[snizzle]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

So yes, there may be carbon emissions in building each charging station. And there are carbon emissions in building each electric vehicle. There are also carbon emissions in building each ICE vehicle. The difference is, once all those things are built, the carbon impact for each of those things is over…banked. With an ICE vehicle you get an additional carbon impact every time you turn the key.

Not so fast.

You're discounting power generation. In many cases you are just shifting emissions from the tailpipe elsewhere. I believe coal is still a quarter of power generation in the US, and as much as 70% on a per state basis. So where you buy and charge counts.

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by snizzle

Not so fast.

You're discounting power generation. In many cases you are just shifting emissions from the tailpipe elsewhere. I believe coal is still a quarter of power generation in the US, and as much as 70% on a per state basis. So where you buy and charge counts.

Exactly. I bet my SS has lower emissions than an EV once you account for how the electricity is being generated.

Where exactly is the magical clean electricity coming from? Unicorn and fairy farts?

[kevint]

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

Exactly. I bet my SS has lower emissions than an EV once you account for how the electricity is being generated.

Where exactly is the magical clean electricity coming from? Unicorn and fairy farts?

Power generation at infrastructure scale is far cleaner and more efficient.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by snizzle

Not so fast.

You're discounting power generation. In many cases you are just shifting emissions from the tailpipe elsewhere. I believe coal is still a quarter of power generation in the US, and as much as 70% on a per state basis. So where you buy and charge counts.

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

Exactly. I bet my SS has lower emissions than an EV once you account for how the electricity is being generated.

Where exactly is the magical clean electricity coming from? Unicorn and fairy farts?

I have pointed out in other posts, some in this thread, that energy companies are already moving forward on replacing their power generation footprints. In Michigan for example, the two largest utilities are committing to eliminate coal by either 2040 or 2050. I’m at a conference right now and don’t have the exact detail at my fingertips. They are replacing coal with hydro, natural gas, solar, wind, and varying combinations of those.

My team is also in the process of doing studies for several regional utilities across the country to help them develop their strategies to improve their carbon footprint. Today’s power generation is not what will be in place by the time BEV are the majority of vehicles sold (mid 2030s).

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by kevint

Power generation at infrastructure scale is far cleaner and more efficient.

If coal fired plants are so clean and efficient why are we phasing them out? If what you say is true, why are people distorting the comparisons by pretending that the electricity EVs use is emissions free when we know it isn't?

Sorry, I don't buy it.

[kevint]

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

If coal fired plants are so clean and efficient why are we phasing them out? If what you say is true, why are people distorting the comparisons by pretending that the electricity EVs use is emissions free when we know it isn't?

Sorry, I don't buy it.

We (however you define the term) aren't a monolith. What I'm trying to say, and forgive me for not explaining my thoughts the first time, is that on a per-vehicle basis, what it costs to generate the power to charge an electric vehicle is less than the cost of filling and running an ICE.

[genxer]

kevint meant what I thought he did. A reason plug-in hybrids should be very appealing to the home-owning, crossover appliance buyer.

[snizzle]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

I have pointed out in other posts, some in this thread, that energy companies are already moving forward on replacing their power generation footprints. In Michigan for example, the two largest utilities are committing to eliminate coal by either 2040 or 2050. I’m at a conference right now and don’t have the exact detail at my fingertips. They are replacing coal with hydro, natural gas, solar, wind, and varying combinations of those.

My team is also in the process of doing studies for several regional utilities across the country to help them develop their strategies to improve their carbon footprint. Today’s power generation is not what will be in place by the time BEV are the majority of vehicles sold (mid 2030s).

I'm all for energy generation diversity, as I am vehicle propulsion technology diversity. In fact, I hold a Blazer EV reservation for my wife and her commute. That all makes sense (even though the latter will disappear as many on this site lament). I think we should be honest that the only driver for the switch to EVs is not solely emissions.

[Wyzz Kydd]

The greens hate natural gas and hydro almost as much as oil and coal. In their fever dreams everything will be solar and wind. Their refusal to recognize the limits in both generation and storage are why the EV movement will fail. We don’t have the materials or technology to store even a fraction of our energy needs and the ability to do that isn’t going to be there for the foreseeable future.

[Rob3D]

Originally Posted by Wyzz Kydd

Exactly. I bet my SS has lower emissions than an EV once you account for how the electricity is being generated.

Where exactly is the magical clean electricity coming from? Unicorn and fairy farts?

What’s your source for this?

[Wyzz Kydd]

Total annual power consumption in the US with the current number of EVs is about 3.93 trillion KWh.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/...lectricity.php

If demand were evenly distributed throughout the year (it's not, which makes the challenge bigger) we would be using about 10,767. GWh per day.

Total utility battery storage available is about 7.8 GWh. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/de...f%20the%20year.

We currently have storage capacity for .07% of our daily needs. That 7/100ths of a percent of a day's storage.

How many days storage do we need to cover the times when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing? Two days? A week? What will that look like when we're at 100% EVs? Ready for more rolling blackouts?

Just to get one day of storage at our current consumption rate we need to expand storage to 1,429 TIMES what we currently have. Where are all those batteries going to come from, the Energizer Bunny?

Keep in mind, that's with no additional EVs and that doesn't even address how many turbines and solar panels we'll need.

I suspect you could cover the entire state of Texas with panels and turbines and still not be generating enough power.

[Rob3D]

…and then there’s, you know, facts.


https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/el...-vehicle-myths

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by Rob3D

…and then there’s, you know, facts.


https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/el...-vehicle-myths

Lol! You’re citing the EPA? Very funny. That’s like citing cigarette manufacturers on the safety of smoking.

This is the same agency that classifies mud puddles as navigable waters.

[Iron Lung Jimmy]

And while we argue about small savings around the margins, China has almost as many coal fired power plants as the rest of the world combined... and is building more.

India has the second most and, best I can tell, isn't shutting any down.

So feel good about your EV saving a tiny bit of emissions if you want to, but it is not making any difference.