4WD
$50 site donor 2024
Or thin film technology comes from an oil company … and now we move on to better batteries …
I submit that an EV is a fossil fuel vehicle when charged off the US grid
- Thread starter LoneRanger
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted by Burt
Your article looks assumes EV's are charged by rolled-in average generation, not generation on the margin.
That could be said about any usage of electricity that is being argued against couldn't it? Cut out any kind of consumption and the "margin" becomes smaller.
but it's not even true here. EVs store energy so they can be charged from opportunistic sources such as non-grid connected solar or wind or at nighttime from baseload power plants.
Your article looks assumes EV's are charged by rolled-in average generation, not generation on the margin.
That could be said about any usage of electricity that is being argued against couldn't it? Cut out any kind of consumption and the "margin" becomes smaller.
but it's not even true here. EVs store energy so they can be charged from opportunistic sources such as non-grid connected solar or wind or at nighttime from baseload power plants.
Are you avoiding power tools, cordless tools, refrigeration, lighting, and cooling /heating, etc? Driving to Walmart to get a couple things. Plastics, which are now a huge problem. So why avoid ev's based on sometimes oil is used to make the electricity? The reason seems to be something else not liked about ev's.
Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Indeed it is a concern which is why EV batteries are being re-purposed for storage and manufacturers are slowing reducing the amount of heavy metals (Cobalt, Lithium). In any case the reality is that although these technologies many not be "green" they are "greener" than coal/oil etc.
Well first off, lithium is not a heavy metal. In fact it is the lightest of all metals.
Good point about the heavy metal comment. Thanks.
Originally Posted by kschachn
But after that, how do you reduce the use of lithium in a lithium-ion battery?
There was a graph around here showing how battery makers have been able to reduce the amount of lithium and/or cobalt in their BEV batteries.
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Indeed it is a concern which is why EV batteries are being re-purposed for storage and manufacturers are slowing reducing the amount of heavy metals (Cobalt, Lithium). In any case the reality is that although these technologies many not be "green" they are "greener" than coal/oil etc.
Well first off, lithium is not a heavy metal. In fact it is the lightest of all metals.
Good point about the heavy metal comment. Thanks.
Originally Posted by kschachn
But after that, how do you reduce the use of lithium in a lithium-ion battery?
There was a graph around here showing how battery makers have been able to reduce the amount of lithium and/or cobalt in their BEV batteries.
Last edited:
Climate change doesn't care what we do. It will do its own thing as it did for millions of years before us and will continue to do millions of years after we go extinct.
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted by zzyzzx
Still better then burning imported oil, assuming that we still do that.
Oil is mostly NE US and Florida
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/power-plants/?utm_term=.b586042245ea
It's quoted as less than 1/2 of a percent. My guess is that they're for peakers or for emergency use. When I worked at a natural gas plant, it could also burn oil, but it was only permitted to burn oil for 4 days out of the year and it never really did that unless there was a test to make sure it still worked. Basically the power plant could be shut down from the natural gas pipeline if it was a really cold day and the demand for gas was too high. In theory the plant could have switched to oil, but normally in the winter, the rate it was paid for electricity was much lower than the summer so it didn't make sense to burn oil so it just shut down.
Also in New england, there's no coal plants running now to make electricity. Mostly nuclear and gas. Some hydro and a little bit renewables, coal now is less than 1%. They may just not run in the winter where there's excess capacity. The demand for power is higher in the summer and one of the drawbacks of natural gas is that the power output decreases with temperature so natural gas plants make lots of power in the winter when it's not needed as much and not as much in the summer. Basically due to fixed air fuel ratios. Less oxygen in hot weather than cool weather.
Originally Posted by zzyzzx
Still better then burning imported oil, assuming that we still do that.
Oil is mostly NE US and Florida
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/power-plants/?utm_term=.b586042245ea
It's quoted as less than 1/2 of a percent. My guess is that they're for peakers or for emergency use. When I worked at a natural gas plant, it could also burn oil, but it was only permitted to burn oil for 4 days out of the year and it never really did that unless there was a test to make sure it still worked. Basically the power plant could be shut down from the natural gas pipeline if it was a really cold day and the demand for gas was too high. In theory the plant could have switched to oil, but normally in the winter, the rate it was paid for electricity was much lower than the summer so it didn't make sense to burn oil so it just shut down.
Also in New england, there's no coal plants running now to make electricity. Mostly nuclear and gas. Some hydro and a little bit renewables, coal now is less than 1%. They may just not run in the winter where there's excess capacity. The demand for power is higher in the summer and one of the drawbacks of natural gas is that the power output decreases with temperature so natural gas plants make lots of power in the winter when it's not needed as much and not as much in the summer. Basically due to fixed air fuel ratios. Less oxygen in hot weather than cool weather.
I don't have an EV...however, I did do a college project on a distributed electrical grid. Assuming the discussion is carbon footprint...
EVs benefit from "point of consumption" efficiencies, meaning that their fuel doesn't require additional fuel to be burned IOT get to the point of consumption.
EVs drawback is the significant carbon footprint generated by the mining, shipping and refining of a rare Earth element, and obviously the natural resources required for their initial construction.
EVs benefit from "point of consumption" efficiencies, meaning that their fuel doesn't require additional fuel to be burned IOT get to the point of consumption.
EVs drawback is the significant carbon footprint generated by the mining, shipping and refining of a rare Earth element, and obviously the natural resources required for their initial construction.
Originally Posted by Wolf359
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted by zzyzzx
Still better then burning imported oil, assuming that we still do that.
Oil is mostly NE US and Florida
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/power-plants/?utm_term=.b586042245ea
It's quoted as less than 1/2 of a percent. My guess is that they're for peakers or for emergency use. When I worked at a natural gas plant, it could also burn oil, but it was only permitted to burn oil for 4 days out of the year and it never really did that unless there was a test to make sure it still worked. Basically the power plant could be shut down from the natural gas pipeline if it was a really cold day and the demand for gas was too high. In theory the plant could have switched to oil, but normally in the winter, the rate it was paid for electricity was much lower than the summer so it didn't make sense to burn oil so it just shut down.
Also in New england, there's no coal plants running now to make electricity. Mostly nuclear and gas. Some hydro and a little bit renewables, coal now is less than 1%. They may just not run in the winter where there's excess capacity. The demand for power is higher in the summer and one of the drawbacks of natural gas is that the power output decreases with temperature so natural gas plants make lots of power in the winter when it's not needed as much and not as much in the summer. Basically due to fixed air fuel ratios. Less oxygen in hot weather than cool weather.
I read that New England buys a lot of hydro from Quebec and some new bill is being proposed to buy more while NatGas distribution has come to a halt.
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted by zzyzzx
Still better then burning imported oil, assuming that we still do that.
Oil is mostly NE US and Florida
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/power-plants/?utm_term=.b586042245ea
It's quoted as less than 1/2 of a percent. My guess is that they're for peakers or for emergency use. When I worked at a natural gas plant, it could also burn oil, but it was only permitted to burn oil for 4 days out of the year and it never really did that unless there was a test to make sure it still worked. Basically the power plant could be shut down from the natural gas pipeline if it was a really cold day and the demand for gas was too high. In theory the plant could have switched to oil, but normally in the winter, the rate it was paid for electricity was much lower than the summer so it didn't make sense to burn oil so it just shut down.
Also in New england, there's no coal plants running now to make electricity. Mostly nuclear and gas. Some hydro and a little bit renewables, coal now is less than 1%. They may just not run in the winter where there's excess capacity. The demand for power is higher in the summer and one of the drawbacks of natural gas is that the power output decreases with temperature so natural gas plants make lots of power in the winter when it's not needed as much and not as much in the summer. Basically due to fixed air fuel ratios. Less oxygen in hot weather than cool weather.
I read that New England buys a lot of hydro from Quebec and some new bill is being proposed to buy more while NatGas distribution has come to a halt.
Originally Posted by thastinger
I don't have an EV...however, I did do a college project on a distributed electrical grid. Assuming the discussion is carbon footprint...
EVs benefit from "point of consumption" efficiencies, meaning that their fuel doesn't require additional fuel to be burned IOT get to the point of consumption.
EVs drawback is the significant carbon footprint generated by the mining, shipping and refining of a rare Earth element, and obviously the natural resources required for their initial construction.
There are other expenses (dual purpose) associated with oil/gas as well but we're not allowed to speak of them on this forum.
I don't have an EV...however, I did do a college project on a distributed electrical grid. Assuming the discussion is carbon footprint...
EVs benefit from "point of consumption" efficiencies, meaning that their fuel doesn't require additional fuel to be burned IOT get to the point of consumption.
EVs drawback is the significant carbon footprint generated by the mining, shipping and refining of a rare Earth element, and obviously the natural resources required for their initial construction.
There are other expenses (dual purpose) associated with oil/gas as well but we're not allowed to speak of them on this forum.
Originally Posted by LoneRanger
Most of our power generation is from coal or natural gas in the US. Therefore, an electric vehicle isn't really purely "green." Charging it burns coal or natural gas. Not to mention the effect on the environment of lithium mining in developing nations.
Come on now, you are interfering with a level of fantasy among greenies that is borderline sexual by introducing logic and truth into the matter. In other words, you are whacking a hornet's nest with a broomstick! Lol!
Most of our power generation is from coal or natural gas in the US. Therefore, an electric vehicle isn't really purely "green." Charging it burns coal or natural gas. Not to mention the effect on the environment of lithium mining in developing nations.
Come on now, you are interfering with a level of fantasy among greenies that is borderline sexual by introducing logic and truth into the matter. In other words, you are whacking a hornet's nest with a broomstick! Lol!
.......
Last edited:
What is cleaner though a centralized power plant burning fossil fuels or leaving it up to a vehicle owner to ensure their vehicle is running perfect as possible and running "cleanly" I honestly don't know.
Originally Posted by wdn
Here in New Hampshire an electric car is a nuclear fission powered vehicle, not coal- or petroleum powered.
Disagree because I live in coastal NH and we have two power plants nearby that are either natural gas(from Nova Scotia) or fuel oil powered(Canadian import), wood chips(local) also nuclear plant (Seabrook) and also import power from Quebec into grid (hydro). I am 99% no coal though.
You don't really know where it comes from.
Here in New Hampshire an electric car is a nuclear fission powered vehicle, not coal- or petroleum powered.
Disagree because I live in coastal NH and we have two power plants nearby that are either natural gas(from Nova Scotia) or fuel oil powered(Canadian import), wood chips(local) also nuclear plant (Seabrook) and also import power from Quebec into grid (hydro). I am 99% no coal though.
You don't really know where it comes from.
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2007
- Messages
- 5,294
Originally Posted by wdn
Here in New Hampshire an electric car is a nuclear fission powered vehicle, not coal- or petroleum powered.
In which case that electric car's environmental impact footprint extends through the half-life of the fission waste product, yes?
Here in New Hampshire an electric car is a nuclear fission powered vehicle, not coal- or petroleum powered.
In which case that electric car's environmental impact footprint extends through the half-life of the fission waste product, yes?
In a sense I agree with you, since electricity is a commodity and you will use carbon if you use energy. The question really is, what is the alternative, and is it better in terms of cost and / or environmental impact.
After 20 years hybrids are now standing on their own, will EV be the same 15 years from now?
After 20 years hybrids are now standing on their own, will EV be the same 15 years from now?
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2007
- Messages
- 5,294
Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
LoneRanger, you bring up a great point.
One point of view is, the EV does not pollute; rather it is the generation of the electricity that powers the EV is the issue.
The same is true of turning on the lights in your house, running the AC, tv, etc. It ain't the car.
So if we want to address climate change, if we want to go green, we need to address the sources of energy as well as their uses.
Your thoughts?
I started this thread to start a discussion of the concept, but I don't have any solutions. Solar, hydro, and geo-thermal (not mentioned yet) seem to be, in my opinion, the most solid options for sustainable/renewable energy. Iceland does a lot of geo-thermal but is geographically well positioned to exploit it.
Please no one take away from this thread that I started it because I dislike EV's. I think they're cool. Currently impractical for most drivers and still a boutique product, but someday that may change. Even in this average midwestern town, I see more Tesla's than you'd expect, but I suspect they're owned by wealthy persons who also own a luxury ICE car or suv for when they need to hit the highway. Lately, I've spotted at least three Model 3's which may not be as wealthy of an owner, but I wonder if they have an ICE car or suv also in the garage for serious travel duty. I was looking at the Rivian pickup truck online just yesterday, mainly to see a competitor alternative to the but ugly Telsa cybertruck. I liked it, and apparently Ford Motor Company likes it as well, as they've invested half a billion dollars into the company. I like the Mustang Mach-E, but wish they'd not use the Mustang nameplate on it, because there is nothing Mustang about it, and they're using that name simply to draw attention to it. Smart move actually, as the Mustang nameplate stirs emotion with a lot of folks, being legendary as it is.
LoneRanger, you bring up a great point.
One point of view is, the EV does not pollute; rather it is the generation of the electricity that powers the EV is the issue.
The same is true of turning on the lights in your house, running the AC, tv, etc. It ain't the car.
So if we want to address climate change, if we want to go green, we need to address the sources of energy as well as their uses.
Your thoughts?
I started this thread to start a discussion of the concept, but I don't have any solutions. Solar, hydro, and geo-thermal (not mentioned yet) seem to be, in my opinion, the most solid options for sustainable/renewable energy. Iceland does a lot of geo-thermal but is geographically well positioned to exploit it.
Please no one take away from this thread that I started it because I dislike EV's. I think they're cool. Currently impractical for most drivers and still a boutique product, but someday that may change. Even in this average midwestern town, I see more Tesla's than you'd expect, but I suspect they're owned by wealthy persons who also own a luxury ICE car or suv for when they need to hit the highway. Lately, I've spotted at least three Model 3's which may not be as wealthy of an owner, but I wonder if they have an ICE car or suv also in the garage for serious travel duty. I was looking at the Rivian pickup truck online just yesterday, mainly to see a competitor alternative to the but ugly Telsa cybertruck. I liked it, and apparently Ford Motor Company likes it as well, as they've invested half a billion dollars into the company. I like the Mustang Mach-E, but wish they'd not use the Mustang nameplate on it, because there is nothing Mustang about it, and they're using that name simply to draw attention to it. Smart move actually, as the Mustang nameplate stirs emotion with a lot of folks, being legendary as it is.
Originally Posted by CT8
People are mostly easy to fool.. The pollution is over the mountain range so the pollution doesn't exist
They are not fooled, this is actually an NIMBY feature.
People are mostly easy to fool.. The pollution is over the mountain range so the pollution doesn't exist
They are not fooled, this is actually an NIMBY feature.
Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Indeed it is a concern which is why EV batteries are being re-purposed for storage and manufacturers are slowing reducing the amount of heavy metals (Cobalt, Lithium). In any case the reality is that although these technologies many not be "green" they are "greener" than coal/oil etc.
Well first off, lithium is not a heavy metal. In fact it is the lightest of all metals.
But after that, how do you reduce the use of lithium in a lithium-ion battery?
I ran into a battery researcher (post doc) in one of my prev job. She said we will never have a lithium crisis as by then we will move to sodium, at least for stationary power storage, if needed. The biggest problem is still economy of scale and cost of production. Even cobalt is not a problem if the demand is big and people moving research money into cobalt alternative / reduced / free formula.
That said, we'll never be 100% EV but if we can focus EV on the most used route and miles, that'll be a very good bang for the buck for reducing our total oil consumption and energy use, like what hybrid is doing for us right now.
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Indeed it is a concern which is why EV batteries are being re-purposed for storage and manufacturers are slowing reducing the amount of heavy metals (Cobalt, Lithium). In any case the reality is that although these technologies many not be "green" they are "greener" than coal/oil etc.
Well first off, lithium is not a heavy metal. In fact it is the lightest of all metals.
But after that, how do you reduce the use of lithium in a lithium-ion battery?
I ran into a battery researcher (post doc) in one of my prev job. She said we will never have a lithium crisis as by then we will move to sodium, at least for stationary power storage, if needed. The biggest problem is still economy of scale and cost of production. Even cobalt is not a problem if the demand is big and people moving research money into cobalt alternative / reduced / free formula.
That said, we'll never be 100% EV but if we can focus EV on the most used route and miles, that'll be a very good bang for the buck for reducing our total oil consumption and energy use, like what hybrid is doing for us right now.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by KrisZ
Climate change doesn't care what we do. It will do its own thing as it did for millions of years before us and will continue to do millions of years after we go extinct.
Yes, climate change is always occurring. Human activities are affecting climate change; accelerating global warming in "our greenhouse".
And yes, Mother Earth does not need us, we need Mother Earth.
Here's NASA's take:
NASA Climate Change Causes
Climate change doesn't care what we do. It will do its own thing as it did for millions of years before us and will continue to do millions of years after we go extinct.
Yes, climate change is always occurring. Human activities are affecting climate change; accelerating global warming in "our greenhouse".
And yes, Mother Earth does not need us, we need Mother Earth.
Here's NASA's take:
NASA Climate Change Causes
- Status
Similar threads
