6 ms·

"So excited for the zero-exhaust future." Is it zero exhaust? Where do you get your energy from? Is it from a caol plant? A nuclear plant? Its more you don't s

by kop316 8y ago

"So excited for the zero-exhaust future." Is it zero exhaust? Where do you get your energy from? Is it from a caol plant? A nuclear plant? Its more you don't see the exhaust.

unethical_ban 8y ago
Nuclear is zero-exhaust. Its waste (more generic term) is a unique and complex, but not impossible, problem to solve. I can only hope we spin up more nuclear.
tibbon 8y ago
Depends where you live and drive. Some states like Vermont get almost all of their energy from renewables. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/24/climate/how-electricity-generation-changed-in-your-state.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/24/climate/how-e...
- volkl48 8y ago
  It's worth noting those graphs are about what power is generated in-state, not what power is consumed in-state. In VT's case, they shut down a nuclear plant with no in-state replacement for the power, and now they buy 60% of their power from out of state. A lot of which comes from Hydro-Quebec, so it's often still renewable in their case.
goshx 8y ago
“future” can be zero exhaust.
- kop316 8y ago
  It can be, but the grandparent comment seemed to imply that just switching to electric cars will do that, which is disingenuous. It can help, but the power grid needs to be overhauled as well. If electric cars do take over, that will cause a substantial increase of needed power, something I don't know if it can today. Right now the USA hasn't built a nuclear reactor in decades. I would love to see a more distributed power network (I.e. every home has solar and wind power).
- zapnuk 8y ago
  And how fast we get there essentially depends on our progress in energy storage + energy-on-demand technologies. Renewable energy production is not in line with our peak demand times (noon, evening, morning to a lesser extend). Somehow we need to be able to save the energy produces/harvested when it's not needed and provide it to handle the demand spikes to ensure grid stability.
ethagknight 8y ago
In the future, hopefully from solar panels, wind and nuclear, which would qualify the zeros exhaust dream
- mschaef 8y ago
  > nuclear, which would qualify the zeros exhaust dream Nuclear still has exhaust, it just takes the form of waste heat dumped into some environment to the plant and then spent fuel, which needs to be managed somehow. (I do think nuclear needs to be a part of the solution, but I'd hardly call it 'zero exhaust', unless you are strictly speaking carbon emissions.)
  - dinaMook 8y ago
    Thermal pollution is a problem for traditional power plants too though. That’s an under appreciated problem, but not one unique to nuclear.
  - ethagknight 8y ago
    In the context of vehicle exhaust, I think it’s pretty clear that humid waste heat is not comparable to coal or petrol fired exhaust, particularly in proximity to cities.
    - mschaef 8y ago
      Yeah... I do understand the difference. My main point, though, is that the idea these cars are 'zero emission' is only true in a localized sense. As always, there are tradeoffs that the elevator pitch tends to gloss over.
phreenet 8y ago
In the US it depends on which state you live in. The Department of Energy has the Alternative Fuels Data Center[0] that will show you national average and state by state emissions for four different types of engine. [0] https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html edit: grammer
TheTruth1234 8y ago
Boring argument. In the medium/long term, the trend is towards renewable energy power. In the short-term, these cars, whether running on renewable or dirt-power, mean that we, and our children, don't have to suck up exhaust fumes. "Thank you" are the words you're looking for.
- martin_a 8y ago
  > Boring argument. No. Valid argument. For the moment we are shifting emissions from one place to another. While that might change in the future, for the moment the environmental impact only happens somewhere else. This should not be forgotten, therefore those uncritical claqueurs are misplaced.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    It's still not a valid argument. Burning gasoline in a car is far less efficient than burning coal in a huge power plant. The gasoline refining process is also power-hungry. As an added bonus, it's also possible to capture at least some of the pollution from a power plant in ways that aren't possible when you have to shrink things down to car size. An average EV charged off a coal plant still pollutes less than an average gasoline powered car. Check out the maps at https://www.quora.com/How-are-electric-cars-better-for-the-environment-if-they-use-electricity-generated-by-non-renewable-resources https://www.quora.com/How-are-electric-cars-better-for-the-e...
  - jstapels 8y ago
    But we're moving the emissions in a "more solvable" direction. By consolidating the emissions from millions of cars to hundreds (thousands?) of plants, we're making it a MUCH easier problem to address.
  - Udik 8y ago
    > For the moment we are shifting emissions from one place to another. Well not exactly, we're replacing a product that will by necessity produce polluting emissions (and not only CO2, btw) from fossil fuels, with one that is able to use whatever source might be available, from coal and nuclear to solar and wind power. In programming terms, decoupling the responsibility of energy production from that of transportation, with all the flexibility that this entails. You become free to optimize energy production as a completely isolated problem from that of the vehicles that drive you around.
pilif 8y ago
At least the means of production of the energy can be updated without needing to replace the car. In an ICE, every car comes with its own power plant burning gasoline to produce energy. With electric cars, power generation is distributed among a much, much smaller amount of power plants. Upgrading those is much more expensive, but by upgrading one, you've instantly upgraded all the electric cars powered by that power plant.
mikorym 8y ago
> zero exhaust Sure, many countries are still on coal. But there are other considerations as well. Cities are hotspots for emissions, and need not be. Another important point is that nitrogen byproducts form simply from the high temperatures in internal combustion engines, not just from fuel.
dhogan 8y ago
Aside from the other comments, can there be benefit from concentrating that "exhaust" to fewer places?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- jakobegger 8y ago
  Yes, because fewer people live next to a power plant. Almost everyone lives next to a road. So even if power plants were as dirty as ICEs, it would be a win.
jakobegger 8y ago
If we can get pollution away from the people that's already a huge win.
lalaithion 8y ago
Regardless, coal plants are an order of magnitude more efficient than cars.

by kop316 8y ago

"So excited for the zero-exhaust future." Is it zero exhaust? Where do you get your energy from? Is it from a caol plant? A nuclear plant? Its more you don't see the exhaust.

unethical_ban 8y ago

Nuclear is zero-exhaust. Its waste (more generic term) is a unique and complex, but not impossible, problem to solve. I can only hope we spin up more nuclear.

tibbon 8y ago

Depends where you live and drive. Some states like Vermont get almost all of their energy from renewables. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/24/climate/how-electricity-generation-changed-in-your-state.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/24/climate/how-e...

volkl48 8y ago
It's worth noting those graphs are about what power is generated in-state, not what power is consumed in-state. In VT's case, they shut down a nuclear plant with no in-state replacement for the power, and now they buy 60% of their power from out of state. A lot of which comes from Hydro-Quebec, so it's often still renewable in their case.

goshx 8y ago

“future” can be zero exhaust.

kop316 8y ago
It can be, but the grandparent comment seemed to imply that just switching to electric cars will do that, which is disingenuous. It can help, but the power grid needs to be overhauled as well. If electric cars do take over, that will cause a substantial increase of needed power, something I don't know if it can today. Right now the USA hasn't built a nuclear reactor in decades. I would love to see a more distributed power network (I.e. every home has solar and wind power).
zapnuk 8y ago
And how fast we get there essentially depends on our progress in energy storage + energy-on-demand technologies. Renewable energy production is not in line with our peak demand times (noon, evening, morning to a lesser extend). Somehow we need to be able to save the energy produces/harvested when it's not needed and provide it to handle the demand spikes to ensure grid stability.

ethagknight 8y ago

In the future, hopefully from solar panels, wind and nuclear, which would qualify the zeros exhaust dream

mschaef 8y ago
> nuclear, which would qualify the zeros exhaust dream Nuclear still has exhaust, it just takes the form of waste heat dumped into some environment to the plant and then spent fuel, which needs to be managed somehow. (I do think nuclear needs to be a part of the solution, but I'd hardly call it 'zero exhaust', unless you are strictly speaking carbon emissions.)
- dinaMook 8y ago
  Thermal pollution is a problem for traditional power plants too though. That’s an under appreciated problem, but not one unique to nuclear.
- ethagknight 8y ago
  In the context of vehicle exhaust, I think it’s pretty clear that humid waste heat is not comparable to coal or petrol fired exhaust, particularly in proximity to cities.
  - mschaef 8y ago
    Yeah... I do understand the difference. My main point, though, is that the idea these cars are 'zero emission' is only true in a localized sense. As always, there are tradeoffs that the elevator pitch tends to gloss over.

phreenet 8y ago

In the US it depends on which state you live in. The Department of Energy has the Alternative Fuels Data Center[0] that will show you national average and state by state emissions for four different types of engine. [0] https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html edit: grammer

TheTruth1234 8y ago

Boring argument. In the medium/long term, the trend is towards renewable energy power. In the short-term, these cars, whether running on renewable or dirt-power, mean that we, and our children, don't have to suck up exhaust fumes. "Thank you" are the words you're looking for.

martin_a 8y ago
> Boring argument. No. Valid argument. For the moment we are shifting emissions from one place to another. While that might change in the future, for the moment the environmental impact only happens somewhere else. This should not be forgotten, therefore those uncritical claqueurs are misplaced.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  It's still not a valid argument. Burning gasoline in a car is far less efficient than burning coal in a huge power plant. The gasoline refining process is also power-hungry. As an added bonus, it's also possible to capture at least some of the pollution from a power plant in ways that aren't possible when you have to shrink things down to car size. An average EV charged off a coal plant still pollutes less than an average gasoline powered car. Check out the maps at https://www.quora.com/How-are-electric-cars-better-for-the-environment-if-they-use-electricity-generated-by-non-renewable-resources https://www.quora.com/How-are-electric-cars-better-for-the-e...
- jstapels 8y ago
  But we're moving the emissions in a "more solvable" direction. By consolidating the emissions from millions of cars to hundreds (thousands?) of plants, we're making it a MUCH easier problem to address.
- Udik 8y ago
  > For the moment we are shifting emissions from one place to another. Well not exactly, we're replacing a product that will by necessity produce polluting emissions (and not only CO2, btw) from fossil fuels, with one that is able to use whatever source might be available, from coal and nuclear to solar and wind power. In programming terms, decoupling the responsibility of energy production from that of transportation, with all the flexibility that this entails. You become free to optimize energy production as a completely isolated problem from that of the vehicles that drive you around.

pilif 8y ago

At least the means of production of the energy can be updated without needing to replace the car. In an ICE, every car comes with its own power plant burning gasoline to produce energy. With electric cars, power generation is distributed among a much, much smaller amount of power plants. Upgrading those is much more expensive, but by upgrading one, you've instantly upgraded all the electric cars powered by that power plant.

mikorym 8y ago

> zero exhaust Sure, many countries are still on coal. But there are other considerations as well. Cities are hotspots for emissions, and need not be. Another important point is that nitrogen byproducts form simply from the high temperatures in internal combustion engines, not just from fuel.

dhogan 8y ago

Aside from the other comments, can there be benefit from concentrating that "exhaust" to fewer places?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jakobegger 8y ago
Yes, because fewer people live next to a power plant. Almost everyone lives next to a road. So even if power plants were as dirty as ICEs, it would be a win.

jakobegger 8y ago

If we can get pollution away from the people that's already a huge win.

lalaithion 8y ago

Regardless, coal plants are an order of magnitude more efficient than cars.