3 ms·

Does this assume the electricity is emission free? Because where I live less than 40% of our electricity is from renewables (even those aren't completely 0 car

Does this assume the electricity is emission free? Because where I live less than 40% of our electricity is from renewables (even those aren't completely 0 carbon impact, as they have to produce panels/wind mills/etc...). The rest is from oil & gas plants. I understand you are comparing driving an ICE vehicle vs. production of an electric one. But it seems a little misleading to ignore the co2 impact of driving the electric car which is far from 0.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
megaman821 5y ago
I would guess the more you extend the comparison the worse it gets for combustion cars. Most people get their electricity from natural gas plants delivered through a pipeline, and there is a future prospect to shift this to more renewables. Oil is pumped and delivered to a refinery, then the gas is put on a truck, and delivered to a gas station. All these things require either electricity or gas to run.
- nightski 5y ago
  I wasn't suggesting to extend the comparison. I was saying that for the comparison done they were ignoring the environmental impact of driving the EV. Obviously EV comes out on top over a very long period of time. I'm just suggesting that period of time is longer than suggested by the parent. Personally I'd love to buy an EV but in our climate battery life is reduced by 30%, renewables are a low portion of our electricity, EVs cost a lot more than ICE vehicles, and many aren't built to drive in snowy/icy conditions. I've been patiently waiting for these variables to change before my next car purchase - driving my current ICE into the ground.
  - gibolt 5y ago
    Most studies compare grids from right now, or the recent past. EVs win in all cases, and rapidly get even better as the grid advances.
    - nightski 5y ago
      Again, wasn't trying to suggest EVs lose. It's obvious they don't. But we need to be realistic on the amount of mileage taken to reach parity. The ideal scenario would be to just drive less. I put around 3k miles per year on my car and having been trying to reduce that.
  - natch 5y ago
    You are wrong to assume they are ignoring it, and irresponsible to state this assumption as fact.
    - nightski 5y ago
      Who is they? I was merely referring to the parent poster who did indeed ignore it.
      - natch 5y ago
        “They” was your word. See your comment.
  - cptskippy 5y ago
    > I'm just suggesting that period of time is longer than suggested by the parent. The parent's estimates track with adjustments made to the "Polestar 2’s LCA (Life Cycle Assessment)". The assessment originally stated the break even point was somewhere around 50,000 miles but it was quickly pointed out that the paper was neglecting to take into account the carbon impact of ICE vehicles and fuels at several stages. As well as identifying discrepancies due to geographic production and completely unsubstantiated irregularities. After taking those things into account the break even point was estimated to be 16,000 mi. https://insideevs.com/news/458458/legacy-automakers-backed-study-against-evs-debunked/ https://insideevs.com/news/458458/legacy-automakers-backed-s... Why the disparity? Just look at who published the assessment and where their interests lie.
qiskit 5y ago
> Because where I live less than 40% of our electricity is from renewables (even those aren't completely 0 carbon impact, as they have to produce panels/wind mills/etc...). You sure there is no burning of biomass? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/30/wood-pellets-biomass-environmental-impact https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/30/wood-pel... The largest source of "renewables" ( ~40% )in the US and I'm betting it's higher in europe is biomass. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/renewable-sources/ https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/renewable-sources/
- hwillis 5y ago
  Energy is not the same as electricity. That burning is for heat. Your clue is that petroleum is not used for electricity; it is used for transport and a small amount of heating oil. Biomass is 1.4% of US electricity. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
One thing to realize is that EV's have significantly lower emissions even on a grid that has no renewables. Power plants are much bigger than car engines, so they lose way less energy to heat. Also, the grid is more efficient than trucking gas around to gas stations. All in all, an EV will use about half the fuel as a gas car even before you start looking at renewable energy. Also, EVs change where emissions happen which is a major win for air quality.
hwillis 5y ago
> The rest is from oil & gas plants. You mean gas plants. Gas in a powerplant produces .41 kg of CO2 per kWh[1]. A Model 3 gets 4.37 miles per kWh, so 2.81 kg of CO2 per 30 miles. Even if a Model 3 is running on a 0% renewable, 100% gas grid, the 30 mpg Mazda produces 3.12x more CO2 per mile. 5.2x more on your grid, so only a 20% increase in the distance to make up for the battery. Instead of 16k/21k miles you would have to drive 19k/25k miles. [1]: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

megaman821 5y ago

I would guess the more you extend the comparison the worse it gets for combustion cars. Most people get their electricity from natural gas plants delivered through a pipeline, and there is a future prospect to shift this to more renewables. Oil is pumped and delivered to a refinery, then the gas is put on a truck, and delivered to a gas station. All these things require either electricity or gas to run.

nightski 5y ago
I wasn't suggesting to extend the comparison. I was saying that for the comparison done they were ignoring the environmental impact of driving the EV. Obviously EV comes out on top over a very long period of time. I'm just suggesting that period of time is longer than suggested by the parent. Personally I'd love to buy an EV but in our climate battery life is reduced by 30%, renewables are a low portion of our electricity, EVs cost a lot more than ICE vehicles, and many aren't built to drive in snowy/icy conditions. I've been patiently waiting for these variables to change before my next car purchase - driving my current ICE into the ground.
- gibolt 5y ago
  Most studies compare grids from right now, or the recent past. EVs win in all cases, and rapidly get even better as the grid advances.
  - nightski 5y ago
    Again, wasn't trying to suggest EVs lose. It's obvious they don't. But we need to be realistic on the amount of mileage taken to reach parity. The ideal scenario would be to just drive less. I put around 3k miles per year on my car and having been trying to reduce that.
- natch 5y ago
  You are wrong to assume they are ignoring it, and irresponsible to state this assumption as fact.
  - nightski 5y ago
    Who is they? I was merely referring to the parent poster who did indeed ignore it.
    - natch 5y ago
      “They” was your word. See your comment.
- cptskippy 5y ago
  > I'm just suggesting that period of time is longer than suggested by the parent. The parent's estimates track with adjustments made to the "Polestar 2’s LCA (Life Cycle Assessment)". The assessment originally stated the break even point was somewhere around 50,000 miles but it was quickly pointed out that the paper was neglecting to take into account the carbon impact of ICE vehicles and fuels at several stages. As well as identifying discrepancies due to geographic production and completely unsubstantiated irregularities. After taking those things into account the break even point was estimated to be 16,000 mi. https://insideevs.com/news/458458/legacy-automakers-backed-study-against-evs-debunked/ https://insideevs.com/news/458458/legacy-automakers-backed-s... Why the disparity? Just look at who published the assessment and where their interests lie.

qiskit 5y ago

> Because where I live less than 40% of our electricity is from renewables (even those aren't completely 0 carbon impact, as they have to produce panels/wind mills/etc...). You sure there is no burning of biomass? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/30/wood-pellets-biomass-environmental-impact https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/30/wood-pel... The largest source of "renewables" ( ~40% )in the US and I'm betting it's higher in europe is biomass. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/renewable-sources/ https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/renewable-sources/

hwillis 5y ago
Energy is not the same as electricity. That burning is for heat. Your clue is that petroleum is not used for electricity; it is used for transport and a small amount of heating oil. Biomass is 1.4% of US electricity. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

adgjlsfhk1 5y ago

One thing to realize is that EV's have significantly lower emissions even on a grid that has no renewables. Power plants are much bigger than car engines, so they lose way less energy to heat. Also, the grid is more efficient than trucking gas around to gas stations. All in all, an EV will use about half the fuel as a gas car even before you start looking at renewable energy. Also, EVs change where emissions happen which is a major win for air quality.

hwillis 5y ago

> The rest is from oil & gas plants. You mean gas plants. Gas in a powerplant produces .41 kg of CO2 per kWh[1]. A Model 3 gets 4.37 miles per kWh, so 2.81 kg of CO2 per 30 miles. Even if a Model 3 is running on a 0% renewable, 100% gas grid, the 30 mpg Mazda produces 3.12x more CO2 per mile. 5.2x more on your grid, so only a 20% increase in the distance to make up for the battery. Instead of 16k/21k miles you would have to drive 19k/25k miles. [1]: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11