A model 3 carries as much energy as 2 gallons of gasoline. That's just how efficient it is to use electric motors vs ICE. Even if all EVs were powered by gas generators, we'd still be polluting far less. Where I live over 50% of power is nuclear and we use 0 coal, so I think it's green. The world will eventually switch to cheaper renewables and we need the cars ready to use that power. ICE will never be able to.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
EV's being considered "Green"
- Thread starter jebinc
- Start date
-
- Tags
- dinosauars fossil fuel gas green
afty
Member
In my area electricity is 100% carbon free (50% solar & wind, 50% hydro). Even if this is not the case where you live currently, this is the way power generation is going.
srs5694
Active Member
You'd also have to consider the efficiency of the gas generator in that scenario. If you're talking about a small gasoline generator, of the type people take on camping trips or to power a house in an emergency, I would presume that they're basically like lawnmower or motorcycle engines, which aren't very efficient -- likely less efficient than a car's engine, although I haven't looked into this issue and so am far from certain about it. I haven't seen this question addressed directly in any of the reporting I've seen on the issue, but reading between the lines, the impression I get is that EVs produce less CO2 pollution than gas-powered cars, even in areas that rely heavily on coal or oil for electricity, for two main reasons:
- Regenerative braking
- Big coal- or oil-fired power plants are more efficient than the small internal combustion engines in cars
EVs beat hybrids in states heavy on natural gas (such as Rhode Island) because natural gas power plants are more efficient than coal or oil power plants, particularly on a CO2 emissions basis. Start adding in a significant amount of renewables and it just gets better.
Of course, you've got to balance the reduction in CO2 production per mile driven with the increased CO2 production when manufacturing the EV, too. To a lesser extent, the batteries in a hybrid add to their CO2 output during manufacturing, as well. This doesn't favor conventional gas-powered cars in any scenario, AFAIK, but in some states, a hybrid or plug-in hybrid beats an EV. As the power grid moves away from polluting sources, it looks better and better for EVs, of course.
One final point: Even driving an EV on 100% renewable energy carries some environmental cost. There are wear-and-tear costs, like in tires, but also in other items. There's also the risk of wrecking the car, which will incur the major costs of manufacturing a replacement. These costs are smaller in an EV than in an ICE car, but still, no EV is truly "green;" they're just less dirty than ICE vehicles. To further minimize your environmental impact, it's better to ride a bicycle or walk, whenever that's practical. Obviously, bicycling and walking aren't always practical, and I don't mean to scold anybody for driving; but it's worth considering the negative environmental impact of EVs, even though ICE vehicles are much worse.
Well... If you walk or ride a bike more, as you suggest, you will have to eat more (fuel) which results in increased methane gas emissions from the traveler. Avoid milk, as the upstream source produces even more methane gas than said traveler. And, as we know, methane gas is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2!
That "the vast majority" isn't?
That while some is, it's changing fast (for purely economic reasons)
That even if it was, EV's are still cleaner.
Do more research.
srs5694
Active Member
I don't know about "vast," but it's certainly true that the majority of US electricity production comes from fossil fuels. See this US EIA site, for instance, which shows, for 2018:
- Fossil fuels: 63.5%
- Natural gas: 35.1%
- Coal: 27.4%
- Petroleum: 0.5%
- Nuclear: 19.3%
- Renewables: 17.1%
- Hydro: 7%
- Wind: 6.6%
- Biomass: 1.5%
- Solar: 1.6%
- Pumped storage hydropower: -0.1%
- Other: 0.3%
Even the change from coal to natural gas is a positive one in terms of CO2 release, since natural gas electricity generation produces less CO2 per kWh of electricity; however, natural gas is still a fossil fuel, and it has its own unique issues, like leaks of the gas itself (it's a more powerful greenhouse gas then CO2) and the negative side effects of fracking.
What will happen in the future is anybody's guess. Extending trend lines in a simple way is a dangerous assumption. That said, most analyses suggest that coal is in a death spiral. How much of its production will be taken up by natural gas vs. renewables, or even nuclear, remains to be seen, and is likely to be influenced by market forces, technological limitations, and government policies.
I don't know about "vast," but it's certainly true that the majority of US electricity production comes from fossil fuels. See this US EIA site, for instance, which shows, for 2018:
The biggest changes in recent years have been a decline in coal's share. This decline has been taken up mostly by natural gas, which has seen a huge rise; however, renewables (especially wind) have taken up a significant amount of the slack of the decline of coal, too. Here's an image (from another US EIA page) that illustrates these changes:
- Fossil fuels: 63.5%
- Natural gas: 35.1%
- Coal: 27.4%
- Petroleum: 0.5%
- Nuclear: 19.3%
- Renewables: 17.1%
- Hydro: 7%
- Wind: 6.6%
- Biomass: 1.5%
- Solar: 1.6%
- Pumped storage hydropower: -0.1%
- Other: 0.3%
Even the change from coal to natural gas is a positive one in terms of CO2 release, since natural gas electricity generation produces less CO2 per kWh of electricity; however, natural gas is still a fossil fuel, and it has its own unique issues, like leaks of the gas itself (it's a more powerful greenhouse gas then CO2) and the negative side effects of fracking.
What will happen in the future is anybody's guess. Extending trend lines in a simple way is a dangerous assumption. That said, most analyses suggest that coal is in a death spiral. How much of its production will be taken up by natural gas vs. renewables, or even nuclear, remains to be seen, and is likely to be influenced by market forces, technological limitations, and government policies.
The wind farms I came across in Kansas and West Texas were a pleasant surprise on my recent roadtrip; I expected the ones I saw in California, but there were a lot more in other states, too.
I've read that it is cheaper to install new renewable wind/solar right now than it is to fuel and maintain coal plants. If that's true, it seems likely the trend will continue, though as you say, lots of things can affect the future direction of the industry.
I think this is his crowd sourced research.
There's an established theory that says the fastest way to get a correct, detailed answer to a question to post a wrong answer to it on the internet or social media...
Last edited:
I don't consider a "report" that bases EV pollution on pure coal generation, for batteries, car build and lifetime grid generation, but compares that to an ICE car build on 100% green energy, with the same for fuel processing, to be a valid "opinion"
Sorry......
OP lives in Washington State but was unaware how really really clean (70%) his grid power is. Was unaware how really (only one 'really' here) effective solar panels can be in Washington State, assuming they can be out from under all the evergreen shade. Was unaware how Washington State's Governor, who recently was a Presidential Candidate, could only utter the phrase 'Green Power' ala Tourettes such that they had to carry him off the campaign trail and safely back to his Governor's Mansion. Guess he didn't make his point sufficiently, Oy!?.
Up here north of the 45th parallel I'm guessing that the power-tilt solar mounts can improve efficiency since the sun lingers on it's low arc so much than down south.
--
Up here north of the 45th parallel I'm guessing that the power-tilt solar mounts can improve efficiency since the sun lingers on it's low arc so much than down south.
--
OP here - I was also unware what type of person you ( @wycolo ) must be with such flippant incorrectly assuming comments; but now we all know, don't we? Even it the OP was clueless, no need to be a jack@$$ about it, unless you're a jack@$$ yourself? Also, I was aware of our mostly hydro and wind grid in the PNW. My question was a general one (pushing pollution upstream), I as I thought was obvious. People also move; perhaps you were unaware of that? As far as Solar in Seattle, pipe dream at this point (cell efficiency) - would not have a good RoI, even though summers would be good for power generation. I agree the WA Governor, is, well, is what he appears to be...
ChadS
Last tank of gas: March 2009
My last house was in Issaquah, 20 mi from Seattle. It had 15 kW of solar. That was enough to cover all of the house's use (including HVAC, it had an electric heat pump) and one of the cars.
The system paid for itself in 6 years.
The system paid for itself in 6 years.
Thanks. I believe that’s about twice the payback period compared to a more sunny climate. In the winter months, did you ever need grid power? I would assume you couldn’t power the heat pump and house electrical needs in say, December or January. What percentage of your power needs during that period were provided by solar and did you have a large battery storage system? How frequently would you have had to replace all your storage batteries and is that recurring replacement cost factored into your six year RoI? Just curious. Thanks again!
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
No. Not all EVs are 'Green' they come in a lot of other colors too;
They're also not environmentally friendly... they're just ~10x better than fools fuel which is TERRIBLE. Like... pathetically WTF are we still doing this TERRIBLE.
Do real renewable suppliers exist? At least in NJ all I can find is ones that offset with credits.
ChadS
Last tank of gas: March 2009
Correct; the house was hooked to the grid. The system produced as much power as I needed on an annual net-basis, but it didn't produce it all exactly when I needed it, so I used the grid as "storage".
Our utility didn't have a TOU plan, so it didn't pay to have a daily-use battery; and with HVAC being electric sufficient battery for a backup during the very rare winter outage would have to be awfully big. So a battery did not make sense in that situation (although I suspect I will end up with one at our new house, but that will be after we add solar, which is waiting on a roof project...)
That was my fear before I signed up for a renewable program - that they might just use credits, or perhaps even do nothing at all (just count renewables they had already built for other reasons). But there are programs (obviously it varies by area; I can't say about NJ) that have an unrelated non-profit examine their generation buildout to ensure that the utility builds enough new renewable generation to cover the customers that have signed up for the program.
Curious George
Member
If you look at cradle-to-grave CO2 footprint, pure electrics aren't that far ahead of hybrids. We discussed these already over here. Call your sales guy and ask for the CO2-e of your battery pack
hybrids are not EVcars , shut them out
All these really depends on what car you were considering if you didn't drive electric: a gas guzzler ICE sports car or a fuel efficient hybrid/PHEV?
hybrids are not EVcars , shut them out
All these really depends on what car you were considering if you didn't drive electric: a gas guzzler ICE sports car or a fuel efficient hybrid/PHEV?
Similar threads
- Article