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 madRiver
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.
Very little oil usage these days, but it's down from where it used to be. You're part of ISO-New England and they have a good chart of their fuel use although they don't really break out what mix of fuel used that's imported.
https://www.iso-ne.com/
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.
Very little oil usage these days, but it's down from where it used to be. You're part of ISO-New England and they have a good chart of their fuel use although they don't really break out what mix of fuel used that's imported.
https://www.iso-ne.com/
Originally Posted by LoneRanger
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?
Nuke plants are kind of hard to ramp up and down in power output. Electric cars can, and often do, charge after midnight when the grid has surplus power.
Nat gas plants rev up and down better.
We know where nuclear waste, and lithium waste, are. You can fit a lot of either in an acre.
CO2 goes off and warms the planet up, forever, and this also melts methane out of the Russian permafrost, changes sea currents, etc.
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?
Nuke plants are kind of hard to ramp up and down in power output. Electric cars can, and often do, charge after midnight when the grid has surplus power.
Nat gas plants rev up and down better.
We know where nuclear waste, and lithium waste, are. You can fit a lot of either in an acre.
CO2 goes off and warms the planet up, forever, and this also melts methane out of the Russian permafrost, changes sea currents, etc.
Nick1994
$100 site donor 2024
So, someone answer this for me.
If I have an electric car, and I plug it in to charge, is the power plant generating station polluting more now that I plugged in my car?
If I have an electric car, and I plug it in to charge, is the power plant generating station polluting more now that I plugged in my car?
Originally Posted by Nick1994
So, someone answer this for me.
If I have an electric car, and I plug it in to charge, is the power plant generating station polluting more now that I plugged in my car?
In theory yes. In the grand scheme of things it's a fraction of a percent though.
So, someone answer this for me.
If I have an electric car, and I plug it in to charge, is the power plant generating station polluting more now that I plugged in my car?
In theory yes. In the grand scheme of things it's a fraction of a percent though.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Btw..Solar panels have an unlimited lifespan. Their peak power may dwindle slightly but it's essentially negligible. Disposal issues are an issue of course.
I think that's more theory than fact. They age out to the point where they need replacing, if they didn't have issues with serious drops in output my local utility wouldn't have replaced more than 50% of their degraded panels at their 10MW solar farm. I'd hope they've improved on that front however.
Btw..Solar panels have an unlimited lifespan. Their peak power may dwindle slightly but it's essentially negligible. Disposal issues are an issue of course.
I think that's more theory than fact. They age out to the point where they need replacing, if they didn't have issues with serious drops in output my local utility wouldn't have replaced more than 50% of their degraded panels at their 10MW solar farm. I'd hope they've improved on that front however.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by LoneRanger
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?
Yes, factoring in storage, reprocessing or some other manner of dealing with used LWR fuel should be considered, but it doesn't have an environmental footprint associated with it really. There are no emissions.
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?
Yes, factoring in storage, reprocessing or some other manner of dealing with used LWR fuel should be considered, but it doesn't have an environmental footprint associated with it really. There are no emissions.
Originally Posted by Nick1994
So, someone answer this for me.
If I have an electric car, and I plug it in to charge, is the power plant generating station polluting more now that I plugged in my car?
Depends what kind of power you're using. As others said, there are base load plants. Those plants are on 24/7 like nuclear plants. You have other plants that are peakers that are only dispatched or ramped up when the demand is there. So it kinda depends on what time you plug in. If at night when there's no much demand for power, maybe most of the power is nuclear or gas. If it's nuclear or hydro, then no, you're not polluting more, but if it's gas or some other fuel like coal, then yes you are. Just depends on the gird in your area.
So, someone answer this for me.
If I have an electric car, and I plug it in to charge, is the power plant generating station polluting more now that I plugged in my car?
Depends what kind of power you're using. As others said, there are base load plants. Those plants are on 24/7 like nuclear plants. You have other plants that are peakers that are only dispatched or ramped up when the demand is there. So it kinda depends on what time you plug in. If at night when there's no much demand for power, maybe most of the power is nuclear or gas. If it's nuclear or hydro, then no, you're not polluting more, but if it's gas or some other fuel like coal, then yes you are. Just depends on the gird in your area.
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.
Moving emissions from one place to the other, nothing more.
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.
Moving emissions from one place to the other, nothing more.
Originally Posted by Burt
Refiners aren't large electricity users relative to the volume of oil they process. Please cite the basis for your statement.
Please cite the basis for saying Wisconsin is 90% hydro and coal
Hmm, a gallon of gas takes more energy to produce than even I thought
I didn't say Wisconsin , my local area had 100% of its power requirements met by a set of hydro plants and one old coal fired plant that ran only on the winter up through the 70's local population has not increased, local power demands are lower now than historically.
Now days The county I live in makes most of the power for the entire state
but historically that wasn't the case, definitely a case of not in my back yard.
The coal fired plants here are of zero benefit to the local grid just a tax burden since we only use about 2% of the power locally but get to pay for the construction
Refiners aren't large electricity users relative to the volume of oil they process. Please cite the basis for your statement.
Please cite the basis for saying Wisconsin is 90% hydro and coal
Hmm, a gallon of gas takes more energy to produce than even I thought
I didn't say Wisconsin , my local area had 100% of its power requirements met by a set of hydro plants and one old coal fired plant that ran only on the winter up through the 70's local population has not increased, local power demands are lower now than historically.
Now days The county I live in makes most of the power for the entire state
but historically that wasn't the case, definitely a case of not in my back yard.
The coal fired plants here are of zero benefit to the local grid just a tax burden since we only use about 2% of the power locally but get to pay for the construction
Originally Posted by Rmay635703
Originally Posted by Burt
Refiners aren't large electricity users relative to the volume of oil they process. Please cite the basis for your statement.
Please cite the basis for saying Wisconsin is 90% hydro and coal
Hmm, a gallon of gas takes more energy to produce than even I thought
I didn't say Wisconsin , my local area had 100% of its power requirements met by a set of hydro plants and one old coal fired plant that ran only on the winter up through the 70's local population has not increased, local power demands are lower now than historically.
Now days The county I live in makes most of the power for the entire state
but historically that wasn't the case, definitely a case of not in my back yard.
The coal fired plants here are of zero benefit to the local grid just a tax burden since we only use about 2% of the power locally but get to pay for the construction
8 kwh per gallon, Oh puhlease... At 8 kwh per gallon and 10 cents per kwh, that's 80 cents per gallon! And if oil is $60 per barrel, that's $1.25 per gallon for feedstock cost. So $2.05 per gallon before you add taxes, royalties, transportation, gas station margin and recovery of capital, income taxes and labor etc. You need to tell those silly oil companies that they are losing money big time on every gallon they sell!
Originally Posted by Burt
Refiners aren't large electricity users relative to the volume of oil they process. Please cite the basis for your statement.
Please cite the basis for saying Wisconsin is 90% hydro and coal
Hmm, a gallon of gas takes more energy to produce than even I thought
I didn't say Wisconsin , my local area had 100% of its power requirements met by a set of hydro plants and one old coal fired plant that ran only on the winter up through the 70's local population has not increased, local power demands are lower now than historically.
Now days The county I live in makes most of the power for the entire state
but historically that wasn't the case, definitely a case of not in my back yard.
The coal fired plants here are of zero benefit to the local grid just a tax burden since we only use about 2% of the power locally but get to pay for the construction
8 kwh per gallon, Oh puhlease... At 8 kwh per gallon and 10 cents per kwh, that's 80 cents per gallon! And if oil is $60 per barrel, that's $1.25 per gallon for feedstock cost. So $2.05 per gallon before you add taxes, royalties, transportation, gas station margin and recovery of capital, income taxes and labor etc. You need to tell those silly oil companies that they are losing money big time on every gallon they sell!
Last edited:
![[Linked Image from comicallyincorrect.com]](https://comicallyincorrect.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ev-credit-dt-600.jpg "[Linked Image from comicallyincorrect.com]")
Originally Posted by Trav
Moving emissions from one place to the other, nothing more.
EXACTLY. It's nothing but a big shell game..and what's worse is that the precious and rare raw materials like cobalt they need to make the EV batteries are in
many hostile countries to the west as well.
I've always considered the EV a huge con game.
Moving emissions from one place to the other, nothing more.
EXACTLY. It's nothing but a big shell game..and what's worse is that the precious and rare raw materials like cobalt they need to make the EV batteries are in
many hostile countries to the west as well.
I've always considered the EV a huge con game.
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Btw..Solar panels have an unlimited lifespan. Their peak power may dwindle slightly but it's essentially negligible. Disposal issues are an issue of course.
I think that's more theory than fact. They age out to the point where they need replacing, if they didn't have issues with serious drops in output my local utility wouldn't have replaced more than 50% of their degraded panels at their 10MW solar farm. I'd hope they've improved on that front however.
https://energyinformative.org/lifespan-solar-panels/
A good read. The rate of degradation might be more of an issue for solar farms rather than residences.
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Btw..Solar panels have an unlimited lifespan. Their peak power may dwindle slightly but it's essentially negligible. Disposal issues are an issue of course.
I think that's more theory than fact. They age out to the point where they need replacing, if they didn't have issues with serious drops in output my local utility wouldn't have replaced more than 50% of their degraded panels at their 10MW solar farm. I'd hope they've improved on that front however.
https://energyinformative.org/lifespan-solar-panels/
A good read. The rate of degradation might be more of an issue for solar farms rather than residences.
Last edited:
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
4-5 years ago I was shopping a new HVAC system.
Was hoping the highest efficiency system would get a tax break.
3 deals at the time: wind, solar, (inserts drum roll) hydrogen.
No luck.
Was hoping the highest efficiency system would get a tax break.
3 deals at the time: wind, solar, (inserts drum roll) hydrogen.
No luck.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Btw..Solar panels have an unlimited lifespan. Their peak power may dwindle slightly but it's essentially negligible. Disposal issues are an issue of course.
I think that's more theory than fact. They age out to the point where they need replacing, if they didn't have issues with serious drops in output my local utility wouldn't have replaced more than 50% of their degraded panels at their 10MW solar farm. I'd hope they've improved on that front however.
https://energyinformative.org/lifespan-solar-panels/
A good read. The rate of degradation might be more of an issue for solar farms rather than residences.
That's a pretty pro-solar site thought
This is another good read on the topic: https://www.computerworld.com/artic...rever-and-degradation-varies-wildly.html
Seems to be "it depends" and I think we'll see once these things get some age on them how they actually hold up. I'm sure climate plays a significant role.
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Btw..Solar panels have an unlimited lifespan. Their peak power may dwindle slightly but it's essentially negligible. Disposal issues are an issue of course.
I think that's more theory than fact. They age out to the point where they need replacing, if they didn't have issues with serious drops in output my local utility wouldn't have replaced more than 50% of their degraded panels at their 10MW solar farm. I'd hope they've improved on that front however.
https://energyinformative.org/lifespan-solar-panels/
A good read. The rate of degradation might be more of an issue for solar farms rather than residences.
That's a pretty pro-solar site thought
Seems to be "it depends" and I think we'll see once these things get some age on them how they actually hold up. I'm sure climate plays a significant role.
Don't get me wrong; I completely believe that there are benefits to "personal" photovoltaic systems if done properly (and not focused on charging your EV as its primary goal)... wiring it so that the system is able to supply the residence during times of grid power loss is great and will prevent much individual suffering and loss. But some of the interconnects make this difficult to impossible. Grid-tied systems do benefit the local power company, and in a small way the end owner (as JeffK has shared his results). Small wind turbines are likely a boost as well, as there is a private one amidst the wind farm on my way to work, and it is always humming away at probably 80-100rpm every time I see it. My problem is with the subsidies/tax breaks and handouts- if a technology is good enough to stand on its own merit, taxpayer dollars should not be required. Is that not the true basis for capitalism? Invent something, make it better and more inexpensively than others, provide a valuable good to the community, and then reap the benefits of your invention?
New technologies should not have to be forcibly implemented at the end of a carrot stick, which is alternately used to tease and terrorize those under it. Technology is about the only place where Darwinism really applies in my head- it should be survival of the fittest, and worthwhile ideas will evolve rapidly on their own until they are truly feasible on their own merits, and the weak ones shall perish and fade on their own.
New technologies should not have to be forcibly implemented at the end of a carrot stick, which is alternately used to tease and terrorize those under it. Technology is about the only place where Darwinism really applies in my head- it should be survival of the fittest, and worthwhile ideas will evolve rapidly on their own until they are truly feasible on their own merits, and the weak ones shall perish and fade on their own.
Originally Posted by Burt
Originally Posted by Rmay635703
Originally Posted by Burt
Refiners aren't large electricity users relative to the volume of oil they process. Please cite the basis for your statement.
Please cite the basis for saying Wisconsin is 90% hydro and coal
Hmm, a gallon of gas takes more energy to produce than even I thought
I didn't say Wisconsin , my local area had 100% of its power requirements met by a set of hydro plants and one old coal fired plant that ran only on the winter up through the 70's local population has not increased, local power demands are lower now than historically.
Now days The county I live in makes most of the power for the entire state
but historically that wasn't the case, definitely a case of not in my back yard.
The coal fired plants here are of zero benefit to the local grid just a tax burden since we only use about 2% of the power locally but get to pay for the construction
8 kwh per gallon, Oh puhlease... At 8 kwh per gallon and 10 cents per kwh, that's 80 cents per gallon! And if oil is $60 per barrel, that's $1.25 per gallon for feedstock cost. So $2.05 per gallon before you add taxes, royalties, transportation, gas station margin and recovery of capital, income taxes and labor etc. You need to tell those silly oil companies that they are losing money big time on every gallon they sell!
Explains the $20b in oil subsidies
Source...
In a 2008 report, Argonne National Lab estimated that the efficiency for producing gasoline of an "average" U.S. petroleum refinery is between 84% and 88% [1. Wang, M. (2008), " (www.transportation.anl.gov) Estimation of Energy Efficiencies of U.S. Petroleum Refineries," Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory], and Oak Ridge National Lab reports that the net energy content of oil is approximately 132,000 Btu per gallon [1. Davis, S., Susan W. Diegel, and Robert G. Boundy (2009), Transportation Energy Data Book, edition 28, National Transportation Research Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory].
It is commonly known that a barrel of crude oil generate approximately 45 gallons of refined product (refer to NAS, 2009, (www.nap.edu) Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use, The National Academies Press, Table 3-4 for a publication stating so).
Thus, using an 85% refinery efficiency and the aforementioned conversion factors, it can be estimated that about 21,000 Btu -- the equivalent of 6 kWh -- of energy are lost per gallon of gasoline refined:
Originally Posted by Rmay635703
Originally Posted by Burt
Refiners aren't large electricity users relative to the volume of oil they process. Please cite the basis for your statement.
Please cite the basis for saying Wisconsin is 90% hydro and coal
Hmm, a gallon of gas takes more energy to produce than even I thought
I didn't say Wisconsin , my local area had 100% of its power requirements met by a set of hydro plants and one old coal fired plant that ran only on the winter up through the 70's local population has not increased, local power demands are lower now than historically.
Now days The county I live in makes most of the power for the entire state
but historically that wasn't the case, definitely a case of not in my back yard.
The coal fired plants here are of zero benefit to the local grid just a tax burden since we only use about 2% of the power locally but get to pay for the construction
8 kwh per gallon, Oh puhlease... At 8 kwh per gallon and 10 cents per kwh, that's 80 cents per gallon! And if oil is $60 per barrel, that's $1.25 per gallon for feedstock cost. So $2.05 per gallon before you add taxes, royalties, transportation, gas station margin and recovery of capital, income taxes and labor etc. You need to tell those silly oil companies that they are losing money big time on every gallon they sell!
Explains the $20b in oil subsidies
Source...
In a 2008 report, Argonne National Lab estimated that the efficiency for producing gasoline of an "average" U.S. petroleum refinery is between 84% and 88% [1. Wang, M. (2008), " (www.transportation.anl.gov) Estimation of Energy Efficiencies of U.S. Petroleum Refineries," Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory], and Oak Ridge National Lab reports that the net energy content of oil is approximately 132,000 Btu per gallon [1. Davis, S., Susan W. Diegel, and Robert G. Boundy (2009), Transportation Energy Data Book, edition 28, National Transportation Research Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory].
It is commonly known that a barrel of crude oil generate approximately 45 gallons of refined product (refer to NAS, 2009, (www.nap.edu) Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use, The National Academies Press, Table 3-4 for a publication stating so).
Thus, using an 85% refinery efficiency and the aforementioned conversion factors, it can be estimated that about 21,000 Btu -- the equivalent of 6 kWh -- of energy are lost per gallon of gasoline refined:
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
My problem is with the subsidies/tax breaks and handouts- if a technology is good enough to stand on its own merit, taxpayer dollars should not be required. Is that not the true basis for capitalism? Invent something, make it better and more inexpensively than others, provide a valuable good to the community, and then reap the benefits of your invention?
New technologies should not have to be forcibly implemented at the end of a carrot stick, which is alternately used to tease and terrorize those under it. Technology is about the only place where Darwinism really applies in my head- it should be survival of the fittest, and worthwhile ideas will evolve rapidly on their own until they are truly feasible on their own merits, and the weak ones shall perish and fade on their own.
In a perfect world, yes. In the real world, we have to have leaders. Subsidies can enable progress. An imperfect solution for an imperfect world.
In sunny CA, new housing developments are required to have solar panels (there are exemptions such as wooded areas with little sunlight). The incremental cost is minimal due to economy of scale.
The net benefit is huge. Imagine entire communities using solar energy from the get go...
My problem is with the subsidies/tax breaks and handouts- if a technology is good enough to stand on its own merit, taxpayer dollars should not be required. Is that not the true basis for capitalism? Invent something, make it better and more inexpensively than others, provide a valuable good to the community, and then reap the benefits of your invention?
New technologies should not have to be forcibly implemented at the end of a carrot stick, which is alternately used to tease and terrorize those under it. Technology is about the only place where Darwinism really applies in my head- it should be survival of the fittest, and worthwhile ideas will evolve rapidly on their own until they are truly feasible on their own merits, and the weak ones shall perish and fade on their own.
In a perfect world, yes. In the real world, we have to have leaders. Subsidies can enable progress. An imperfect solution for an imperfect world.
In sunny CA, new housing developments are required to have solar panels (there are exemptions such as wooded areas with little sunlight). The incremental cost is minimal due to economy of scale.
The net benefit is huge. Imagine entire communities using solar energy from the get go...
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
