Article in the Wash Examiner Electric cars may be worse for the environment than gas"

[MSEV]

I see a great deal of value in this discussion. It made me wake up a bit more about driving an EV in a high (67% I believe) coal system. But I knew that and I have 5kW of solar PV on my roof. I might have to get more.
And, one thing is for sure: I have some control over the coal usage, my power company is adding renewables, and I can add more solar. There is no way, however, to change the ICE in this same way.
(Or am I wrong on that? Would e85 have lower CO2 output? And what are all the consequences of burning corn?)
Anyway, both sides of this "argument" get me to thinking and working to decrease my use on fossil fuels. That's good!

 

[Saghost]

I see a great deal of value in this discussion. It made me wake up a bit more about driving an EV in a high (67% I believe) coal system. But I knew that and I have 5kW of solar PV on my roof. I might have to get more.
And, one thing is for sure: I have some control over the coal usage, my power company is adding renewables, and I can add more solar. There is no way, however, to change the ICE in this same way.
(Or am I wrong on that? Would e85 have lower CO2 output? And what are all the consequences of burning corn?)
Anyway, both sides of this "argument" get me to thinking and working to decrease my use on fossil fuels. That's good!

Exactly. You can choose to install solar panels. You can buy renewable power (usually for only a small upcharge over the standard mix.)

There's certainly no reason you can't eliminate the ongoing "long tailpipe" pollution from your electric car.

On the ICE side, some parts of the pollution can in theory be eliminated by a renewable fuel - whether ethanol/methanol or a synthetic hydrocarbon steam reformed especially for your car. Others are inherent to the combustion process or the engine (did they count the pollution impact of changing motor oil every five thousand miles?)

The thing is, you can charge your electric car without pollution today if you want, with a simple phone call to the power company. You can't buy renewable ICE fuel in useful quantities right now at any price in most places.
Walter

 

[Stoneymonster]

(Or am I wrong on that? Would e85 have lower CO2 output? And what are all the consequences of burning corn?)
Anyway, both sides of this "argument" get me to thinking and working to decrease my use on fossil fuels. That's good!

It's pretty well accepted now that ethanol is terrible for the environment. It requires a lot of fertilizer to make corn (which mostly is petrochemical based) and the efficiency is basically terrible. Plus, it attacks ICE engine components in ways the normal gas does not. It's probably better by a fair margin to just burn gasoline.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

It's pretty well accepted now that ethanol is terrible for the environment. It requires a lot of fertilizer to make corn (which mostly is petrochemical based) and the efficiency is basically terrible. Plus, it attacks ICE engine components in ways the normal gas does not. It's probably better by a fair margin to just burn gasoline.

E85 isn't that big a deal. Plenty of Brazilians use high ethanol. In terms of raw energy I think ethanol EROI is now slightly positive. I think the more significant complaint is on the intensive agriculture. I look at it in a positive way: if BEV+EREV reduced gasoline consumption to a very small percentage of current levels, then ethanol production could del intensify and still meet needs.

And thanks to the author and everybody else for their comments on this thread.

 

[JRP3]

E85 isn't that big a deal. Plenty of Brazilians use high ethanol.

The EROI of sugar cane derived ethanol is quite different than the corn derived ethanol used in the US.

 

[SeminoleFSU]

Didn't Jesus say, "Stupid people will always be with us?", oh wait, that's not quite right.

Anyways, articles like this are unfortunate. Not being a progressive person myself, I do see how stupid papers like this (and the pavlovian reaction from people who lap it up) reinforce the characture of right wingers being dragged kicking and screaming into the future.

+ 1

 

[EvilNuff]

It's pretty well accepted now that ethanol is terrible for the environment. It requires a lot of fertilizer to make corn (which mostly is petrochemical based) and the efficiency is basically terrible. Plus, it attacks ICE engine components in ways the normal gas does not. It's probably better by a fair margin to just burn gasoline.

The real problem with e85 is that the decreased mileage causes more gas to be burned that just normal gasoline. Its ridiculous that anyone actually uses e85 still.

Edit: To be clear the decrease in mileage is more than the extra % that is ethanol so more gas burned is after accounting for the ethanol in the fuel.

 

[GregRF]

The real problem with e85 is that the decreased mileage causes more gas to be burned that just normal gasoline. Its ridiculous that anyone actually uses e85 still.

Edit: To be clear the decrease in mileage is more than the extra % that is ethanol so more gas burned is after accounting for the ethanol in the fuel.

???
Are you saying that with E85 you get 85% worse gas mileage?