5 ms·

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

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.
      - thethethethe 5y ago
        Yeah they are going to raise taxes to pay for it because that's all they can do. Which is the opposite of what OP said
    - rootusrootus 5y ago
      The only way you could sell it as an overall less expensive option would be with really elaborate studies that could convincingly tie the transportation effects to the design of the school system. But, when it comes to schools, fewer buildings means lower costs. We've been suffering this for years, there aren't anywhere near as many schools in my district as there were 30 or 40 years ago, even as the number of students go up. It's less expensive to consolidate the schools into a fewer number of locations and increase the capacity of the remaining locations. Ergo, going the other direction and creating more, smaller schools (each with their own infrastructure, custodians, some level of administration, etc) is going to require taxpayers to foot the bill. And not like a levy that only lasts for X years, but on an ongoing basis. Where I live (Oregon) there is massive resistance to new taxes. I do not think we are unique in that regard.
- judge2020 5y ago
  America is actively against letting your kid out of your sight, with the fear of bad actors perpetuated by primetime news channels being the driving factor. The advent of only needing to part with your child when you drop them off at school, or watch them get on the bus, provides a framework for chain-of-custody and accountability if anything were to happen to the child. Unless you still allow car access for the parents worried about this, simply putting more schools within a mile or two of homes isn't going to work without parents being on board.
  - watwut 5y ago
    A school being a mile away with safe sidewalk tend to convince people the kid can go alone sooner.
fiftyfifty 5y ago
There's also the fact that coal power plants tend to be pretty far from heavily populated areas. Even if the US power grid were 100% coal (which it is not) this would still be a win as far as cleaner air goes for a significant portion of the population. There's a big difference between a coal burning power plant's emissions 50 miles away and a school bus idling right outside your house in terms of air quality. That's not even counting the air scrubbers and particulate capturing systems many coal power plants are required to have. The bottom line is the exhaust coming out of a coal burning power plant is much cleaner than even a brand new diesel school bus, let alone all the older buses still in service.
- erosenbe0 5y ago
  The biggest source of particulate in my neighborhood as in most is recreational wood fires, where they allowed. The diesel schoolbus is nothing by comparison. Actually the fires are not allowed but people do it anyway and you need a drone to find them.
- AtlasBarfed 5y ago
  Plus coal is more expensive by LCOE than wind and solar, and has been for several years. That means electric companies are losing money running coal plants. They are racing to replace them with wind and solar and natural gas turbine, with the gas turbine slater for replacement with storage once that is cheap enough. Finally, with EVs and the electric grid, the power can be phased out centrally. Even if coal is used RIGHT NOW, once new power generation is available it is a seamless switchover for EVs. If in the long term some dirt cheap thorium reactor supplants solar and wind, EVs don't care where the electrons come from. Plus home solar, EVs doubling as home energy backup/storage, less components in the EV require less manufacturing, safer skateboard design, more internal space, lower center of gravity, regen breaking. Although the ideal transition is a 100 mile LFP PHEV for the next ten years. No range anxiety, 90% + of daily and weekend driving is all electric, maximizes use of current manufacturing capacity of batteries, regen breaking efficiency. Ten years ago (,ten years after the first Prius) we should have required all consumer passenger vehicles to be PHEV in a phased in manner. It's still not too late to do that.
bsdetector 5y ago
This video is actually a great example of how smart people can fool themselves. The sources he uses for breakeven time (DOE) assumes 24.3 mpg [1] for the average regular car, but people don't drive average cars they drive specific cars. If you take the DOE assumptions and approach this from the other end, CO2 pollution by mpg, then you find an ICE car getting approx 30 mpg or more is less polluting per mile driven than an EV powered entirely by coal, and one getting >45 mpg is less polluting than an EV powered by natural gas. This does not include the battery at all, which makes sense as it is an independent consideration. This is a more honest way to present the information so individuals can make informed decisions for themselves among potential car purchases and so that people aren't fooled into thinking that all EVs are less polluting in all circumstances. 1 - https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions_sources.html https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions_sources....
- derriz 5y ago
  How is doing a calculation based on assuming electricity sourced 100% from coal or NG help develop an informed decision? US electricity is roughly 40% carbon free, 40% natural gas and 20% coal - wouldn’t it be more honest to use this mix in your calculation? And that’s ignoring particulates and NOx.
  - brg 5y ago
    Coal is used to establish a lower bound.
    - skolsuper 5y ago
      And maybe as the type of generation used for the marginal difference in energy required. If your country generates 90% of its electricity from hydroelectric and 10% from coal, you might still use coal for the comparison because hydroelectric power would be slow to add and the extra electricity for EVs would have to provided by coal
      - erosenbe0 5y ago

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.
    - thethethethe 5y ago
      Yeah they are going to raise taxes to pay for it because that's all they can do. Which is the opposite of what OP said
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    The only way you could sell it as an overall less expensive option would be with really elaborate studies that could convincingly tie the transportation effects to the design of the school system. But, when it comes to schools, fewer buildings means lower costs. We've been suffering this for years, there aren't anywhere near as many schools in my district as there were 30 or 40 years ago, even as the number of students go up. It's less expensive to consolidate the schools into a fewer number of locations and increase the capacity of the remaining locations. Ergo, going the other direction and creating more, smaller schools (each with their own infrastructure, custodians, some level of administration, etc) is going to require taxpayers to foot the bill. And not like a levy that only lasts for X years, but on an ongoing basis. Where I live (Oregon) there is massive resistance to new taxes. I do not think we are unique in that regard.
judge2020 5y ago
America is actively against letting your kid out of your sight, with the fear of bad actors perpetuated by primetime news channels being the driving factor. The advent of only needing to part with your child when you drop them off at school, or watch them get on the bus, provides a framework for chain-of-custody and accountability if anything were to happen to the child. Unless you still allow car access for the parents worried about this, simply putting more schools within a mile or two of homes isn't going to work without parents being on board.
- watwut 5y ago
  A school being a mile away with safe sidewalk tend to convince people the kid can go alone sooner.

fiftyfifty 5y ago

There's also the fact that coal power plants tend to be pretty far from heavily populated areas. Even if the US power grid were 100% coal (which it is not) this would still be a win as far as cleaner air goes for a significant portion of the population. There's a big difference between a coal burning power plant's emissions 50 miles away and a school bus idling right outside your house in terms of air quality. That's not even counting the air scrubbers and particulate capturing systems many coal power plants are required to have. The bottom line is the exhaust coming out of a coal burning power plant is much cleaner than even a brand new diesel school bus, let alone all the older buses still in service.

erosenbe0 5y ago
The biggest source of particulate in my neighborhood as in most is recreational wood fires, where they allowed. The diesel schoolbus is nothing by comparison. Actually the fires are not allowed but people do it anyway and you need a drone to find them.
AtlasBarfed 5y ago
Plus coal is more expensive by LCOE than wind and solar, and has been for several years. That means electric companies are losing money running coal plants. They are racing to replace them with wind and solar and natural gas turbine, with the gas turbine slater for replacement with storage once that is cheap enough. Finally, with EVs and the electric grid, the power can be phased out centrally. Even if coal is used RIGHT NOW, once new power generation is available it is a seamless switchover for EVs. If in the long term some dirt cheap thorium reactor supplants solar and wind, EVs don't care where the electrons come from. Plus home solar, EVs doubling as home energy backup/storage, less components in the EV require less manufacturing, safer skateboard design, more internal space, lower center of gravity, regen breaking. Although the ideal transition is a 100 mile LFP PHEV for the next ten years. No range anxiety, 90% + of daily and weekend driving is all electric, maximizes use of current manufacturing capacity of batteries, regen breaking efficiency. Ten years ago (,ten years after the first Prius) we should have required all consumer passenger vehicles to be PHEV in a phased in manner. It's still not too late to do that.

bsdetector 5y ago

This video is actually a great example of how smart people can fool themselves. The sources he uses for breakeven time (DOE) assumes 24.3 mpg [1] for the average regular car, but people don't drive average cars they drive specific cars. If you take the DOE assumptions and approach this from the other end, CO2 pollution by mpg, then you find an ICE car getting approx 30 mpg or more is less polluting per mile driven than an EV powered entirely by coal, and one getting >45 mpg is less polluting than an EV powered by natural gas. This does not include the battery at all, which makes sense as it is an independent consideration. This is a more honest way to present the information so individuals can make informed decisions for themselves among potential car purchases and so that people aren't fooled into thinking that all EVs are less polluting in all circumstances. 1 - https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions_sources.html https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions_sources....

derriz 5y ago
How is doing a calculation based on assuming electricity sourced 100% from coal or NG help develop an informed decision? US electricity is roughly 40% carbon free, 40% natural gas and 20% coal - wouldn’t it be more honest to use this mix in your calculation? And that’s ignoring particulates and NOx.
- brg 5y ago
  Coal is used to establish a lower bound.
  - skolsuper 5y ago
    And maybe as the type of generation used for the marginal difference in energy required. If your country generates 90% of its electricity from hydroelectric and 10% from coal, you might still use coal for the comparison because hydroelectric power would be slow to add and the extra electricity for EVs would have to provided by coal
    - erosenbe0 5y ago