Skip to main content

View Diary: Want to Solve Climate Change? Solve Energy (54 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  OTOH, the US leads the world in EV Technology. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The Tesla S is hands down the best mass-consumer pure EV; actually, the best car ever, according to consumer reports.

    The Chevy Volt is similarly without question, the best plug-in Hybrid currently available.

    Both designed and made in the US, with the Federal government financing help to makers and consumers.

    •  But if they're powered with coal, they're (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Claudius Bombarnac

      worse than straight out gasoline powered vehicles.

      Of course, at the other end of the spectrum is if they're powered from your rooftop solar.

      As soon as I can afford it, I'm going to have one of those rooftop systems installed, and also buy 3 Chevy Volts - I figure that on any given day, two of them can be at home re-charging while I take the 3rd to work.

      I tried really hard and have yet to find a flaw in that plan.

      •  Everyone in the world should have 3 Tesla S's (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Roadbed Guy

        or Chevy Volts. Just think of the fantastic market for 24 billion of these in the world.

        Vehicle penetration in China is 40 vehicles per 1,000 people, compared with 700 vehicles per 1,000 people in the US. It is time to bring up the standard of living of China, India and third world countries to equal that of America.

        It is only fair....

        •  Snark understood but not appreciated. (0+ / 0-)

          The anti-EV strain in green circles is misinformed and unhelpful.

          •  The problem is, first and foremost, consumption (0+ / 0-)

            of everything. Do you think everyone in the world can live like us in the G8 without severe ramifications to the environment that goes far beyond just energy use? The entire world cannot consume like we do without damage to the environment.

            Converting to EV's will not save the environment. We need to socialize transportation like many other nations are now doing. The US is far behind the rest of the world with it's subsidized fuel and 2-3 car households.

      •  Wrong x4. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        1. Large sections of America hardly use coal for electricity. In particular, the West Coast which is the hotbed of the EV revolution is mostly hydro-powered, with lots of wind and solar coming on board there and everywhere else.

        2. EVs use far less energy than ICE cars to begin with - about 1/3 to 1/5 the energy per mile. So even in the worst-case scenario of a pure-coal grid, the direct CO2 impact of EV miles driven is at least as good at the best conventional hybrids.

        3. No coal plant was ever constructed for EVs. If increase in EV use leads to the need to add capacity, that added capacity is sure to be much cleaner than the existing one. And it will definitely not be a new coal plant.

        4. In the same vein, if I'm not mistaken fossil-fuel plants must keep running at some production level regardless of demand. This means often some of their off-peak output goes wasted. EVs charge mostly during the night. If this is true, then their CO2 footprint is even smaller - even in coal-dominated regions.

        In short, this "coal cars" crap is a classic case of good progressives falling for an oil-lobby canard - hook, line and sinker.

        •  This simply is not true (0+ / 0-)
          2. EVs use far less energy than ICE cars to begin with - about 1/3 to 1/5 the energy per mile. So even in the worst-case scenario of a pure-coal grid, the direct CO2 impact of EV miles driven is at least as good at the best conventional hybrids.
          we went over this in excruciating detail a few weeks ago, and if every assumption is painted in favor of EVs, it's a wash at best.

          if the assumptions are done honestly in a "real world" sort of way, coal powered electricity loses out.

          •  I don't know who "We" are. The Royal "We" perhaps? (0+ / 0-)

            I trust the EPA reviews more than yours.

            Currently most EVs are rated by the EPA at >100 MPGe, even more in-city where most of their miles are driven. ICE cars driven by Americans average <25 MPG in city. Perhaps even <20 MPG.

            The EPA's recent EV life-cycle analysis (published in April, look for it) also indicated that EVs are far better than ICE cars, all things being considered - even in coal regions. And coal regions, generally speaking, are going away - so what a great straw-man to wave at, especially when most American EVs right now are powered from hydro-dominated grids.

            And even the EPA analysis IMHO was still generous to the true wells-to-wheels footprint of gasoline and diesel.

            But this deserves its own diary. Which will appear, I assure you. That anti-EV crap needs to end. It is not reality-based (to put it mildly).

            •  This is one of the biggest scams of all time (0+ / 0-)
              Currently most EVs are rated by the EPA at >100 MPGe,
              considering that, if the electricity is generated by old time coal plants that are 25 to 30% efficient, those numbers need to be adjusted accordingly (e.g., 100 eMPG is equivalent to 25 to 30 MPG, not bad in comparision to your average SUV, but still not all that impressive compared to a peer internal combustion vehicle .. . .)
            •  Wikipedia has interesting carbon footprint (0+ / 0-)

              data for WHERE EVs are used. The fact that a few rich people can afford EVs right now says zip. They have zero penetration in the market due to price.

              If we are fare in comparisons, if you use a Tesla in Louisiville KY, you are increasing your carbon footprint over using gasoline.(They get about 70% of their electricity from coal). The fact is that half the electricity in the US right now and for the foreseeable future is going to be 49% coal. You have to look at the US as a whole and not a bunch of well healed yuppies in Cali.(I live in Cali as it happens).

              But I support EV development. So does France. There the carbon footprint, though out the country, is almost totally carbon free because their grid is carbon free, based on nuclear. This wouldn't be a debate here if the US was 80% nuclear in it's generation.

              Nuclear was implemented in the US to get the US off of oil generation. It did that. It can do the same for coal.

              Vliiages Group: fossil fuel plants do not have to be at full load all the time. Only conventional gas and coal plants have to run all the time but they follow load quite nicely. But they do have to run (excpet simple cycle gas turbines or 'peakers' as they call them). This is the reason Germany has yet to close a single fossil fuel plant...they've built scads of gas turbines to back up the more unreliable wind and solar they they've poured over 100 billion dollars into.

              David Walters,
              IBEW 1245 (ret).
              20 years power plant operator

              Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

              by davidwalters on Fri Aug 09, 2013 at 08:50:44 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site