Dcntamcn asked:
Electric cars have to be charged through the power grid. And there’s more “chemistry” involved in manufacturing toxic batteries for them. With the manufacturing process as well as lifetime charging, is CO2 production decreased by a significant amount?
Electric cars have to be charged through the power grid. And there’s more “chemistry” involved in manufacturing toxic batteries for them. With the manufacturing process as well as lifetime charging, is CO2 production decreased by a significant amount?
Tags: Gas Powered Cars | Lifetime | Manufacturing Process
April 22nd, 2009 at 1:07 am
no, it would not
unless the grid was nuclear
the batteries are not a concern so long as they are properly disposed.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:06 am
You would need to use Nuclear / Wind / Solar etc.
to power the grid..
Don’t worry about the battery manufacturing & disposal.
April 24th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
My understanding is there is some reduction. The electric motor is very efficient at converting the electrical power to the wheels. It would have a lot to do with just how efficient the power plant is in converting the coal BTU’s to electrical power, and how much further loss there is in the transmission of the power to the location. There is also losses envolved in the battery charger and any battery storage.
I suspect it is a very small reduction. Probably get much more effect from simply getting a smaller car that gets very good mileage. The best would be a turbo diesel like they use in Europe. They get 50-60 MPG all the time.
April 27th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Gasoline Cars:
Gasoline powered engines = 35% efficiency (25% in the 1970s)
Refinery production of gasoline = 70 % efficiency (guessing)
Overall = 25% efficiency (roughly)
Electric Cars:
Electric Motors = 90% efficiency (considering the need to do different torques and speeds.)
Loss in Battery due to being parked = 90% efficiency (highly variable depending on how much you want to spend to buy and maintain your batteries.)
Loss in charging = 95% efficiency (highly variable)
loss in grid = 75% efficiency (depends on where you live)
Power Station Generator = 95% efficiency
Power Station Turbine = 95% efficiency
Power Station Boiler = 80% efficiency
Power Station Leaks, degassification, and Blowdown = 95% efficiency
Handling coal (as opposed to refining gasoline) = 95% efficiency
Efficiency = (0.95^5)(0.9^2)(0.7)(0.8) = 35% roughly
Going from 25% to 35% is a 40% savings that could easily be wiped out by some of my assumptions on the type and quality of batteries used, the location on the grid, and the technology being used at the power plant.
However, unless you believe:
1) Man Made CO2 is the primary source of CO2 in the atmosphere.
2) CO2 is the primary cause of Global Warming.
3) Global Warming is occuring.
4) Global Warming would be a bad thing.
this would hardly be a reasonable design consideration. All of the 4 beliefs above are highly controversial. There really are better justifications for electric cars than this nonsense.
April 28th, 2009 at 4:49 am
Portland’s answer was good in illustrating method of thinking.
I do however, think that his estimates of efficiency of electric power plants is a bit optimistic.
And too. All this worry about CO2 is really overblown.
April 28th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
I cannot guess how much CO2 is released from coal burners, but I can tell you the technology is advancing extremely fast. The gvt. set regs about 10 yrs ago that they had to reduce emissions by a certain amount. I used to know all the stats, but I’ve forgotten. I know that the requirements must be met by 2010 though. I work construction that is specific to improving these facilities. The last project I was at was several plants along the OH river. They were converting the fly ash (the remains of coal after all the energy is burned out) into gypsum. This was a 3yr project and was amazing. CO2 is not the worst of pollution that power houses emit. Sulfur compounds are the biggest concern. This is the primary cause of acid rain.
fyi: The largest producer of CO2 is cow farts. This is not a joke, it’s a fact. I learned that in one of my enviro regs classes. I wouldn’t want to be the scientist testing that theory!
April 29th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Unless the world went nuclear and space based solar it would be a bigger problem because the major pollution from coal fired plants is So2 which will burn up peoples lungs in a hurry. Plus So2 also kills trees and is the major cause of acid rain. So2 is real poison and kills both plants and animals. It is also one of the major causes of asthma and emphysema. Nasty stuff not harmless plant food like Co2.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Using currently available technology, I agree with Portland’s overall conclusion but I’m too tired to check his numbers. But we’re not tied to our current technology forever. The fact is that we will eventually run out of fossil fuels and we may eventually find a better use for them than burning them so I’d personally like to transition away before we use up that last drop. Doing so will require improvements in batteries in the short-term and a new technology for storing energy in the long-term, possibly super-capacitors. Using our current power plants to provide that electricity isn’t the solution either but we’re not ready to switch to any of the renewable alternatives.
If P-E Obama really wants to solve this problem then he should begin by funding the basic research that private organizations and corporations just can’t afford to do in this area. If you are judged by quarterly results you can’t take the long view or you’ll get fired or de-funded. I don’t think the government could solve this with their own scientists but they could fund the research of others. We need a breakthrough and the NASA moon mission may help out with plans for a vehicle that can travel 1,000km on a single charge. Let them research and build that device and then it can be modified for terrestrial use, just as we got many of our high-tech devices (or their precursors) as a result of research arising from the NASA missions of the 60s and 70s.
Unfortunately the government almost always adds to problems, like using prime farmland to grow corn-ethanol or adding tariffs to foreign sources but maybe he’ll take a smart approach to this problem. If we don’t solve this now while we have gasoline and heat, we’ll be facing dwindling supplies and $10 a gallon gasoline within a decade. When it’s all gone is a little late to begin finding replacement fuels and energy sources.
Solar, wind, nuclear and geothermal could produce all the energy we need in the future, the heat from Yellowstone’s super volcano alone could provide most of it if we find efficient and safe ways to tap it. Doing so might also reduce the chance that it would erupt and end all life on Earth. We could also use orbital collectors that would be far more efficient and then beam that energy down to the surface, if we could get the green lobby to accept such a ’scary’ idea. Plentiful and cheap electricity from renewable sources would make worries about energy loss and efficiency a lot less meaningful. It doesn’t matter at all if you believe in global warming, we will run out of oil at some point and our coal reserves aren’t endless either so we should find alternatives while we still have cheap energy available.
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:17 am
The only real advantage of electric cars is that they move emissions from one place to another. This seemed like a good idea in the 1970’s when cars emissions had more CO, lead, unburnt hydrocarbons etc.
As gasoline powered cars are getting cleaner all the time, what’s the point of electric cars?
May 4th, 2009 at 6:47 am
Not unless the electric providers were wind mills and solar. But, these technologies are so inefficient that they (with current technology) never get close to even providing a small portion of the needed electric.
If we started using electric cars noe, the CO2 released would be vastly more. This is because electric cars are so much more inefficient.