"EV naysayers are getting smaller in numbers"

Status
Not open for further replies.
I generally believe the premise that well to wheels is better for ev on an energy basis, because single large scale power generation offers thermal efficiency and pollution mitigation benefits, even if from coal.

I'm not as sold on the energy density claims. It is not good to charge too fast. And batteries have poor density compared to liquid fuels.

Which is why I'm pro HEV and PHEV, anti-EV.
 
Originally Posted By: PimTac
Italian link? Nope.


It isn't an Italian website. "Flip-it" is a constant, realtime newsfeed for Android users.
 
Originally Posted By: wemay
Originally Posted By: PimTac
Italian link? Nope.


It isn't an Italian website. "Flip-it" is a constant, realtime newsfeed for Android users.


Ah I see. I was redirected on the iPhone.
 
How clean an EV is really depends on how much coal is burned to get the kWH (or BTU, joules, whatever energy units you want) of electricity.
California has very clean electricity, where only about 4% is from coal.
Colorado, by contrast, has 55% from coal, I think the worst in the U.S.

Interesting how China is very dirty, with 72% of their electricity from coal, making it not a great idea to run an EV in China!
France generates very clean electricity, using nuclear at 72%, so an EV is awesome in France.

Natural gas burning has about half the carbon footprint as burning coal (per energy unit), so its better to use.

Bottom line: Get away from coal, and EV's look cleaner and cleaner.....
 
Interesting. For some EVs are all about saving the planet, for others they're about saving money, with saving the planet a bonus. In a month I'm going to start a 70 mile round-trip commute and have been looking at vehicle options, with the RAV getting 30-32 mpg and paid for none of the EV variants make economic sense in a reasonable time frame at current gas prices.

Would you green guys drive an EV if the operating costs are the same but the carbon footprint is notably less?
 
Originally Posted By: AZjeff
Interesting. For some EVs are all about saving the planet, for others they're about saving money, with saving the planet a bonus. In a month I'm going to start a 70 mile round-trip commute and have been looking at vehicle options, with the RAV getting 30-32 mpg and paid for none of the EV variants make economic sense in a reasonable time frame at current gas prices.

Would you green guys drive an EV if the operating costs are the same but the carbon footprint is notably less?



It doesn't make sense because you current vehicle gets fairly decent gas millage and it's paid for. So-you are going to use (roughly) 4 gallons a gas a day. However-there was someone on another thread who stated he was leasing a BMW i3 for a 105.00 a month.

here is an example-
https://forum.leasehackr.com/t/lease-a-b...d-for-may/11153

However-I'm not sure what the yearly millage allowance is-or what incentives are available where you live.
 
Last edited:
Exactly...they're skirting those taxes. They're using the roads just as much but not paying to help maintain them.
 
Originally Posted By: Danno
As EVs gain in popularity, how long before local and state govts look at revenue lost in gasoline taxes?


That's how it always works isn't it, they have already put in that "hybrid tax" to make up for hybrid drivers not paying their fair share of gas taxes. It's only a matter of time.

I personally have no interest in driving a coal powered car, and I don't think we can actually call Nuclear "clean" since we are left with the toxic waste. Please correct me if I am wrong.
 
Originally Posted By: AZjeff
Interesting. For some EVs are all about saving the planet, for others they're about saving money, with saving the planet a bonus. In a month I'm going to start a 70 mile round-trip commute and have been looking at vehicle options, with the RAV getting 30-32 mpg and paid for none of the EV variants make economic sense in a reasonable time frame at current gas prices.

Would you green guys drive an EV if the operating costs are the same but the carbon footprint is notably less?


If I had to commute 70 miles a day, Id consider 30-32 MPG pretty lousy, even at current gas prices. Others may have different opinions.

Assuming gas is $2.50/gal, the difference between 30 and 45 MPG driven 70 mi daily for 50 weeks per year is just under $500, FWIW. Its true that as vehicles do better and better on fuel, the benefits are diminishing, and especially if a vehicle is paid off, it makes zero sense to change until the time comes. However, long-haul driving isnt necessarily the target of EVs for certain, and while PHEV and HEVs do well in those conditions, the reality goes back to energy density and using the fuel.

But add in traffic, stop and go, etc., and 30-32 falls quick, while the HEV rises rapidly.

Which is precisely why there is no one size fits all, and why pure EVs make no sense unless they at least have a small coupled genset (e.g. the BMW i3 if it was implemented properly and not hindered by the US laws), and even then are questionable!
 
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
How clean an EV is really depends on how much coal is burned to get the kWH (or BTU, joules, whatever energy units you want) of electricity.
California has very clean electricity, where only about 4% is from coal.
Colorado, by contrast, has 55% from coal, I think the worst in the U.S.

Interesting how China is very dirty, with 72% of their electricity from coal, making it not a great idea to run an EV in China!
France generates very clean electricity, using nuclear at 72%, so an EV is awesome in France.

Natural gas burning has about half the carbon footprint as burning coal (per energy unit), so its better to use.

Bottom line: Get away from coal, and EV's look cleaner and cleaner.....


IMO its all about how you set up the plant. Im sure there's data to help sway this one way or another, but my initial opinions are as follows:

- NG may be plentiful and domestic, but it still needs cleanup in some cases to avoid sulfur and NOx emissions. Plus its not particularly useful currently for a road fuel for the common person.

- Oil (crude) needs a lot of added energy to be cleaned sufficiently to be a "clean" road fuel or power generation fuel. 15ppm ULSD costs some premium to make, has benefits and disadvantages. Plants may be able to get away without low sulfur feeds if they can "treat" their exhaust on the way out.

- Coal can have a lot of sulfur and create a lot of soot, but it too can be treated at the stack.

So the question becomes, given the energy required to clean up liquid fuels, and the post treatment (regardless of if used to charge EVs or operate in IC vehicle engines), is it cleaner and cheaper to do it in a large-scale centralized process, or locally at point of use?

There are pros and cons to each.

So then one has to pick their bogeyman. Is it Sulfur? Is it Nox? Is it soot? Is it CO2? Is it nuclear waste and/or meltdown?

And which are avoidable/preventable without huge economic upset?

Seems that the clean coal bit may still have useful legs, so long as Nuke is a NIMBY issue, and NG is best served for heating and cooking point of use in homes, because it is clean and manageable. Nobody advocates going back to coal fired water heaters and kitchen stoves...

An EV is awesome when renewables can be fully absorbed as they are produced. I wouldnt call an EV off of nuke any more or less awesome than one charged by coal. They both have their long-term downsides. Assuming that renewables are positive energy balance and can be made with clean industrial processes, they are attractive, IMO.

The challenge with renewables is if YOU own them on your home, youre not likely home during the day to use solar. So the direct, DIY charge is not in play. Feed the grid and other intermediate storage and stability issues come into play, which cause their own problems.

Its a complex issue thats for sure.
 
Nay.

The advocates of EV's are always talking about how good for the planet, and leave out one detail: how useful the car is compared to gasoline and diesel cars. And the answer is, not very. Normal automobile users will not be willing to put up with the limitations of EV's after they try them out for a couple of months. Never mind the sweetheart lease deals on new EV's, and being able to recharge them during off-peak hours. Those are just gimmicks to prime the pump of demand. But once a critical mass of EV's are on the road, taxing authorities will be looking to get their road-use taxes, and electric companies will raise "off-peak" rates because there will no longer be an "off-peak" demand. Then more generating capacity will have to be built, and electricity prices will go up for everybody. 270 million internal combustion cars cannot be replaced with 270 million electric cars without trading one set of problems for another. The net long-term gain to society would work out to be ZERO.
 
Last edited:
Except the U.S. doesn't have an abundance of generation plants that would be able to carry the load of mass EV number.
 
What about the environmental impact of the batteries? Raw materials and then to recycle them when they are past their useful life?
 
OK, if we believe that recycling is good (?), as I do. Then the real equation of interest should be vehicle and fuel consumed - petrol vs EV for the life of the vehicle including break down and recycling.

Let's say the goal is 500,000 miles per chassis. For "rust belters", that means buying rust free used cars in the South and SW and running them to the goal (stage 1 recycling). For the rest of us it means running to the goal.

What is the total cost of production/destruction and use for each?

Right now, rust belters are throwing away chassis that have sustained environmental damage while they still run ... Ditto, ocean-side dwellers. Would that change if it were a Tesla or a Leaf?

The real way to make EV's better is to rust proof them so they last longer and get better fuel consumption.

Right now, I suspect that for western folks who have large distances to cover more often, the sweet spot is plug-in Hybrids ...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top