6 ms·

(Disclaimer: have driven pure electric for going on 7.5 years) It may be more complex: electricity generation is very dirty in some regions, such as where coa

(Disclaimer: have driven pure electric for going on 7.5 years) It may be more complex: electricity generation is very dirty in some regions, such as where coal is burned. Is it more dirty than diesel emissions? I have no idea, but old diesels were nasty.

sp332 5y ago
It's much cleaner, even after accounting for losses in electricity transport and storage. Power plants are just much more efficient than mobile internal combustion engines.
- mywittyname 5y ago
  Let's not forget the diesel emissions cheating scandal. Diesel engines are so amazingly difficult deal with from an emissions perspective that it's basically impossible to build one with an emissions system that doesn't require constant maintenance (filters, additives). Diesel emissions requirements for commercial vehicles are much more lenient for this reason.
shiftpgdn 5y ago
Yes because the coal burning is done at a central location with fairly advanced technology to capture dirty hydrocarbons. The tailpipe is spreading soot all over.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
MengerSponge 5y ago
No, it is not more dirty than diesel emissions. Coal plants are stationary, so they can install huge scrubbing apparatus. Diesels have to drag whatever cleanup mechanism they have installed with them, which is inherently limiting. Also, those coal plants aren't parked outside primary schools idling, and schoolkids aren't spending hours sitting around their smokestacks. Don't get me wrong: Coal is dirty as sin and radioactive as hell. Coal delenda est.
kemiller 5y ago
Engineering Explained did the math: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RhtiPefVzM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RhtiPefVzM Spoiler: Well-to-wheels, BEV cars are better than the best gas cars (top end prius) even if the source electricity is 100% coal. The best is still not driving, but it's a step in the right direction.
- mcv 5y ago
  Not driving would mean smaller schools closer to home, and infrastructure that allows kids to ride their bike to school. It's completely doable, but it does require people to care about more than just cars.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    It would significantly expand taxes, and that nearly always faces stiff opposition with voters. Especially when it is an open-ended increase.
    - thethethethe 5y ago
      > It would significantly expand taxes How exactly? Do you have any examples? Also, have you ever seen the price of car infrastructure? I would be willing to bet that denser walkable urban infrastructure projects are waaaaay cheaper than building and maintaining sprawling road, sewage, and power transmission networks. Sprawl is seriously draining the finances of many small cities and towns in the US. There's a whole book about it: https://www.google.com/search?q=strong+towns https://www.google.com/search?q=strong+towns You could also just watch this smug video https://youtu.be/7IsMeKl-Sv0 https://youtu.be/7IsMeKl-Sv0
      - adamc 5y ago
        Yeah, but it's not terribly likely that you could stop maintaining the sprawl, because it's already there. Certainly not quickly.
Ourgon 5y ago
> Is it more dirty than diesel emissions? I have no idea, but old diesels were nasty. When comparing old diesels to old coal power plants the power plants win by being more efficient but both belch out a lot of pollution. They also have the advantage of burning coal, a fuel which is available in abundance and does not need as much processing as crude oil does to be used in diesel engines. When comparing old diesels to modern coal power plants this is true at an even higher level since those modern power plants filter out fly ash and are more efficient. When comparing modern diesels to old coal-fired power plants the diesels win by being less polluting and possibly on terms of efficiency. Modern diesels versus modern coal power plants goes to the power plants again since these win on terms of efficiency - especially when using combined heat & power - over the diesels.
- erosenbe0 5y ago
  I have found measuring in typical American neighborhoods that PM2.5 is raised the most when people burn wood for recreation or heat in the evening. It is much higher in the evening with a few neighborhood fire pits than during rush hour with a few diesel vehicles around. This is also when residents have asthma symptoms too. To be fair they are more likely to be home. So it is not cut and dry but if possible I would love to get rid of vehicle emissions as some particulate is too fine to measure.
  - stephen999 5y ago
    So what? You can try and clean up both. Particulate is not the only pollutant either. NOx and ozone are also emitted from diesel cars.
    - erosenbe0 5y ago
      Agree, just saying vehicle emissions are part of the picture and more work needs to be done on air quality.
wolverine876 5y ago
We can make power plants cleaner, and generally we do (but not nearly fast enough).
philjohn 5y ago
Electricity generation CAN be done cleanly, and should in the future continue to get greener. ICE cars will always give off pollution.
zamalek 5y ago
The thing is that we're going to burn coal no matter what.
jjtheblunt 5y ago
downvotes to ask a question? what has HN become?

sp332 5y ago

It's much cleaner, even after accounting for losses in electricity transport and storage. Power plants are just much more efficient than mobile internal combustion engines.

mywittyname 5y ago
Let's not forget the diesel emissions cheating scandal. Diesel engines are so amazingly difficult deal with from an emissions perspective that it's basically impossible to build one with an emissions system that doesn't require constant maintenance (filters, additives). Diesel emissions requirements for commercial vehicles are much more lenient for this reason.

shiftpgdn 5y ago

Yes because the coal burning is done at a central location with fairly advanced technology to capture dirty hydrocarbons. The tailpipe is spreading soot all over.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

MengerSponge 5y ago

No, it is not more dirty than diesel emissions. Coal plants are stationary, so they can install huge scrubbing apparatus. Diesels have to drag whatever cleanup mechanism they have installed with them, which is inherently limiting. Also, those coal plants aren't parked outside primary schools idling, and schoolkids aren't spending hours sitting around their smokestacks. Don't get me wrong: Coal is dirty as sin and radioactive as hell. Coal delenda est.

kemiller 5y ago

Engineering Explained did the math: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RhtiPefVzM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RhtiPefVzM Spoiler: Well-to-wheels, BEV cars are better than the best gas cars (top end prius) even if the source electricity is 100% coal. The best is still not driving, but it's a step in the right direction.

mcv 5y ago
Not driving would mean smaller schools closer to home, and infrastructure that allows kids to ride their bike to school. It's completely doable, but it does require people to care about more than just cars.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  It would significantly expand taxes, and that nearly always faces stiff opposition with voters. Especially when it is an open-ended increase.
  - thethethethe 5y ago
    > It would significantly expand taxes How exactly? Do you have any examples? Also, have you ever seen the price of car infrastructure? I would be willing to bet that denser walkable urban infrastructure projects are waaaaay cheaper than building and maintaining sprawling road, sewage, and power transmission networks. Sprawl is seriously draining the finances of many small cities and towns in the US. There's a whole book about it: https://www.google.com/search?q=strong+towns https://www.google.com/search?q=strong+towns You could also just watch this smug video https://youtu.be/7IsMeKl-Sv0 https://youtu.be/7IsMeKl-Sv0
    - adamc 5y ago
      Yeah, but it's not terribly likely that you could stop maintaining the sprawl, because it's already there. Certainly not quickly.

Ourgon 5y ago

> Is it more dirty than diesel emissions? I have no idea, but old diesels were nasty. When comparing old diesels to old coal power plants the power plants win by being more efficient but both belch out a lot of pollution. They also have the advantage of burning coal, a fuel which is available in abundance and does not need as much processing as crude oil does to be used in diesel engines. When comparing old diesels to modern coal power plants this is true at an even higher level since those modern power plants filter out fly ash and are more efficient. When comparing modern diesels to old coal-fired power plants the diesels win by being less polluting and possibly on terms of efficiency. Modern diesels versus modern coal power plants goes to the power plants again since these win on terms of efficiency - especially when using combined heat & power - over the diesels.

erosenbe0 5y ago
I have found measuring in typical American neighborhoods that PM2.5 is raised the most when people burn wood for recreation or heat in the evening. It is much higher in the evening with a few neighborhood fire pits than during rush hour with a few diesel vehicles around. This is also when residents have asthma symptoms too. To be fair they are more likely to be home. So it is not cut and dry but if possible I would love to get rid of vehicle emissions as some particulate is too fine to measure.
- stephen999 5y ago
  So what? You can try and clean up both. Particulate is not the only pollutant either. NOx and ozone are also emitted from diesel cars.
  - erosenbe0 5y ago
    Agree, just saying vehicle emissions are part of the picture and more work needs to be done on air quality.

wolverine876 5y ago

We can make power plants cleaner, and generally we do (but not nearly fast enough).

philjohn 5y ago

Electricity generation CAN be done cleanly, and should in the future continue to get greener. ICE cars will always give off pollution.

zamalek 5y ago

The thing is that we're going to burn coal no matter what.

jjtheblunt 5y ago

downvotes to ask a question? what has HN become?