It’s worth noting that this is not being done for environmental reasons (more half of all coal pollution comes from China), but for strategic reasons as China has limited access to oil near it’s borders.
You might get up votes if you accompanied a controversial opinion with a reasoned argument. However, making only broad, unsubstantiated statements is a waste of bandwidth and everyone’s time.
You might get up votes if you accompanied a controversial opinion with a reasoned argument.
Ultimately I agree that they should include the argument, but adding a reasoned argument has very little affect on the use of the vote buttons as “agree/disagree.”
I assume you mean that they’re not a positive for our environment, even so they’re much better for our local environment, which is still one better than petrol and diesel cars imo.
Why not? This has been researched many times, and the results are consistently that it is a good thing already, and getting better, in regards to overall co2 produced
They’re also far more efficient than fuel cell too
An ICE is only, at most, 35% efficient. In contrast to lithium batteries and electric motors, which is more like 90% efficient. Electricity produced from the dirtiest coal plants that exist, used in an EV, is more efficient and, thus, more environmentally conscious, than burning gasoline in an ICE.
Coal power plant efficiency is less than 40%. You’d also not get 90% of the outlet on the wheels. There is also a lot of loss on the grid, but there is also on the production of fuel. The two pollute almost the same.
Burning coal however is a lot worse for the air quality.
I’d like to prefix this all by pointing out that coal is absolutely terrible to use in several ways.
However: most thermal plants get about 45% efficiency, based on using very high steam temperatures. We all know that the theoretical max efficiency for a thermal process is limited by the Carnot cycle, which explicitly depends on the difference in temperature between the working fluid and the surroundings.
I’d also like to point out an important point: carbon plants are not constricted by the need to keep the engine lightweight, we can capture most fly ash and other process exhaust.
I again, do not care to bring such an arcane tech back online, it’s terrible to mine, process and use. Just remember there’s a bit more to all of this that engineers have indeed thought of.
Yup, and that’s ignoring the loss in transforming and transporting the energy across the grid, and in the chemistry of the battery itself through charges and discharges. Energy density of batteries is also a fraction of that of petrol, so every EV is also carrying around a lot of extra weight.
I don’t know if their statement is universally true, but the EPA’s fuel economy / total emissions calculator seems to show it for what I’ve put in. You can put in a Prius or random EV and see how they compare.
A Prius will definitely pollute less than the typical SUV electric cars on a coal grid.
Cause:
Efficiency of coal power plant and all losses are as bad as ICE cars. The EVs do thermal->mechanical->electrical->grid->battery->wheels and if you count them all up, is not better than an EV
Prius is designed for low drag unlike an SUV
Prius had regenerative braking like an EV
But just the numbers:
Prius is rated at 94g/kg
Coal 950g/kwh
Volvo c40 0.2kwh/km or 190g/km even without losses
Even with the current EU energy mix, it takes 77’000 km to be better than ICE, so arguably better. On coal electricity, they are worse. And this is comparing equally sized cars, a Prius will do better.
Regardless of the accuracy of your numbers - If you fix the ICE cars as they wear out, replacing them with BEV as the energy grid retires coal plants or goes to a higher percentage of renewables, they get cleaner. ICE cars will be as dirty tomorrow as they are today.
I put very minimal calculation which at least puts it around the same order and linked a report by Volvo where they try to count the whole cycle of a car with the emissions of the production and transport of used parts and fuels.
On current electricity mix, an electric car is only slightly better on a CO2 emissions. With only renewables, it can be 2x better.
But the statement that in China it’s at least better than a Prius is just wrong. Until renewables take a serious share of the grid, a smaller well engineered hybrid is not worse.
What a ridiculous distinction. Do you really think this narrative difference in motivation is noteworthy? What is scarcity if not an environmental consideration? What is lack of sustainability if not an environmental consideration?
It’s being done because it leads to a sustainable equilibrium of their social system. Whether that meets your standards of rhetorical “intentionality” to meet the criteria for “environmentalism” is meaningless.
It’s worth noting that this is not being done for environmental reasons (more half of all coal pollution comes from China), but for strategic reasons as China has limited access to oil near it’s borders.
I mean, that’s a pretty good reason. I’m not too concerned why they do a good thing, as long as it’s done.
Electric cars aren’t a “good thing” though.
You might get up votes if you accompanied a controversial opinion with a reasoned argument. However, making only broad, unsubstantiated statements is a waste of bandwidth and everyone’s time.
Ultimately I agree that they should include the argument, but adding a reasoned argument has very little affect on the use of the vote buttons as “agree/disagree.”
China is also the world leader in sustainable public transportation solutions
They’re a “better than ICE cars” thing. I’ll take whatever improvements I can get
I assume you mean that they’re not a positive for our environment, even so they’re much better for our local environment, which is still one better than petrol and diesel cars imo.
Why not? This has been researched many times, and the results are consistently that it is a good thing already, and getting better, in regards to overall co2 produced
They’re also far more efficient than fuel cell too
An EV running on a coal fired grid still has less emissions that a prius. Facts dont care about your feelings.
Could you please run us through your maths? I’m legit curious.
An ICE is only, at most, 35% efficient. In contrast to lithium batteries and electric motors, which is more like 90% efficient. Electricity produced from the dirtiest coal plants that exist, used in an EV, is more efficient and, thus, more environmentally conscious, than burning gasoline in an ICE.
Coal power plant efficiency is less than 40%. You’d also not get 90% of the outlet on the wheels. There is also a lot of loss on the grid, but there is also on the production of fuel. The two pollute almost the same.
Burning coal however is a lot worse for the air quality.
I’d like to prefix this all by pointing out that coal is absolutely terrible to use in several ways.
However: most thermal plants get about 45% efficiency, based on using very high steam temperatures. We all know that the theoretical max efficiency for a thermal process is limited by the Carnot cycle, which explicitly depends on the difference in temperature between the working fluid and the surroundings.
I’d also like to point out an important point: carbon plants are not constricted by the need to keep the engine lightweight, we can capture most fly ash and other process exhaust.
I again, do not care to bring such an arcane tech back online, it’s terrible to mine, process and use. Just remember there’s a bit more to all of this that engineers have indeed thought of.
E: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0196890415007657
The coal plants are not 100% efficient though. In fact they’re probably in the realm of 40%
Yup, and that’s ignoring the loss in transforming and transporting the energy across the grid, and in the chemistry of the battery itself through charges and discharges. Energy density of batteries is also a fraction of that of petrol, so every EV is also carrying around a lot of extra weight.
I don’t know if their statement is universally true, but the EPA’s fuel economy / total emissions calculator seems to show it for what I’ve put in. You can put in a Prius or random EV and see how they compare.
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths#Myth1
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=bt2
A Prius will definitely pollute less than the typical SUV electric cars on a coal grid.
Cause:
But just the numbers:
I took Volvo cause they published a report with a good compare ev and ICE https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/market-assets/intl/applications/dotcom/pdf/c40/volvo-c40-recharge-lca-report.pdf
Even with the current EU energy mix, it takes 77’000 km to be better than ICE, so arguably better. On coal electricity, they are worse. And this is comparing equally sized cars, a Prius will do better.
Regardless of the accuracy of your numbers - If you fix the ICE cars as they wear out, replacing them with BEV as the energy grid retires coal plants or goes to a higher percentage of renewables, they get cleaner. ICE cars will be as dirty tomorrow as they are today.
Sorry sorry. Where are you getting the “all losses are equivalent to ice engine inefficiency”?
I don’t expect you to be an ME/EE, but there’s a lot of variables in that calculation, I’d just like to clarify for everyone here what you mean.
I put very minimal calculation which at least puts it around the same order and linked a report by Volvo where they try to count the whole cycle of a car with the emissions of the production and transport of used parts and fuels.
On current electricity mix, an electric car is only slightly better on a CO2 emissions. With only renewables, it can be 2x better.
But the statement that in China it’s at least better than a Prius is just wrong. Until renewables take a serious share of the grid, a smaller well engineered hybrid is not worse.
What a ridiculous distinction. Do you really think this narrative difference in motivation is noteworthy? What is scarcity if not an environmental consideration? What is lack of sustainability if not an environmental consideration?
It’s being done because it leads to a sustainable equilibrium of their social system. Whether that meets your standards of rhetorical “intentionality” to meet the criteria for “environmentalism” is meaningless.
Is it worth mentioning? Why?
Just wanted to add some perspective. There’s a narrative lately that China is a champion of the green movement, which is absurd
It’s no less absurd than the opposite narrative, that China is some kind of climate villain.
The reality is China is on the right track, but not there yet. I’m somewhat optimistic.
Car engines are immensely inefficient and car charging is a load that’s easy to load-balance for renewables (dynamic pricing see: Tesla)
Yup! EVs and renewables are broadly good things. Just wanted to give some added perspective :)