3 ms·

One thing I see parroted often and that the article alludes to, is the "fact" that electric vehicles pollute almost as much as regular cars because the electric

One thing I see parroted often and that the article alludes to, is the "fact" that electric vehicles pollute almost as much as regular cars because the electricity they use is generated in coal-firing plants. What I hate the most about this argument is that it's often presented as a universal fact, and while it may be true in some areas in the world, it's definitely not true everywhere. A lot of Europe has nuclear electricity, for example, and here in Canada we're mostly on hydro power. The overall numbers start to look very different when you assume hydro power instead of coal, for example, and I bet the film doesn't mention that (haven't seen it, though). EDIT: I found a source describing my province's electricity mix: https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/nrg/ntgrtd/mrkt/nrgsstmprfls/qc-eng.html https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/nrg/ntgrtd/mrkt/nrgsstmprfls/qc-en... Turns out all fossil fuels combined contribute less than 1% of out electric capacity. A significant part of that 1% is in remote communities such as the Îles-de-la-Madeleine, which uses a diesel plant. This means that the percentage is even smaller in the "general" mix outside of these communities.

soperj 6y ago
Said as someone who lives in a hydro power province. Hydro is incredible harmful. It ruins whole ecosystems in ways that an oil spill never could.
- jbob2000 6y ago
  That is hilariously wrong. There’s no “right” way for an ecosystem to be. A hydro dam changes the landscape and the ecosystem re-adapts. Natural dams form all the time in nature as well, should we go around breaking these up to “save” the ecosystem?
  - NotAnAccountNO 6y ago
    Well no, building a dam fully destroys a valley's ecosystem. A point of comparison: Chernobyl also has a new ecosystem around it, where re-adaptation has occurred. We know the radioactivity is too high around it for a 21st century's human lifespan of ~80 years. Boars and birds are having a ball. Does it not follow that your accepting the environmental damage from a dam means also that you accept the environmental damage from an early generation fission clusterfuck?
    - soperj 6y ago
      Some of the dams affect a wider area than the Chernobyl exclusion zone.
    - mcswell 6y ago
      Ok, does that mean that we should drain the Great Lakes so we can "restore" them as valleys with their own ecosystem? (supposing that we could make them off limits to building, so Chicago and Gary and other cities on what are now lakes couldn't encroach; and never mind that we don't know what they were like before the glaciers carved them out, or if they were even valleys back then) Would that be better in some objective way?
- emilecantin 6y ago
  Somewhat true, but it doesn't harm the environment from the same angle. The #1 enemy right now is greenhouse gases, and you can't deny that hydro power produces much less of it than coal. You're right that there's a real impact on ecosystems; flooding large areas and such. However, I'd describe it more as a disruption than a destruction; 30 years later the ecosystems around it have adapted and the reservoir serves the ecological function of a large lake. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's better than burning coal.
  - soperj 6y ago
    except not. WAC Bennett dam in BC was built more than 30 years ago, and you still can't eat fish from the area for miles and miles around, including feeder streams and streams downstream because of methyl mercury issues. The dams in the Pac-Northwest are a major reason for the collapse of the salmon fisheries which absolutely has a huge impact on all wildlife in the area, and trees and plants too. Everything up and down stream.
  - Gibbon1 6y ago
    > and you can't deny that hydro power produces much less of it than coal. I can't vouch for this but I read stuff like this https://news.wsu.edu/2016/09/28/reservoirs-play-substantial-role-global-warming/ https://news.wsu.edu/2016/09/28/reservoirs-play-substantial-... td;dr: Bacteria in reservoirs decompose organic material trapped behind the dam releasing CO2 and methane.
    - mcswell 6y ago
      Ok, but the link doesn't seem to say what would happen to that organic material if it weren't trapped behind the dam. Wouldn't it decompose anyway? (or get turned into fish, but I would expect that to happen either way)
      - soperj 6y ago
        generally organic material in a forest doesn't get decomposed into methane.
- petre 6y ago
  Like turn the area around the former Aral Sea into a desert?
mikevp 6y ago
One analysis I read ages ago showed that an electric car (even of that time) was enough more efficient than a gasoline or Diesel car that even if the electricity to charge the batteries came entirely from coal, it was a net CO2 win.
- mcswell 6y ago
  Not saying that couldn't be, but it seems unlikely: you're going through several additional conversion steps: from heat to steam to electricity to chemical energy (in the battery), back to electricity and then to motion--whereas a gas engine has a single conversion step: from heat to motion. Given that each conversion step introduces new inefficiencies, I would be surprised if coal-> heat-> steam-> electricity-> chemical-> electricity-> motion path were more efficient than the heat-> motion path (even granted that coal-fired power plants are, considered alone, probably more efficient than gas engines). Electric cars would, I suspect, only be more efficient in terms of CO2 if the production of their electricity did not produce any CO2, i.e. the electricity came from hydro, nuclear, wind or geothermal.
  - EricE 6y ago
    Want to talk about conversions? Look at the complexity in ICE vehicles vs. electric. Let’s just look at fluids: Oil Cooling Brake Transmission Differential Power steering (although more and more ICE cars are coming with electric, so this is waning). Many of those must be changed on a routine basis. Changed. That means old has to be drained and disposed of and new fluids have to be made to be used for replacement. Look at all the parts in ICE vehicles that need replacement/maintenance - spark plugs, air filters, PCV Valves, accessory and timing belts - those are pretty common, but there are just more moving parts so more to potentially break beyond that stuff. By comparison, electric cars are extremely simple. Brake fluid and windshield washer fluid are generally all they have. There are far fewer moving parts. If there is a transmission, they are dramatically simpler/less complex. Yes the battery packs are liquid cooled but it’s a sealed, non-serviceable system. The lead acid batteries in my ICE cars are sealed too. This is one of the biggest reasons electric cars aren’t popular with dealers. Car dealers survive on maintenance, not new car sales. Fleecing people on used cars (buying or selling - most people suck at dealing with used vehicles) can be a significant source of revenue, but nothing beats steady service revenue. Hell just try to get a modern car that doesn’t flog you to see your dealer for routine service - whether it’s really needed or not. Electric cars have dramatically fewer service requirements and this has a substantially positive environmental impact - has to. If you don’t have to create a bunch of stuff on a routine basis x millions of vehicles then there isn’t much of an environmental impact, eh? That said, I still think current battery tech isn’t practical enough to totally supplant ICE vehicles. Electric cars make great commuter vehicles - except with the pandemic most people are teleworking :) Maybe the new Samsung solid state batteries will finally tilt things where electrics are a no-brainer.

soperj 6y ago

Said as someone who lives in a hydro power province. Hydro is incredible harmful. It ruins whole ecosystems in ways that an oil spill never could.

jbob2000 6y ago
That is hilariously wrong. There’s no “right” way for an ecosystem to be. A hydro dam changes the landscape and the ecosystem re-adapts. Natural dams form all the time in nature as well, should we go around breaking these up to “save” the ecosystem?
- NotAnAccountNO 6y ago
  Well no, building a dam fully destroys a valley's ecosystem. A point of comparison: Chernobyl also has a new ecosystem around it, where re-adaptation has occurred. We know the radioactivity is too high around it for a 21st century's human lifespan of ~80 years. Boars and birds are having a ball. Does it not follow that your accepting the environmental damage from a dam means also that you accept the environmental damage from an early generation fission clusterfuck?
  - soperj 6y ago
    Some of the dams affect a wider area than the Chernobyl exclusion zone.
  - mcswell 6y ago
    Ok, does that mean that we should drain the Great Lakes so we can "restore" them as valleys with their own ecosystem? (supposing that we could make them off limits to building, so Chicago and Gary and other cities on what are now lakes couldn't encroach; and never mind that we don't know what they were like before the glaciers carved them out, or if they were even valleys back then) Would that be better in some objective way?
emilecantin 6y ago
Somewhat true, but it doesn't harm the environment from the same angle. The #1 enemy right now is greenhouse gases, and you can't deny that hydro power produces much less of it than coal. You're right that there's a real impact on ecosystems; flooding large areas and such. However, I'd describe it more as a disruption than a destruction; 30 years later the ecosystems around it have adapted and the reservoir serves the ecological function of a large lake. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's better than burning coal.
- soperj 6y ago
  except not. WAC Bennett dam in BC was built more than 30 years ago, and you still can't eat fish from the area for miles and miles around, including feeder streams and streams downstream because of methyl mercury issues. The dams in the Pac-Northwest are a major reason for the collapse of the salmon fisheries which absolutely has a huge impact on all wildlife in the area, and trees and plants too. Everything up and down stream.
- Gibbon1 6y ago
  > and you can't deny that hydro power produces much less of it than coal. I can't vouch for this but I read stuff like this https://news.wsu.edu/2016/09/28/reservoirs-play-substantial-role-global-warming/ https://news.wsu.edu/2016/09/28/reservoirs-play-substantial-... td;dr: Bacteria in reservoirs decompose organic material trapped behind the dam releasing CO2 and methane.
  - mcswell 6y ago
    Ok, but the link doesn't seem to say what would happen to that organic material if it weren't trapped behind the dam. Wouldn't it decompose anyway? (or get turned into fish, but I would expect that to happen either way)
    - soperj 6y ago
      generally organic material in a forest doesn't get decomposed into methane.
petre 6y ago
Like turn the area around the former Aral Sea into a desert?

mikevp 6y ago

One analysis I read ages ago showed that an electric car (even of that time) was enough more efficient than a gasoline or Diesel car that even if the electricity to charge the batteries came entirely from coal, it was a net CO2 win.

mcswell 6y ago
Not saying that couldn't be, but it seems unlikely: you're going through several additional conversion steps: from heat to steam to electricity to chemical energy (in the battery), back to electricity and then to motion--whereas a gas engine has a single conversion step: from heat to motion. Given that each conversion step introduces new inefficiencies, I would be surprised if coal-> heat-> steam-> electricity-> chemical-> electricity-> motion path were more efficient than the heat-> motion path (even granted that coal-fired power plants are, considered alone, probably more efficient than gas engines). Electric cars would, I suspect, only be more efficient in terms of CO2 if the production of their electricity did not produce any CO2, i.e. the electricity came from hydro, nuclear, wind or geothermal.
- EricE 6y ago
  Want to talk about conversions? Look at the complexity in ICE vehicles vs. electric. Let’s just look at fluids: Oil Cooling Brake Transmission Differential Power steering (although more and more ICE cars are coming with electric, so this is waning). Many of those must be changed on a routine basis. Changed. That means old has to be drained and disposed of and new fluids have to be made to be used for replacement. Look at all the parts in ICE vehicles that need replacement/maintenance - spark plugs, air filters, PCV Valves, accessory and timing belts - those are pretty common, but there are just more moving parts so more to potentially break beyond that stuff. By comparison, electric cars are extremely simple. Brake fluid and windshield washer fluid are generally all they have. There are far fewer moving parts. If there is a transmission, they are dramatically simpler/less complex. Yes the battery packs are liquid cooled but it’s a sealed, non-serviceable system. The lead acid batteries in my ICE cars are sealed too. This is one of the biggest reasons electric cars aren’t popular with dealers. Car dealers survive on maintenance, not new car sales. Fleecing people on used cars (buying or selling - most people suck at dealing with used vehicles) can be a significant source of revenue, but nothing beats steady service revenue. Hell just try to get a modern car that doesn’t flog you to see your dealer for routine service - whether it’s really needed or not. Electric cars have dramatically fewer service requirements and this has a substantially positive environmental impact - has to. If you don’t have to create a bunch of stuff on a routine basis x millions of vehicles then there isn’t much of an environmental impact, eh? That said, I still think current battery tech isn’t practical enough to totally supplant ICE vehicles. Electric cars make great commuter vehicles - except with the pandemic most people are teleworking :) Maybe the new Samsung solid state batteries will finally tilt things where electrics are a no-brainer.