Slashdot Mirror
Electric Cars Emit 50 Percent Less Greenhouse Gas Than Diesel, Study Finds (theguardian.com)
entirely_fluffy shares a report from The Guardian: Electric cars emit significantly less greenhouse gases over their lifetimes than diesel engines even when they are powered by the most carbon intensive energy, a new report has found. In Poland, which uses high volumes of coal, electric vehicles produced a quarter less emissions than diesels when put through a full lifecycle modeling study by Belgium's VUB University. CO2 reductions on Europe's cleanest grid in Sweden were a remarkable 85%, falling to around one half for countries such as the UK. The new study uses an EU estimate of Poland's emissions -- at 650gCO2/kWh -- which is significantly lower than calculations by the European commission's Joint Research Centre science wing last year. The VUB study says that while the supply of critical metals -- lithium, cobalt, nickel and graphite -- and rare earths would have to be closely monitored and diversified, it should not constrain the clean transport transition. As battery technology improves and more renewables enter the electricity grid, emissions from battery production itself could be cut by 65%, the study found.
That study is a eco-warrier lie. Even cars burning coal direckly produce less Carbon Die Oxyde then cars burning soler pannels.
Stop giving my money to soler greeny SJW warriers and you are not going to get my gasoline car until you Prius from my cold dead hans.
Hail a Murka! We are Nummer One!!!
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
It's cool that you......believe.....that but there's a study here that shows otherwise. Maybe you'd at least like to give some reasoning to back up your assertion? If you do, that would be interesting (implying that your current comment is lacking interest).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Because that 25 year old 4-cylinder has terrible safety features.
Well, his car is 19 years old, so lets go with that. 19 years ago we had seat belts, crumple zones, airbags, ABS brakes, and some even had traction control. Those have been the major safety advances.
Most of the rest of the "safety features" like lane departure, rear and front sensors, automatic braking, etc. are almost purely for distracted and poor drivers (People who really should not have a license). Yes, these newer features add to the the overall safety. But if you've been a safe driver for 19 years (the fact that he has owned the same car for 19 years is a good indication) then it's highly unlikely that a newer vehicle would make him a safer driver than he already is.
Remember, it's not the car that you need to trust, it's your fellow driver. Even when full automation takes over some driving situations, you'll still have to trust that "Hal 9000" doesn't have a bug in it's driving routine.... (grin)
Where are you getting your figures? Because the last time I looked at this, Lithium batteries are around 99% efficient.
http://batteryuniversity.com/l...
BEV vehicles are far more energy efficient than ICE vehicles because the ICEs are at best 30% efficient. And then there is regeneration.
Yes, but it would be nice if you included some actual facts in your post.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Fig 3 shows how GHG emissions from the use of EVs varies across the EU: while in Sweden the use of BEV would produce only 7–9 gCO2eq/km, in Latvia EVs emit 169–234 gCO2eq/km and the EU average is 65–89 gCO2eq/km (the first number of these intervals refer to the 14.5 kWh/100 km BEV while the second to the 20.0 kWh/100 km BEV). According to these figures, the use of BEV in countries relying on big shares of nuclear or renewable electricity would contribute to reducing GHG emissions at the national level, while, in countries with a highly carbon-intense electricity mix, electric cars would not necessarily contribute to GHG emission reduction targets than relying on ICE vehicle fleets.
tl;dr the paper itself says if your country has clean energy then electric vehicles are cleaner than diesels, whereas if you have dirty energy, like much of the USA or worse, India, electric vehicles are a wash.
Id add that looking at fig3 it also looks like the worst countries would benefit more CO2 wise from hybrids than electrics at least in the short term till the power isn't so dirty.
Actually, it's not a comparison of purely coal generated electricity. They use the combined CO2 emissions for all the power generation methods in each EU nation. There's a lot of nuclear, wind and solar used in Western Europe.
If you look at the figures for some the the eastern European nations, the EV is about the same as the reference ICE figures.
Indeed. Particularly has Diesel is a hydrocarbon, and so half of its bonds are to hydrogen, not carbon-carbon. Coal power stations are pretty efficient, but so are modern ICEs. Plus there are transmission and battery losses for EV.
As a chemist, I can tell you the first half of your comment makes no sense at all. Methane is an hydrocarbon, none of its bonds are carbon-carbon (since it only has one carbon atom) and it still produces CO2. In fact, you'd have to go to a pretty unsaturated hydrocarbon to have half and half (e.g. benzene which no one wants in a fuel because it's carcinogenic). So what's your point with that?
I probably shouldn't have kept reading, but I did. The rest makes pretty little sense either. ICEs are anything but efficient. The Carnot cycle limits their efficiency and even a quick look at Wikipedia will show that engines suck. They mention most engines have an average of "18%-20% efficiency" with Formula 1 engines having up to 47% efficiency. Of course, GM isn't going to sell you a cheap car with a F1 engine... In contrast, electric engines have a much higher efficiency, around 90%. Sure, there are some battery losses, but you're going against an engine that wastes 80% of the energy of the fuel, how hard do you have to make it? As for transmission losses does your ICE car roll without one of those?
So the question is... do you actually believe the stuff you say?
Cars are typically far less than 30% efficient. As the previous poster stated the Carnot cycle limits the efficiency. There are also significant losses in the transmission, something that electric vehicles lack other than simple gear reduction. The transmission on an EV is far more efficient than a transmission for an internal combustion vehicle. For example, in my EV there are only two physical gears for a 9.73:1 gear reduction. Compare this to a typical transmission in an ICE vehicle. There is no clutch, torque converter, etc. It's a one-speed transmission with far lower losses than any multi-gear transmission or even a planetary gear assembly, which many hybrid transmissions use. While hybrids, and especially plug-in hybrids improve the efficiency by allowing the engine to operate in its most efficient mode with regenerative braking, it still falls far short of what an EV achieves. The battery losses for an EV are actually quite low. Good lithium-ion batteries are extremely efficient at storing electricity. In fact, there's a direct correlation to their efficiency and how long they'll last as is described in this video.
Also, at least in the United States, the use of coal for power generation is dropping significantly due to the lower cost of natural gas power plants and wind (regardless of what the politicians do). What this means is that the efficiency of EVs is increasing as coal usage drops since natural gas power plants tend to be more efficient and release around half the CO2 of an equivalent coal plant.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
He pulled his figures from his backend. The efficiency of an internal combustion engine isn't the whole story. There are also very significant losses in the transmission needed in order to use said ICE. This has been analyzed over and over again and the EV almost always comes out on top, especially as coal makes up a smaller and smaller percentage of power generation. Hybrid vehicles improve the efficiency but as far as I know nobody makes a hybrid diesel-electric passenger vehicle.
The differences between diesel and electric vehicles are far more than 10%, especially when this moves to large vehicles such as in this CARB study comparing battery electric trucks compared to conventional diesel vehicles.
He gets especially erratic when he talks about NO and being greenhouse negative. NO is NOT something you want in the atmosphere, and it in no way would be greenhouse negative since the goal of modern diesel vehicles is to limit NOx and soot due to the negative effects of both in terms of human health.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
If you look at the figures for some the the eastern European nations, the EV is about the same as the reference ICE figures.
The usual argument for EVs is that it's easier to replace a few power stations with something less polluting than it is to replace every car. It's also likely easier to do carbon sequestration and to filter particulates from a large industrial installation than from a few million tiny portable generators.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The first diesel engine ran on peanut oil. in fact, diesel fuel does grow on trees
The contents of this message have been doubly encrypted by ROT13