2019 Apr 5, 4:13pm
1,228 views 32 comments
In other words, if one substitutes an EV for an ICE, one is still polluting the environment because the added need for the grid will be coming from the aforementioned sources. And yes, those spent uranium rods also count in the cycle of pollution.
In other words, without a massive scale up of wind, hydro, and solar stations all over the place, 200M EVs will bring the system to a halt, without long term planning in place.
no difference in power consumption of 200M EV vs 100 M EV.
Liberals think electricity
FortWayneIndiana saysLiberals think electricityLet's forget about the whole liberal vs conservative thing. That's just being political. The truth is the over 80+% of our electrical grid is supplied by natural gas, coal, and nuclear. These are facts, not opinions. With that in mind, it's clear that a so-called clean future, with most of our vehicles as EVs, requires a lot more than just feel-good propaganda but an actual change as to how electricity is generated, as a whole, in this country and the world.
There are some 500K+ EVs vs 200M+ ICEs on the road, right now. Now, reverse that number and here's what will have to happen ... we'll have to send tons of that extra coal and petrol into our power stations to generate enough electrical power to keep all those vehicles, and their backup battery trains, charged to run business as it is done today.
The tar sands oil cost as much electricity in energy as much it will later generate, refine and transport
Carbon is totally harmless.
I fucking swear if liberal stupidity could generate electricity we’d fucking turn this planet into a lightning rod.
Let's forget about the whole liberal vs conservative thing.
Then it would not be economically feasible without massive subsidies, just like bioethanol
Makes sense. Good luck convincing the SJW green crew of anything logical.
Trump:LIAR!5 TIME DRAFT DODGING COWARD!PUSSY GRABBING SEXUAL PERVERT!MULTIPLE ADULTERER!
Goran_K saysMakes sense. Good luck convincing the SJW green crew of anything logical.Have you read my post as why EV causes less pollution than Petrol or you are just saying because Faux or MAGA news told you to, God it is hard to argue with facts here.
Renewables % is going to grow in the near future. 20% of world electricity is via renewables and increasing.
Lefts elite wants to raise the price on electricity. Guaranteed way is to increase demand without increasing supply.They’ve done this shit for years. Look at our water and housing shortages? Same game.
The pollution done by EV is much less and going downhttps://cleantechnica.com/2018/02/19/electric-car-well-to-wheel-emissions-myth/ there it is. On average, a conventional car creates more the twice as much carbon pollution as an electric car. Even in the state that gets almost all of its electricity from burning coal, an EV still pollutes less than a typical conventional car. Assuming a 10 year useful life, an average conventional car will spew out 66,000 pounds more carbon pollution than an average electric vehicle. That’s 33 tons, folks. To see which states have the highest and lowest emissions associated with electric cars, check out this graphic from the Department of Energy:Rin saysIn other words, if one substitutes an EV for an ICE, one is still polluting the environment because the added need for the grid w...The ultimate issue: that Carbon Dioxide emissions (Not "Carbon" as so many dumbfucks have decided to shorten it) have been vilified and defined as POLLUTION! Carbon is a single fucking element, not a compound that is a gas at STP, if these damn scientists and policy makers can't even accurately refer to the so-called pollution we should not give them the time of day.Because I have not completely reviewed the UCS study that the author mentions in the article, I do not know if it covers ALL of the actual emissions let out during the mining, processing, and fabricating of the batteries and motors for these EVs. Hell, the hack of an author can't even see fit to embed a link to the actual study, nor can he post any actual numbers of CO2 emissions from one and the other, just a blanket 66,000 pounds more figure with a bunch of percentages after the fact. How about show actual study figures.
In other words, if one substitutes an EV for an ICE, one is still polluting the environment because the added need for the grid w...
One more time, where is the other 80% coming from? ...https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 Natural Gas 35.1%Coal 27.4%Nuclear 19.3%
Rin saysOne more time, where is the other 80% coming from? ...https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 Natural Gas 35.1%Coal 27.4%Nuclear 19.3%Natural gas and certainly nuclear is cleaner than the gasoline we burn in our car engines. America's overall carbon emissions have been declining the last few years beating the rest of the world in reduction despite a booming economy because we are using more and more natural gas to produce electricity thanks to fracking. So if we have to expand gas powered electricity plants to swap out millions of ICE cars, I'd think we would still see meaningful decline in carbon emissions. Ultimately, it all comes down to batteries. EV's are one of the biggest markets driving battery technology improvement these days. Once we can more efficiently STORE ...
The problem with grid energy is that a vast amount of it goes UNSOLD/UNUSED. The ISOs and utility companies have to ensure transmission lines and distribution lines have adequate power available for anticipated/potential demand. We would do more to help the environment to stop worrying about "Carbon" Carbon Dioxide emissions and start trying to trim down generation to what we consume. That requires neighborhood/residence/commercial presence microgrids that can intelligently handle excess available grid power and store it when financially prudent, as well as helping to reduce the instantaneous potential demand by taking care of demand spikes at the site. This would allow the grid supply/demand curve to come more into balance, and help flatline the supply curve, getting rid of the duck curve that has plagued us since the increased adoption of PV supply. Chasing after EVIL CARBON DIOXIDE emissions and vilifying anyone who consumes petroleum based energy products is fucking ludicrous.<...
Goran_K saysAnyone who watches CNN is gayer than cum on a mustache.I hear the biggest homophobes like to lick cum off their mustache.
Anyone who watches CNN is gayer than cum on a mustache.
66,000 pounds more carbon pollution
However, new research in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that while gasoline cars pollute closer to home, coal-fired power pollutes a lot more.The researchers estimate that if the U.S. has 10% more gasoline cars in 2020, 870 more people will die each year in the U.S. from air pollution. Hybrids, because they are cleaner, will kill just 610 people. But 10% more electric vehicles powered on the average U.S. electricity mix will kill 1,617 more people every year, mostly from coal pollution. The electric car kills almost three times as many as a hybrid.