

freak80 says

Supposedly France gets something like 70% of its electricity from nuclear power. Why can't the USA do something similar?

This is one reason why:

http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2008/06/amory-lovins.html

Raw says

justme says

The oil company propaganda is not what you think it is. Oil companies LOVE when uninformed people think that electrical vehicles will solve all our problems. Because the same uninformed people will then stop worrying about burning gasoline, and go out and buy the same stupid cars they always have, assuming that someone else is going to solve the problem.

You got snookered.

Why would the Sierra Club lie? Why?

Oil companies can lie because they want to maintain fat, ridiculous and illegal profits, but the non profits have no stake in this.

Are you F#$%^ kidding me? That's like saying politicians have no stake in fat, ridiculous profits because they can't accept bribes and have to look out for the public interest.

EBGuy says

How about this for some new math. In CA, 39% of plug-in EV owners have solar panels. In urban environments, I also think there is a case to be made for pollution elsewhere with EVs.

Sounds great! Now how well do those panels work for overnight/rainy day charging?

Ohhh right...

New Renter says

Why would the Sierra Club lie? Why?

Oil companies can lie because they want to maintain fat, ridiculous and illegal profits, but the non profits have no stake in this.

Are you F#$%^ kidding me? That's like saying politicians have no stake in fat, ridiculous profits because they can't accept bribes and have to look out for the public interest.

When did I say or imply that?
Many politicians are in the pockets of big oil. They will do anything the oil companies ask them to do. eg. Bush.
The oil companies have too much money, too much power, and too many politicians in their pockets. This undermines democracy and we have to stop it.
I have always believed the best solution is to slap an additional $5.00 per gallon tax on gasoline. Watch how fast alternative fuels become available.

Raw says

When did I say or imply that?

Right here:

Raw says

The Sierra Club does not make money from us, they have no financial interest at stake, and all they want to do is reduce pollution to make our lives, and the lives of our future generations better.

And here:
Raw says

Why would the Sierra Club lie? Why?

Raw,

You're another "data point" that supports my (growing) belief that the far-left is just as unhinged as the far-right.

Oil company profits are illegal? Really? Yes, oil companies have been caught doing all sorts of shady things, but that doesn't mean that ALL of their profits are unethical, much less illegal.

If you want to call something as illegal, see OPEC. OPEC is an *actual* cartel. If US anti-trust laws had jurisdiction, OPEC would probably be considered a "trust."

No, I don't work for an oil company or have investments in said companies (other than indirectly via an index fund).

Raw says

I have always believed the best solution is to slap an additional $5.00 per gallon tax on gasoline. Watch how fast alternative fuels become available.

Europe already does that. How's that working out?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/17/europe-biofuel-policy_n_1889992.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/eco-nomics/2012/05/04/ultra-green-europe-slow-to-buy-electric-vehicles/

The European response to high gas prices (mostly from tax) has been to go diesel. I am all for this. I love diesels. Our response would likely to shift to NGV though as it is cheap and abundant. I wouldn't be surprised if Europe follows suit as their NG market picks up.

Now how well do those panels work for overnight/rainy day charging?
Ohhh right...
Plenty of spinning reserves for overnight charging. AC loads are lower on rainy days.

EBGuy says

Plenty of spinning reserves for overnight charging.

I've heard of that too. Perhaps we wouldn't need that many more power plants if car charging was done at off-peak times.

Are there any studies out there on the issue?

EBGuy says

Now how well do those panels work for overnight/rainy day charging?

Ohhh right...

Plenty of spinning reserves for overnight charging. AC loads are lower on rainy days.

Which is my point. Home solar systems tend not to be as useful for EV use as most home charging of commuter vehicles will likely be done overnight. Plugging to a solar system at work would be better. Ideally ALL such charging would be done at work.

justme says

You would rather drive a car that COULD in THEORY be CO2 clean (but isn't)

than

Drive a car that _IS_ more CO2 clean than the "could-theoretically-be-clean" car that just is not, and will not be in the forseeable future.

I live in California, so actually, according to the Federal Government (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=bt2), the Leaf (120 g/mile) *is* more CO2 clean than the new Plug-in Prius (190 g/mile), or the regular Prius (222 g/mile).

New Renter says

Home solar systems tend not to be as useful for EV use as most home charging of commuter vehicles will likely be done overnight. Plugging to a solar system at work would be better. Ideally ALL such charging would be done at work.

Home solar systems generate power for the electric grid during peak-load daytime hours, thereby reducing the need to build additional power plants. Then, EV charging done at night draws power from the grid when it has excess capacity, effectively using the grid as a great big battery. So, home daytime solar generation and home night-time EV charging complement each other pretty well.

rohk says

I live in California, so actually, according to the Federal Government (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=bt2), the Leaf (120 g/mile) *is* more CO2 clean than the new Plug-in Prius (190 g/mile), or the regular Prius (222 g/mile).

I'm assuming the fueleconomy.gov site takes local/regional electrical plants into account? If you live in an area with mainly carbon-free electrical plants, EV's *are* eco-friendly.