patrick.net

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.

rohk says

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.

How difficult is it to get a home solar system tied to the grid? I see some kits online for this but I've been told utility companies don't like these systems. On-Grid home power generators can be a safety issue when performing maintenance on the local grid. There is also the issue of matching the AC profile of the solar output to the grid.

Oh no, another duck! : )

FYI Duck goes quite well with Yam.

New Renter says

I've been told utility companies don't like these systems. On-Grid home power generators can be a safety issue when performing maintenance on the local grid.

A problem easily solvable with an automatic switch. I.E. - during a power outage situation, you want your home grid to disconnect from the utility so that you aren't potentially backfeeding then.

freak80 says

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.

Sorry, but using "local" grid numbers is not correct. The grid is widely interconnected, and soon will be completely interconnected across ALL of North America(*). It is faulty to think that one can use the argument that "my locally generated power is greener than the average grid mix".

(*) The final tie in the North American grid is described here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tres_Amigas_SuperStation

So rohk, this is another case of you imagining that your electric car is cleaner than it is. Our government is unfortunately in on the scam, trying to rig the numbers to make things look better than they are.

freak80 says

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).

I just don't like oil companies
They pollute...lie...cheat....control our politicians....influence the voters....collude with other oil companies....take government subsidies....make enormous profits and pay little or no tax.
And most of all...Rape mother earth.

Be that may but any kind of a modern lifestyle is much harder to impossible to achieve without them.

New Renter says

Be that may but any kind of a modern lifestyle is much harder to impossible to achieve without them.

For now.
The future holds a clean and pollution free world.

Raw says

New Renter says

Be that may but any kind of a modern lifestyle is much harder to impossible to achieve without them.

For now.

The future holds a clean and pollution free world.

Or an overheated hellhole where the rising sea levels have put all coastal communites literally underwater.

New Renter says

Or an overheated hellhole where the rising sea levels have put all coastal communites literally underwater.

That's the scenario I'm betting on.

Our endless "one-upmanship" will ultimately bring about our extinction.

Seems fair.

justme says

It is faulty to think that one can use the argument that "my locally generated power is greener than the average grid mix".

I admit, the workings of "the grid" are totally beyond my circle of competence.

With alternating current, a lot of the "common sense" goes out the window.

justme,
Sure, we're all interconnected now, but note that one benefit of Tres Amigas is to make it easier to ramp up production of renewable electricity.
@freak80 -- Tres Amigas is actually a high voltage DC interconnection (as the three amigas that it connects are AC islands that aren't synchronized with each other).

EBGuy says

Tres Amigas is actually a high voltage DC interconnection (as the three amigas that it connects are AC islands that aren't synchronized with each other).

Those guys were *never* synchronized with each other.

EBGuy says

justme,
Sure, we're all interconnected now, but note that one benefit of Tres Amigas is to make it easier to ramp up production of renewable electricity.

I'm not disagreeing. I'm all in favor of full connectivity, as I think should be obvious.

But note that the Tres Amigas interconnection can be used in detrimental ways as well.

For example, whenever east-cost coal-fired electricity is cheaper than west-coast natgas-fired electricity, Tres Amigas can be used to INCREASE the gCO2/kWh by purchasing and transferring electricity from the east cost and transferring to the west coast, all the while reducing output from west coast natgas plants. Basically the grid mix can be made WORSE if someone has economic incentive to do it. For sure, grid mix can be regulated by law, but who knows whether and how that might happen in practice.

Only one thing is certain: Tres Amigas creates a truly national market for electricity, and it will no longer be possible for anyone to claim that "the electricity *I* use is greener than what other people use".