Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would agree. Probably our best option right now is improving the all-electric range of plug-in hybrids to 50-100 miles. That would significantly reduce emissions since the median American commute is 41 miles a day. I would say an 80 mile electric range is the sweet spot. Then the gas engine takes over. That resolves the need for so many charging stations and doesn't overload on the electric grid as much, etc...
It looks like Toyota is moving that direction with the new Prius Prime. They claim it will have a significant improvement over the last Prius Prime in its all-electric range, supposedly 50% more which would be about 40-50 miles. They're not saying exactly how much yet.
Right now, car emissions are already at the lowest levels compared to the 60-80s. CO2 emissions is overblown. As usual Europe and America forces adoption of clean air policies while the rest of the world is allowed to pollute. CO2 is not harmful as long as enough plant life to convert to oxygen. The danger is harmful gases like methane, chemical agents, and coal.
Yet, Germany has to burn coal right now because of methane shortage. News outlets are not reporting this environmental issue enough. The whole EV movement is all for selling EVs and not helping the environment one bit.
Cobalt mining is one of the worst humanitarian and environmental catastrophe and we allow it to happen in Africa as long as companies get their cheap cobalt.
Right now, car emissions are already at the lowest levels compared to the 60-80s. CO2 emissions is overblown. As usual Europe and America forces adoption of clean air policies while the rest of the world is allowed to pollute. CO2 is not harmful as long as enough plant life to convert to oxygen. The danger is harmful gases like methane, chemical agents, and coal.
Yet, Germany has to burn coal right now because of methane shortage. News outlets are not reporting this environmental issue enough. The whole EV movement is all for selling EVs and not helping the environment one bit.
Cobalt mining is one of the worst humanitarian and environmental catastrophe and we allow it to happen in Africa as long as companies get their cheap cobalt.
I'm certainly not arguing with you on this. The goal is not to reduce pollution; it's to assuage guilt that we are an affluent society that produces and does well, while the rest of the world procreates and pollutes. The objective is soft lockdown, aside from people who can afford private drivers and private jets.
2 key issues that needs to be addressed the natural resource constraint to produce at scale and the power grid.
You forgot, as well, peak demands during heatwaves and windless, overcast conditions. Imagine trying to generate solar or wind in Anchorage or Fairbanks on days with no wind or light breezes?
I'm certainly not arguing with you on this. The goal is not to reduce pollution; it's to assuage guilt that we are an affluent society that produces and does well, while the rest of the world procreates and pollutes. The objective is soft lockdown, aside from people who can afford private drivers and private jets.
Its not a "gullt" or "feel good" reason to go electric.
The goal is absolutely to reduce local pollution by switching to electric cars, and cities will definitely see reductions in localized ozone and particulate concentrations. Most fossil fuel electrical generation is done far away from cities, so even in a zero-sum energy use scenario (ie no reduction of fossil fuel use) the cities will see fewer products of combustion in the air. Globally it changes little, and actually could be worse as using combustion to generate electricity is less efficient than direct combustion in an engine. However, this can be offset by transitioning away from fossil fuels to less polluting sources of energy (hydro, solar, wind, nuclear, etc).
And switching away from fossil fuels serves many other purposes, including preserving fossil fuels for use in other products like chemicals and plastics (rather than just burning them up), reducing interstate transport and infrastructure of large quantities of hazardous liquids and gasses, reducing need and dependencies of imported products (look at how Eastern Europe is held over a barrel by Russia), etc. Also, electric motors are simpler in design than combustion engines, smoother and quieter to operate, and can provide more speed, torque, etc than similar combustion engines.
As we have developed an infrastructure and process to drill thousands of feet deep to collect crude, transport oil from halfway around the word, refine it into highly combustible gasoline, ship the hazardous product it thousands of miles by pipeline and truck in the US, store it locally in hundreds of thousands of gas stations, load the hazardous liquid in millions of cars, many stored inside garages attached to people's homes - I would say that EV process and infrastructure seems incredibly simpler overall.
As we have developed an infrastructure and process to drill thousands of feet deep to collect crude, transport oil from halfway around the word, refine it into highly combustible gasoline, ship the hazardous product it thousands of miles by pipeline and truck in the US, store it locally in hundreds of thousands of gas stations, load the hazardous liquid in millions of cars, many stored inside garages attached to people's homes - I would say that EV process and infrastructure seems incredibly simpler overall.
Even though we disagree, it's a well-written post. Part of a "Great Debate."
Where we part is the utility of changing from one functioning, imperfect system to another. We have no idea what problems we are creating, and may pine for the days of ICE's. For example, I have seen some real ugly, nature-destroying wind farms in upstate New York and Vermont. Some "environmentalists" are blaming them for whale deaths, though that logic sounds "fishy." Down in my part of NYS they are having terrible problems decommissioning the Indian Point plant. Lots of ideology, no pragmatism.
Even though we disagree, it's a well-written post. Part of a "Great Debate."
Where we part is the utility of changing from one functioning, imperfect system to another. We have no idea what problems we are creating, and may pine for the days of ICE's. For example, I have seen some real ugly, nature-destroying wind farms in upstate New York and Vermont. Some "environmentalists" are blaming them for whale deaths, though that logic sounds "fishy." Down in my part of NYS they are having terrible problems decommissioning the Indian Point plant. Lots of ideology, no pragmatism.
Still, kudos for writing a great post.
One of the long range keys of going EV is that there is a greater opportunity to "go local" in providing an energy source to power our vehicles. Interruptions in oil or gas supply to nearly all communities have no alternate backup, short of keeping personal storage tanks. Electricity can be sourced through alternate methods, including off the grid from renewable processes.
The near-term conversion to EVs, though, is being driven by primarily by vehicle design and performance. People will drive them because they are better to own and drive (in many ways) than comparable gas powered vehicles. Acceleration, reduced maintenance, drivability, low fuel cost, high tech driver experience, and cachet are today's selling points. Cost, range, and ease of recharging are its current limitations, and all will improve over time.
qualified by "in your vehicle." A great knock in ICE is the inefficiency. It's approximately equal to the inefficiency of a coal-fired power plant. So you have simply moved it up stream. Not sure how you would overcome that in the long run.
But in any case - assuming things improve, the grid, the power, the price, etc. - the main argument is the mandate - not the concept. I love the idea of EV. I hate being told what to love.
If the entire USA switched to EV tomorrow - total global daily emissions would drop by...what? 2%? Less? Add in the increased coal burn...and did we help at all? Maybe we're making it worse - it's THAT CLOSE.
qualified by "in your vehicle." A great knock in ICE is the inefficiency. It's approximately equal to the inefficiency of a coal-fired power plant. So you have simply moved it up stream. Not sure how you would overcome that in the long run.
But in any case - assuming things improve, the grid, the power, the price, etc. - the main argument is the mandate - not the concept. I love the idea of EV. I hate being told what to love.
If the entire USA switched to EV tomorrow - total global daily emissions would drop by...what? 2%? Less? Add in the increased coal burn...and did we help at all? Maybe we're making it worse - it's THAT CLOSE.
Too soon for mandates.
Why too soon? It's 12 years away, and once implemented it could be still another 10 years or so after that before even 50% of the vehicles on the road are replaced by EVs, based on the current median age of vehicles.
No one likes being told what to love, but I guarantee the car companies want to make their EV business profitable and in order to do that they have to make them desirable to the public.
And as far as increasing coal burn, the US in the last 12 years (not coincidentally) has reduced coal burning by 50%, and that trend is expected to continue. It is more profitable and efficient to use renewables or natural gas (with its own problems), but not the dirtier-burning coal. So there's that.
As I stated earlier, EVs are not by themselves going to solve the global problem of fossil fuel pollution if fossil fuels are still used in electric generation, but they WILL reduce local pollution in cities where gas powered vehicles predominate, and WILL reduce pollution when (at least some) source power is not generated by fossil fuel burning. Today, 40% of the power on the grid is not generated from fossil fuels. If electricity demand rises, as long as it doesn't continue to rise such that fossil fuel percentage doesn't exceed roughly 80% or so (from current 60%) for a "full fleet" of EVs, there should still be a net reduction in total fossil fuel use with EVs (accounting for changes in efficiencies associated with power generation and distribution compared with efficiencies associated internal combustion engines along with gasoline production and distribution, my guesstimate of percentage).
qualified by "in your vehicle." A great knock in ICE is the inefficiency. It's approximately equal to the inefficiency of a coal-fired power plant. So you have simply moved it up stream. Not sure how you would overcome that in the long run.
Not quite. Coal powered fuel plants are more efficient at producing electricity for moving the cars than ICE but they are also more polluting than the such that any advantage via pollution is lost. Coal is a very dirty fuel compared to methane or even gasoline(and diesel). Luckily most coal today only makes about 19% of US power generation today. Basically methane and renewables are cheaper than coal for electricity generation and coal is being phased out slowly but surely.
Quote:
But in any case - assuming things improve, the grid, the power, the price, etc. - the main argument is the mandate - not the concept. I love the idea of EV. I hate being told what to love.
Car makers don't mind electric cars because the require less labor and so the cost of them is going down over time.
Quote:
If the entire USA switched to EV tomorrow - total global daily emissions would drop by...what? 2%? Less? Add in the increased coal burn...and did we help at all? Maybe we're making it worse - it's THAT CLOSE.
It won't drop tomorrow and coal is being replaced by methane as it stands now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
