[RABAUKE]

A few more inconvenient truths about EV CO2 emissions

Interesting article on CO2 produced to generate electricity for EV's and mpg equivalents.

http://driving.ca/auto-news/news/mot...-co2-emissions

[HXS]

Interesting indeed. This goes out to Tesla:

[tdott]

Yes I'm sure the University of Michigan is capable of producing an unbiased report.

Guess who they are funded by?

[Law]

The whole "Zero Emissions" tagline is a fraud.
Batteries don't grow on trees and in the US, the majority of electricity used to charge these batteries comes from non-renewable CO2 emitting fossil fuels.

65% of electricity in the United States is generated from CO2 emitting fossil fuels.

[RABAUKE]

Originally Posted by tdott

Yes I'm sure the University of Michigan is capable of producing an unbiased report.

Guess who they are funded by?

Perhaps, but I think the whole EV future has a number of hurdles that aren't being discussed openly. And for the record, the author of the story is an electrical engineer, he's been writing quite extensively on EVs over the last little while.

[wdb]

Originally Posted by tdott

Yes I'm sure the University of Michigan is capable of producing an unbiased report.

Guess who they are funded by?

The logical assumption would be car companies. All of which are rushing headlong towards electrification. So your point is?

[vinylengraver]

Originally Posted by Law

The whole "Zero Emissions" tagline is a fraud.
Batteries don't grow on trees and in the US, the majority of electricity used to charge these batteries comes from non-renewable CO2 emitting fossil fuels.

Even if they did grow on trees, you need energy to grow them. Think farms do not have any environmental impact?
Think again.
But seriously, I don't think anyone has any idea how much stress will this put on the grid... and as the need for more electricity reaches unsustainable levels, they will start burning whatever can be lit on fire to meet the demand... including all of the newly available fuel reserves. LOL

[RM7]

Originally Posted by vinylengraver

Even if they did grow on trees, you need energy to grow them. Think farms do not have any environmental impact?
Think again.
But seriously, I don't think anyone has any idea how much stress will this put on the grid... and as the need for more electricity reaches unsustainable levels, they will start burning whatever can be lit on fire to meet the demand... including all of the newly available fuel reserves. LOL

Don't see a problem with this gradually increasing, as compared to other sources like hydrogen where there is no infrastructure and where electrolysis, containing and delivering would cost insane amounts.

Everyone always forgets that we are pushing around huge super tankers, storing oil in depots, pushing it through refineries, trucking it out to gas stations in the middle of the ozarks and other places, all using fuel and materials built by fuel to do so. While some of this needs to happen for power plants that are run off of gas-turbines or other fossil fuels, we are wasting a lot of energy pushing this stuff out everywhere with the brute force of combustion engines. Future generations are going to look at old people like they are crazy when they tell them how you use to have to go to a "gas station" to fuel up your car, rather than just plug into the grid or whatever they are using.

And with all this in mind, the non-renewable energy source of choice for most urban areas these days are gas-turbine, they are easily scale-able, don't require much infrastructure, extremely reliable, and can capture upwards of 65% efficiency, past the 50% barrier that many thought was impossible just a few years ago. I know our city has them and I'd bet that many of yours do too.

This article reeks of fear-mongering and trying to pit people against electric cars due to irrational fears. Sure, EVs have a ways to go before they are practical for the masses, but they are already practical and working in some markets, which is light years more than 20 years ago. I visited a museum a few months ago that had some of the first automobiles and a lot of good literature to go along. The horse-people beople basically said the same things about autos and how the technology shouldn't be pursued because it was at such a low state of development. Some people are deathly afraid of EVs, but they are coming.

This article isn't even close to comparing apples to apples. I'd be interested to see it if it was, but no one really wants to seem to go there. Look at total CO2 required to produce each car. Look at total CO2 required to maintain each car. Look at total CO2 required to deliver fuel to each car and run each car. This article doesn't even come close to doing that.

[RABAUKE]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

Don't see a problem with this gradually increasing, as compared to other sources like hydrogen where there is no infrastructure and where electrolysis, containing and delivering would cost insane amounts.

Everyone always forgets that we are pushing around huge super tankers, storing oil in depots, pushing it through refineries, trucking it out to gas stations in the middle of the ozarks and other places, all using fuel and materials built by fuel to do so. While some of this needs to happen for power plants that are run off of gas-turbines or other fossil fuels, we are wasting a lot of energy pushing this stuff out everywhere with the brute force of combustion engines. Future generations are going to look at old people like they are crazy when they tell them how you use to have to go to a "gas station" to fuel up your car, rather than just plug into the grid or whatever they are using.

And with all this in mind, the non-renewable energy source of choice for most urban areas these days are gas-turbine, they are easily scale-able, don't require much infrastructure, extremely reliable, and can capture upwards of 65% efficiency, past the 50% barrier that many thought was impossible just a few years ago. I know our city has them and I'd bet that many of yours do too.

This article reeks of fear-mongering and trying to pit people against electric cars due to irrational fears. Sure, EVs have a ways to go before they are practical for the masses, but they are already practical and working in some markets, which is light years more than 20 years ago. I visited a museum a few months ago that had some of the first automobiles and a lot of good literature to go along. The horse-people beople basically said the same things about autos and how the technology shouldn't be pursued because it was at such a low state of development. Some people are deathly afraid of EVs, but they are coming.

This article isn't even close to comparing apples to apples. I'd be interested to see it if it was, but no one really wants to seem to go there. Look at total CO2 required to produce each car. Look at total CO2 required to maintain each car. Look at total CO2 required to deliver fuel to each car and run each car. This article doesn't even come close to doing that.

....and theres this

[RM7]

Originally Posted by RABAUKE

....and theres this

Which has nothing to do with what I was talking about...but hey, I guess that's the way we are playing it? Then there's this:

[NickyC]

That is just a boring, ugly looking car. Reminds me of some Toyota people who have given up on life drive.

[bimmer456]

Unless we put solar panels on everyone's home or apartment complex that completely replaces the use of fossil fuels, we will still be creating CO2 emissions. Most people who can charge at home will likely still be using the grid for years to come and many people live in apartments with no ability to charge at home so they will charge off the grid elsewhere if that ever becomes practical.

[BEM-S4]

This doesn't even address the nickel mining to go into batteries. That's a dirty, nasty business.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by BEM-S4

This doesn't even address the nickel mining to go into batteries. That's a dirty, nasty business.

Yeah, a friend on facebook posted a meme with a supposed nickle mine and then a "tar sands" underground well or something surrounded by trees and frolicking caribou. Did some research on the tar sands and no, huge big open pits decimating the country side. You can see it all on google earth. Not to say that mining for nickel is all that great, but it's easy to get caught up in these stupid memes and what someone says on facebook, rather than do the research yourself.

[BEM-S4]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

Yeah, a friend on facebook posted a meme with a supposed nickle mine and then a "tar sands" underground well or something surrounded by trees and frolicking caribou. Did some research on the tar sands and no, huge big open pits decimating the country side. You can see it all on google earth. Not to say that mining for nickel is all that great, but it's easy to get caught up in these stupid memes and what someone says on facebook, rather than do the research yourself.

https://www.theguardian.com/sustaina...share_btn_link

[Efthreeoh]

The real problem with EVs is gasoline. Gasoline and diesel fuel have the highest energy density of portable fuel (i.e. on-board vehicle energy storage). No battery electric vehicle can match the level of energy storage that an ICE vehicle can, and I doubt in any near-time future. If that breakthrough does come, it will be extremely far more expensive.

Gasoline and diesel fuel is the product of the the oil and gas industry, which also produce jet fuel. Hundreds of millions of people use commercial air flight every year to travel the globe. There is no near-term solution to converting commercial jetliners to a non-petroleum based fuel. As long as there is jet fuel there will be inexpensive gasoline and diesel.

What the automobile industry should work on is a more efficient conversion of gasoline and diesel into propulsion. A gas turbine/electric with capacitance electric energy storage would be an ideal step in that direction.

The problem is politicians stupidly believe in the globalwarmingclimatechange false-ism and therefore have basically banned the future of efficient combustion and any R&D to improve the combustion cycle and propulsion conversion methodology. They fund people like Elon Musk - one of the High Priests of globalwarmingclimatechange.

[zx10guy]

In addition, polymers are derived out of oil. So removing the fuel component out of the discussion, we'll never get away from oil at all.

Also, what do people plan to do with all the batteries produced that reach the end of their service life?

[RABAUKE]

Originally Posted by zx10guy

In addition, polymers are derived out of oil. So removing the fuel component out of the discussion, we'll never get away from oil at all.

Also, what do people plan to do with all the batteries produced that reach the end of their service life?

So this is the thing, there is no all or nothing solution to any of this. The folks who are running eyes closed towards EV's as the solution don't seem to see the inherent problems that will have to be overcome with the increased burden on the grid, charging times, recharging while on the road and as this article points out the actual environmental impact of building all cars, but the new issues with the production of battery packs for EV's. Having said that the current notion of ICE's also has lots of issues, but there has been a 100 years of development that have made them cleaner and more fuel efficient. I frankly think that hybrids are a more likely solution for the next 20-50 years as they solve problems on both sides of the argument.

[wdb]

Originally Posted by RABAUKE

So this is the thing, there is no all or nothing solution to any of this. [...] I frankly think that hybrids are a more likely solution for the next 20-50 years as they solve problems on both sides of the argument.

I think that *most* personal transportation needs can be met with full electric cars. Most trips are short enough. Battery tech is starting to get pretty interesting as well and I expect some substantial breakthroughs there in the next 5 years or so. And, let's not forget how long it took us to get where we are with internal combustion! But there is still the inconvenience of long charge times when one is talking about longer trips, and that is where hybrid tech will continue to look good.

Oh and the original theme of this thread is "fake news". Sorta. This article calculates the break-even point for a 100KWh Tesla battery at 3 years minimum, 6 years max. Most interesting to me is that a huge part of the calc in *every* case is how the electricity is generated.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/artic...ter#gs.2_p9dB8

[Questofthetune]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

The real problem with EVs is gasoline. Gasoline and diesel fuel have the highest energy density of portable fuel (i.e. on-board vehicle energy storage). No battery electric vehicle can match the level of energy storage that an ICE vehicle can, and I doubt in any near-time future. If that breakthrough does come, it will be extremely far more expensive.

Gasoline and diesel fuel is the product of the the oil and gas industry, which also produce jet fuel. Hundreds of millions of people use commercial air flight every year to travel the globe. There is no near-term solution to converting commercial jetliners to a non-petroleum based fuel. As long as there is jet fuel there will be inexpensive gasoline and diesel.

What the automobile industry should work on is a more efficient conversion of gasoline and diesel into propulsion. A gas turbine/electric with capacitance electric energy storage would be an ideal step in that direction.

The problem is politicians stupidly believe in the globalwarmingclimatechange false-ism and therefore have basically banned the future of efficient combustion and any R&D to improve the combustion cycle and propulsion conversion methodology. They fund people like Elon Musk - one of the High Priests of globalwarmingclimatechange.

Dude, there is absolutely climate shannanigans going down. I live in SFL and half my family in key west. They have repeatedly mentioned how they see things slowly getting worse decade by decade.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Questofthetune

Dude, there is absolutely climate shannanigans going down. I live in SFL and half my family in key west. They have repeatedly mentioned how they see things slowly getting worse decade by decade.

What does that mean, worse decade by decade? And compared to what?

[RM7]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

No battery electric vehicle can match the level of energy storage that an ICE vehicle can, and I doubt in any near-time future. If that breakthrough does come, it will be extremely far more expensive.

For a large number of drivers, it doesn't have to equal it, it just has to be at a practical level, which it has gotten to with the Model S and the other Teslas. I would argue that the Nissan Leafs and other similar vehicles constrain a far smaller cross-section of potential buyers, but at the Model S ranges, it is practical enough for quite a variety of drivers. There are other solutions too, like switching batteries and so on. Technology is moving forward, taking some people kicking and screaming. I may have just invested in a V8 monster , but this technology is moving forward and it is practical for many people right now, it will only continue to improve.