Electric cars pollute more than gasoline.

[16hypen3sp]

When electricity is sourced from coal... kind of common sense here.


http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/coal-powered-all-electric-car-dirtier-than-gasoline-study-1.2148922

[rage2]

Not really new news, but it's nice to know that it's not that bad in Alberta.


As of September 2014, about 43 percent of Alberta’s installed electricity generation capacity is from coal and almost 40 percent from natural gas. Alberta also uses water, wind, biomass and waste heat as forms of electricity generation.

[16hypen3sp]

Your right rage... there are numerous combustion turbines (NG) in Alberta... many in plants. The problem is most of these plants consume the energy made by their own CTGs. They are connected to the provincial grid, though, I think they spend most of their time importing power instead of exporting. They create a substantial amount of power which may or may not contribute to that statistic you posted. So, if such a case is true, then the majority of power that is used in our homes would still be from coal.

I could be way off base but its just something to think about.

[eblend]

I say we go Nuclear

[CanmoreOrLess]

Originally posted by 16hypen3sp
Your right rage... there are numerous combustion turbines (NG) in Alberta... many in plants. The problem is most of these plants consume the energy made by their own CTGs. They are connected to the provincial grid, though, I think they spend most of their time importing power instead of exporting. They create a substantial amount of power which may or may not contribute to that statistic you posted. So, if such a case is true, then the majority of power that is used in our homes would still be from coal.

I could be way off base but its just something to think about.

I was at an Enmax executive meeting a few years ago for work. They spent much of the morning presenting this as an issue and going over the alternatives. It was important as the presentation ate half the morning and they had other fish to fry. I was a paid observer, not working for Enmax directly.

[mr2mike]

Best way to get people to drive less and use less fuel is actually to make vehicles less fuel efficient.
Sounds counter intuitive but think about it.

I heard this from an economist.

[killramos]

Originally posted by mr2mike
Best way to get people to drive less and use less fuel is actually to make vehicles less fuel efficient.
Sounds counter intuitive but think about it.

I heard this from an economist.

I have a feeling this economist worked in detroit...

[Sugarphreak]

...

[killramos]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


Or just tax the shit out of gasoline

it didnt work for smoking :dunno:

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by killramos


it didnt work for smoking :dunno:

Pretty sure it has been working. I barely know anyone who smokes these days, and cost was the #1 factor for all of them.

Even those that do still smoke, have significantly reduced their smoking. From 1+ pack a day, to 1/2 or less.

[BigMass]

the most environmentally friendly thing anyone can do is repair and continue to use old cars until they can't be used anymore before buying a new car. Consumerism and the constant demand for new things while junking old things is a huge negative for the environment. Tossing a gas guzzler in the junk yard and buying a new electric car will do far more damage to the environment than if you kept and maintained that gas guzzler and never purchased that electric car to begin with.

[jacky4566]

Originally posted by eblend
I say we go Nuclear

Agree! What ever happened to the plant in Peace River?

Liquid fluoride thorium reactor are ultra safe and thorium is very abundant in North America.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Toma]

Well, that's a first. It was in pnas, that's good, will have to read the actual study, so lets see the follow ups as they role out, as I am sure they will.

[Toma]

Especially since fracked oil and gas are "dirtier" than coal(Cornell study), coupled with the fact that electric motors are 3 times more efficient than gasoline...

[Feruk]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok
Pretty sure it has been working. I barely know anyone who smokes these days, and cost was the #1 factor for all of them.

Even those that do still smoke, have significantly reduced their smoking. From 1+ pack a day, to 1/2 or less.
I quit about two years ago, but not because of cost. Actually, I don't know anyone who quit because of cost. Usually health was cited.

[Projek01]

I don't see how they could possibly link the two together. One would use up some amount of fresh water, burn some diesel to power the pumps for a few days. Then the dirty water and chemicals get sent into a empty abandoned well 4000m underground.

The other would release large amounts NOx, SOx, some acid rain, soot. Its almost like comparing apples to oranges.


Originally posted by Toma
Especially since fracked oil and gas are "dirtier" than coal(Cornell study), coupled with the fact that electric motors are 3 times more efficient than gasoline...

[rage2]

Originally posted by Toma
Especially since fracked oil and gas are "dirtier" than coal(Cornell study), coupled with the fact that electric motors are 3 times more efficient than gasoline...
I have no idea where our gasoline comes from, so I can't comment. But in terms of efficiency, you have to factor in losses on a EV as well. Charging alone wastes 30% of the electrical energy as heat. The electric drivetrain is about 85% efficient, which works out to a total of 60% efficiency (I'm rounding up), or a little less than double of an Internal Combustion engine.

Start calculating in losses to thermal management, transmission and storage losses at the distribution, and it'll be a lot closer than you'd want to admit.

[Toma]

Originally posted by rage2

I have no idea where our gasoline comes from, so I can't comment. But in terms of efficiency, you have to factor in losses on a EV as well. Charging alone wastes 30% of the electrical energy as heat. The electric drivetrain is about 85% efficient, which works out to a total of 60% efficiency (I'm rounding up), or a little less than double of an Internal Combustion engine.

Start calculating in losses to thermal management, transmission and storage losses at the distribution, and it'll be a lot closer than you'd want to admit.

Not a chance. I'd like to see evidence as well of your 30% loss as heat during charging claim. Not a chance in hell.

[Xtrema]

EV is about getting your fuel from a number of alternative sources compare to ICE's single source.

Ideally, efficiency isn't as a big deal if we can get electricity from solar or nuclear which both are abundant and least impact to environment. Thorium is great but since we can't weaponize it, you won't get enough investment to get it going. I wish India and China luck to get that going to show the world.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by Toma


Not a chance. I'd like to see evidence as well of your 30% loss as heat during charging claim. Not a chance in hell.

Tesla's charging efficiency is around 80% in real world but quoted 90% by Tesla.

http://www.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/battery-charging-and-discharging-losses

http://www.teslarati.com/charging-tesla-model-s-cost-higher/

http://evbatterymonitoring.com/webhelp/section_3.htm

[16hypen3sp]

Another interesting article.

http://qz.com/360513/electric-cars-are-still-not-good-for-the-climate/

[01RedDX]

.

[ZenOps]

Making fuel more expensive against a forced currency does not reduce consumption.

Cost of a barrel of oil in 1948 3.5 Rupee, cost of a barrel of oil in 2011 6200 Rupee. And yet, oil consumption in India has increased by at least a factor of 20 in that time. Did increasing the price by over a factor of 1000x reduce consumption?

Of course not. Its the same with the US, they are quickly heading to $1 million debt per family - of which I'm pretty sure they intend to head to $10 million debt per family by the next generation if the status quo is maintained.

Does a Venezuelan who pays 9 cents per gallon consume 10x more than a north american? Of course not, price is in many ways - completely irrelevant.

Realistically speaking, the value of a Rupee or a US dollar is irrelevant to oil consumption - historically the levels of dollar debt that a nation will absorb is limitless compared to maintaining a consumptive way of life (the american way of life, putting it on credit for future generations to pay off)

Thank jeebus for 1.9 cent per kwh coal.

[Feruk]

Originally posted by rage2
Not really new news, but it's nice to know that it's not that bad in Alberta.

If we agree that global warming is primarily driven by the carbon cycle, then coal and natural gas are both equally bad polluters. At the end of the day, either is just a combustion reaction that generates CO2.

[pheoxs]

Originally posted by rage2



Start calculating in losses to thermal management, transmission and storage losses at the distribution, and it'll be a lot closer than you'd want to admit.

This thread is rather old but since it's already being bumped...

I disagree with this point. Transmission and distribution losses for gasoline is far far less efficient than electricity.

The environmental impact to maintain the electrical grid is far less than the impact of all the fuel tankers constantly driving around delivering fuel. Not to mention the damage to the soil when those underground fuel tanks start to leak from old age or being neglected.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by pheoxs


I disagree with this point. Transmission and distribution losses for gasoline is far far less efficient than electricity.

The environmental impact to maintain the electrical grid is far less than the impact of all the fuel tankers constantly driving around delivering fuel.

Not that I really doubt what you are saying, but are there any studies you've come across that support this?

It actually sounds like a fascinating subject!

And I will say that while your point on efficiency is noted, it has to be taken into consideration (IMO) what the costs to CHANGE from a gasoline perspective are compared to electricity as we have developed a system over the past 150 years that is centered around gas/coal.

[pheoxs]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


Not that I really doubt what you are saying, but are there any studies you've come across that support this?

It actually sounds like a fascinating subject!

And I will say that while your point on efficiency is noted, it has to be taken into consideration (IMO) what the costs to CHANGE from a gasoline perspective are compared to electricity as we have developed a system over the past 150 years that is centered around gas/coal.

I don't have any studies to back my claims up, I'll openly admit that.

I just can't see how maintaining infrastructure (power lines) from power plants in Alberta can be significantly more polluting than the impact from transporting fuel via rail/semis from the states (as we don't have enough local refineries to sustain our demand)

[sxtasy]

Originally posted by Feruk


If we agree that global warming is primarily driven by the carbon cycle, then coal and natural gas are both equally bad polluters. At the end of the day, either is just a combustion reaction that generates CO2.
This is not true, coal is a solid fuel which does not mix as well as a gaseous fuel, therefore combustion is less efficient. There are also many contaminants in coal including sulfur and ash.

[riander5]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok


Pretty sure it has been working. I barely know anyone who smokes these days, and cost was the #1 factor for all of them.

Even those that do still smoke, have significantly reduced their smoking. From 1+ pack a day, to 1/2 or less.

If cost was the main factor sounds like you know some pretty retarded people.

Id say taxes may help curb current smokers, but anyone under 40 who picks it up is just dumb.

[Nitro5]

I remember reading a great article a few years ago, forget where, that talked that cheap energy is a basic requirement for our economy to function.

The current focus with cap and trade, carbon credits, etc is the wrong way to go as its artificially raising the price of carbon based energy to the level of clean energy. This isn't economically feasible as energy would be too expensive across the board.

Instead the focus should be on developing alternate energy to the point it is as cheap or cheaper than carbon energy. Only then will it be feasible for people to switch.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Feruk]

Originally posted by sxtasy
This is not true, coal is a solid fuel which does not mix as well as a gaseous fuel, therefore combustion is less efficient. There are also many contaminants in coal including sulfur and ash.
Obviously... but if you'd read my response, I was talking about the CO2 production. The whole idea that natural gas is a "clean fuel" (as often characterized in the news) is just a total misunderstanding of grade 10 chemistry. Yes one is SLIGHTLY cleaner because it's easier to control the combustion, but the #1 polluter, CO2, is just as present.

[Darkane]

Originally posted by sxtasy

This is not true, coal is a solid fuel which does not mix as well as a gaseous fuel, therefore combustion is less efficient. There are also many contaminants in coal including sulfur and ash.

Although you're right, coal is actually very close and ever increasing in efficiency. We're able to get it to a talc powder consistency and the modern cyclone furnaces and what not burn it quite well. Usually with gas or an oil as secondary combustion.

Not to much ash in the coal until after combustion.

[Thales of Miletus]

Originally posted by mr2mike
Best way to get people to drive less and use less fuel is actually to make vehicles less fuel efficient.
Sounds counter intuitive but think about it.

I heard this from an economist.

Or build better cities.