Another case for the LNG/CNG vehicle!

[John Connor]

Green marketing campaigns would have you believe you’re destroying rain forests every time you turn the key in your gas-powered vehicle, and that the only “environmentally conscious” choice is to drive an electric car.
That may not be the case, according to a new study by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Electric cars have to get their power from somewhere, and much of the electricity that powers your home, and thus your electric car, comes from coal.
The Blaze quotes University of Minnesota professor Julian Marshall:

“It’s kind of hard to beat gasoline…A lot of the technologies that we think of as being clean…are not better than gasoline.”
​

However, the study does note that in less densely populated areas (as shown in the map below), there can be a net positive.

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/07/363...m_medium=Partners&utm_term=PRM7&utm_campaign=


I always thought it was stupid to think an electric car would save the environment. Perhaps when all power plants get updated to NG, nuclear, solar or wind turbine this type of vehicle will be practical.

 

[DrPizza]

Anyone want to take a shot at the calculations, based on efficiencies of fossil fuel power plants, percentage of this nation's electricity that comes from fossil fuels versus efficiency of a typical car engine? My gut instinct for the past few years has been that it's pretty close to a wash - high percentage of energy (electricity) comes from fossil fuels; coal, for instance, is in the low 30's, roughly 33% efficient. Then, transmission losses through power lines. Versus car engines that are around 25% efficient.

Until our nation's power supply consists of a lot more non-fossil fuel electricity, you're merely paying more for a vehicle than saving the environment.

 

[John Connor]

It reminds me of that episode on South Park: Smug Alert. LOL

I wouldn't mind having a hybrid myself though, but I have my eyes set on a nice hummer and packing it full of radios. I can by center consoles from police gear websites. Ebay may even have them. My hummer will have so many antennas sticking out from it. LOL Add a yellow strobe and people will think I'm in the government.

 

[dullard]

Electric cars have one major disadvantage: every conversion of energy is an inefficient process. Thus, in theory, fuel -> motion is more efficient than fuel -> electricty -> motion. Also, the very heavy batteries add a lot of unwanted weight to the cars which makes them less efficient. So, on the surface of things, this is not the right way to go.

But, there are a lot of advantages. Power plants, being large and in small numbers can be built to be more efficient than small disposable automobiles. You can concentrate the NIMBY effects (pollutants can be in out-of-the way areas instead of throughout the city like cars are). Regulations can fairly easilly be passed, implemented, and enforced that ensure a power plant is cleaner per watt produced than the average fuel buring vehicle. For example, it is easier to put a useful exhaust scrubber on a few power plants than on millions of vehicles.

Then there are the hot button issues that actually aren't a benefit or harm. So many people complain about the toxic metals used in batteries and how it supposedly harms the environment. But in reality, they were already in the environment. We dug them up, put them in cars, then they eventually get burried back in the ground. This is a wash.

So, electricty use in vehicles itself doesn't save the environment. What electric vehciles do though is to allow us to use economies of scale to burn the fuel in more efficient, cleaner ways, far from the heart of the population. That, is a small net benefit to the health of society.

If you want to be environmentally friendly, drive less. Or drive a more efficient vehicle. Don't do electric for the environment, you do electric for health.

 

[K1052]

Coal's portion of the generation mix has fallen from about 50% to the high 30s in just the last decade due to the availability of cheaper natural gas and more aggressive deployment of renewables. Given the high likelihood that most electric cars will be sold in areas that fall under a high renewable portfolio standard (like California) I think the basis of the article's argument isn't really that sound.

 

[mikeford]

The key to power is the variation in demand over a 24 hr day. You have to build capacity for peak demand, so anything that can shift consumption even if inefficient may still be practical.

 

[twinrider1]

CNG is still not the answer for individuals. The cost to convert is too high and gas prices are down. It would take over 20 years for me to break even.

 

[jagec]

Until our nation's power supply consists of a lot more non-fossil fuel electricity, you're merely paying more for a vehicle than saving the environment.

It's worth noting that the electricity generation mix varies by region, and the regions that are most enthusiastic about electric cars are also the ones with the highest amount of renewable energy. In other words, someone who buys an electric car in Indiana (87% coal) is having a very different impact than someone who buys an electric car in Washington (6% coal, 83% renewables).

This is a tired discussion anyway. The "power source" problem with electric vehicles has been discussed ad naseum for decades.

 

[Ken g6]

If having your electric car's power come from coal really bothers you, you can always put solar panels on your house. I hear it's even possible to hack the charging to only charge the car when the solar panels are powering the house.

 

[NutBucket]

Which would be great except most folks are at work when the sun is shining!

 

[Pantoot]

Which would be great except most folks are at work when the sun is shining!

No problem. (if you have more cash than you know what to do with)

http://www.teslamotors.com/powerwall

 

[natto fire]

Electric cars have one major disadvantage: every conversion of energy is an inefficient process. Thus, in theory, fuel -> motion is more efficient than fuel -> electricty -> motion. Also, the very heavy batteries add a lot of unwanted weight to the cars which makes them less efficient. So, on the surface of things, this is not the right way to go.

But, there are a lot of advantages. Power plants, being large and in small numbers can be built to be more efficient than small disposable automobiles. You can concentrate the NIMBY effects (pollutants can be in out-of-the way areas instead of throughout the city like cars are). Regulations can fairly easilly be passed, implemented, and enforced that ensure a power plant is cleaner per watt produced than the average fuel buring vehicle. For example, it is easier to put a useful exhaust scrubber on a few power plants than on millions of vehicles.

Then there are the hot button issues that actually aren't a benefit or harm. So many people complain about the toxic metals used in batteries and how it supposedly harms the environment. But in reality, they were already in the environment. We dug them up, put them in cars, then they eventually get burried back in the ground. This is a wash.

So, electricty use in vehicles itself doesn't save the environment. What electric vehciles do though is to allow us to use economies of scale to burn the fuel in more efficient, cleaner ways, far from the heart of the population. That, is a small net benefit to the health of society.

If you want to be environmentally friendly, drive less. Or drive a more efficient vehicle. Don't do electric for the environment, you do electric for health.

I noticed at the start of your post, that you missed a step in your energy chart . Basically, the motion can become "fuel" to charge the batteries, instead of waste heat and brake dust. The added weight of the batteries basically turns the car itself into a crude pendulum. Yes there are conversion losses from the motor to charge the battery, and again to discharge the battery and spin the motor. The losses from pressing the brakes on an ICE vehicle are always 100%, so the single digit heat losses from conversion are miniscule in comparison. It is no secret that hybrids get better city mileage for this very reason.

OP: You are very late to the party, and the sheer fact that electricity generation can come from so many different sources should just be a black eye to the ICE of anyone who thinks logically.

I don't know what else to tell you because, your link simply reinforces my view that coal power should be abandoned, and nuclear power take it's place, with renewable sources ramping up as technology increases.

Yes, production of the battery is not good for the environment (usually where you people go next), and in the end I do not care about the environment, because I am doing next to nothing for it.

 

[K1052]

No problem. (if you have more cash than you know what to do with)

http://www.teslamotors.com/powerwall

I'm relatively certain I could spend $3500 on something without straining my imagination too much.

Realistically though it makes more sense to charge electric vehicles while they're parked at workplaces if you're using solar do do it (peak supply and low demand).

 

[Brian Stirling]

Electric cars have one major disadvantage: every conversion of energy is an inefficient process. Thus, in theory, fuel -> motion is more efficient than fuel -> electricty -> motion. Also, the very heavy batteries add a lot of unwanted weight to the cars which makes them less efficient. So, on the surface of things, this is not the right way to go.

But, there are a lot of advantages. Power plants, being large and in small numbers can be built to be more efficient than small disposable automobiles. You can concentrate the NIMBY effects (pollutants can be in out-of-the way areas instead of throughout the city like cars are). Regulations can fairly easilly be passed, implemented, and enforced that ensure a power plant is cleaner per watt produced than the average fuel buring vehicle. For example, it is easier to put a useful exhaust scrubber on a few power plants than on millions of vehicles.

Then there are the hot button issues that actually aren't a benefit or harm. So many people complain about the toxic metals used in batteries and how it supposedly harms the environment. But in reality, they were already in the environment. We dug them up, put them in cars, then they eventually get burried back in the ground. This is a wash.

So, electricty use in vehicles itself doesn't save the environment. What electric vehciles do though is to allow us to use economies of scale to burn the fuel in more efficient, cleaner ways, far from the heart of the population. That, is a small net benefit to the health of society.

If you want to be environmentally friendly, drive less. Or drive a more efficient vehicle. Don't do electric for the environment, you do electric for health.

A conventional car has an engine that connected to a transmission and the conversion from engine output to transmission output is not 100%. The transmission then outputs through a differential that also is less than 100% efficient. When a conventional car slows down it wastes 100% of the kinetic energy whereas an electric/hybrid can reclaim some of the KE and reuse it.

As has been mentioned, hybrids get much better fuel mileage in city driving but only a little better highway mileage and that's because electric/hybrid cars are able to reclaim KE that a conventional car can't.

Also, the conversion efficiency in the electrical process is higher than in the mechanical system.

Sadly, the same folks that push fossil fuels and attack alternative energy jump on every story that purports to prove alternate energy systems are worse yet don't seem to care when they are proven false.

But, Conner being Conner so...


Brian

 

[DCal430]

So much wrong information here, your gas engine is very inefficient compared to the turbine used to produce electricity, about 50% to 20%. Overall electric vehicle are more efficient even taking energy conversion into account.

 

[natto fire]

Anyone want to take a shot at the calculations, based on efficiencies of fossil fuel power plants, percentage of this nation's electricity that comes from fossil fuels versus efficiency of a typical car engine? My gut instinct for the past few years has been that it's pretty close to a wash - high percentage of energy (electricity) comes from fossil fuels; coal, for instance, is in the low 30's, roughly 33% efficient. Then, transmission losses through power lines. Versus car engines that are around 25% efficient.

Until our nation's power supply consists of a lot more non-fossil fuel electricity, you're merely paying more for a vehicle than saving the environment.

I am pretty sure OP subscribes to Fox news, so no point in laying down scientific methods or calculations contrary to his point, they will reject it on several grounds.

Mad props that you can whip a hillbilly constituent into a frenzy with next to none research.

If you think electricity generation is as simple as one source goes to one substation, then you have much to learn.

 

[dullard]

The losses from pressing the brakes on an ICE vehicle are always 100%, so the single digit heat losses from conversion are miniscule in comparison. It is no secret that hybrids get better city mileage for this very reason.

Ever hear of a hydraulic hybrid (also known as an accumulator)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_hybrid

Brakes on an ICE vehicle don't need to be 100% loss. And no electricity is needed either.

I drive a hybrid myself (Toyota Camry Hybrid). From having my accumulator fail on me, I can say in my limited experience that most of the good city mileage is due to the accumulator and not the batteries.

 

[dullard]

When a conventional car slows down it wastes 100% of the kinetic energy whereas an electric/hybrid can reclaim some of the KE and reuse it.

As has been mentioned, hybrids get much better fuel mileage in city driving but only a little better highway mileage and that's because electric/hybrid cars are able to reclaim KE that a conventional car can't.

See my post above. Non-electric cars certainly can reclaim and reuse most of the kinetic energy.

 

[BarkingGhostar]

IIRC, the biggest consumption of energy in the USA is consumed in the heating and cooling of said homes. With this in mind it is shocking that the federal guidelines for every conservation within the home is based on work implemented in the EARLY 1970's.

R11 in the walls and R14 in the ceilings and or floors? And since we do as little as we can to insure we don't stop the gross consumption of energy (someone is making the profits) nothing will ever change. Gasoline vs. electric ... that isn't even an argument worth discussing if we selective choose the worse versions of both platforms.

And for consuming my time in replying to the nonsense I will drive about Atlanta in the 98F weather, running my vehicle's AC with the windows down as I sit in the beautiful go-nowhere rush hour traffic. Heck, I may put both the brake and gas pedals down at the same time.

Long live the consumers!

 

[K1052]

IIRC, the biggest consumption of energy in the USA is consumed in the heating and cooling of said homes. With this in mind it is shocking that the federal guidelines for every conservation within the home is based on work implemented in the EARLY 1970's.

R11 in the walls and R14 in the ceilings and or floors? And since we do as little as we can to insure we don't stop the gross consumption of energy (someone is making the profits) nothing will ever change. Gasoline vs. electric ... that isn't even an argument worth discussing if we selective choose the worse versions of both platforms.

And for consuming my time in replying to the nonsense I will drive about Atlanta in the 98F weather, running my vehicle's AC with the windows down as I sit in the beautiful go-nowhere rush hour traffic. Heck, I may put both the brake and gas pedals down at the same time.

Long live the consumers!

To be fair many states/municipalities have energy efficiency requirements for new construction well in excess of federal guidelines. Though an overhaul from the federal level is long overdue but not politically probable in the current environment.

 

[Markbnj]

Anyone want to take a shot at the calculations, based on efficiencies of fossil fuel power plants, percentage of this nation's electricity that comes from fossil fuels versus efficiency of a typical car engine? My gut instinct for the past few years has been that it's pretty close to a wash - high percentage of energy (electricity) comes from fossil fuels; coal, for instance, is in the low 30's, roughly 33% efficient. Then, transmission losses through power lines. Versus car engines that are around 25% efficient.

Until our nation's power supply consists of a lot more non-fossil fuel electricity, you're merely paying more for a vehicle than saving the environment.

This. I've also assumed it was essentially a wash.

 

[Brian Stirling]

See my post above. Non-electric cars certainly can reclaim and reuse most of the kinetic energy.

OK, so where can I buy a hydraulic hybrid?

The Wiki page you reference indicates a hydraulic hybrid can recover 75% of KE whereas an electric one is limited to 25% -- pure bullshit!


Brian

 

[Ben90]

OK, so where can I buy a hydraulic hybrid?

The Wiki page you reference indicates a hydraulic hybrid can recover 75% of KE whereas an electric one is limited to 25% -- pure bullshit!


Brian

I drive a Chevy Volt. I would estimate the regeneration braking to recover 50-70% of the energy. Definitely not less than 50%. Also, Electric drive would be better than ICE even if it costed more money. Really the only place ICE has in the future is sporty manual transmission cars. Until self driving cars become reality

 

[Ben90]

OK, so where can I buy a hydraulic hybrid?

The Wiki page you reference indicates a hydraulic hybrid can recover 75% of KE whereas an electric one is limited to 25% -- pure bullshit!


Brian

I drive a Chevy Volt. I would estimate the regeneration braking to recover 50-70% of the energy. Definitely not less than 50%. Also, Electric drive would be better than ICE even if it costed more money. Really the only place ICE has in the future are motorcycles.

 

[John Connor]

Then there are the hot button issues that actually aren't a benefit or harm. So many people complain about the toxic metals used in batteries and how it supposedly harms the environment. But in reality, they were already in the environment. We dug them up, put them in cars, then they eventually get burried back in the ground. This is a wash.

Coal comes from the environment, so does plastic. Just burning NG would be common sense.