And so some people have this absurd demand not to use electric vehicles because of Coal Power Plants - there are Clean Coal Power Plants that are very efficient - NOTWITHSTANDING - Nuclear is Cleaner , Wind, Solar and HydroElectric - there are alternatives that will also come to market. So Lets quit the Nay Saying and move past Desert Oil. If you are looking for utopia - it isn't here. Everything has a downside including Solar - like the land it uses, the resources to build the plant etc.. Windmills the most mesmerizing hallucinagenic eye sores invented. Electrics get us a way from Oil and that is Great.
"Why don't we look at a real study rather than some silly webzine."
Because your glossy brochure did not address the specific point at issue here: whether EVs powered from coal-fired plants are less polluting than ICE cars. The Webzine, as you call it, referred to direct sources. And the information is no secret.
The article we're commenting on was good because it wasn't the same old generic propaganda piece.
Why don't we look at a real study rather than some silly webzine. EV's win handily in most environmental metrics, tie in a few, and only lose on SOx. The SOx issue will go away as we phase out coal, which is long overdue.
ICEs are about 30 percent ewfficient optimistically, and perhaps 20 percent realistically. I would prefer some other scheme, like in-car reformer to convert a hydrocarbon fuel to H2, and then run a fuel cell and electric power train with the H2 produced on board.
But that's a separate discussion.
The fact remains, a coal-fired plant generating electricity for a battery EV becomes more polluting than using an ICE in the car. This has been published by many sources. Like:
"The problem with electric cars using coal to generate the electricity needed for batteries is the pollution that coal smokestacks produce. A report by Natural Resources Defense Council in USA Today shows that significant increases in soot and mercury will likely be the result of burning more coal. Soot is a breathing hazard, and mercury is toxic. Heavy coal states are not good areas to produce electric or hybrid cars, according to Howard Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law and Policy Center in the USA Today article.
"Another problem with plug-in electric vehicles is that they produce more sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide than other vehicles do, according to a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Study in the USA Today article. ..."
"I'm sorry, but I see absolutely no benefit to an electic car that plugs into a COAL based power system"
There is plenty of data out there on that. Generally, even the dirtiest US electricity still comes out ahead.
In places like China, where the electricity is even filthier, this is not the case.
Actually no, assuming you buy into the notion that CO2 generated by human beings is the cause of global climate change.
Coal produces more CO2 than gasoline, which in turn produces more CO2 than natural gas, for a given amount of heat output.
So generating electricity from a coal burning plant does not help, compared with a gasoline powered car, if you're talking about CO2 being a "pollutant."
This assumes that the coal burning, electricity generating, electricity storage in a battery, and the eventual conversion of that back to mechanical energy to move the car is not a more efficient process than just running an internal combustion engine. Which seems to be the case.
This article talks only of the financial side of this issue.
It ignores the joy of driving a vehicle that is more than just a cramped up little eco-box with no acceleration.
It also ignores the desire to use less foreign oil, something patriotic consumers would be will to pay a little more for...
If price was the one and only factor, we would all be driving tiny little hatchbacks made in China and India...
1. Is not using a drop of foreign oil a benefit?
2. Even with 100% of the electricity coming from coal, an EV is still cleaner.
Why do you guys keep bringing out this tired old outdated and inaccurate argument???
NOT a fair point at all in my opinion....
Interesting article. The first one I've read that tells it like it really is. Which is to say, as fuel economy of regular cars goes up and up, the advantages of making the vehicle a hybrid go down. Especially if you introduce schemes like engine stop-start. A 1 KWh battery pack is what you'd see in a "mild hybrid," if that.
This article is also the first I saw that showed the diminishing returns, when you increase fuel economy in the range beyond 40 or so mpg, even for someone who drives a reasonably high number of miles per year.
I had thought that hybrid vehicles would be the only choice of vehicle, in a few years. But I don't think that's where the trend line is pointing, in fact. For privately owned vehicles. Car companies seem more into going to those high mileage figures without the hybrid tech. But I agree with the article, commercial applications are an entirely different matter. Think of buses, in particular for local mass transit, delivery vans and trucks, garbage trucks, and the like.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.