3 ms·

>> we're going to be charging EVs with fossil fuels for a long time Even if you never used wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, etc. then you’d still be ahead in the B

>> we're going to be charging EVs with fossil fuels for a long time Even if you never used wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, etc. then you’d still be ahead in the BEV case. An oil power plant has around 42% thermal efficiency. A gas one 50%+ an ICE is only up to 35% but in the US it’s significantly lower on average. Neither of which have tailpipe emissions in populated areas unlike ICE. But we do also use wind, solar, nuclear etc as power sources for BEV.

aidenn0 4y ago
And you're going to get around 80% from your EV after round trip through a battery. EVs powered by oil power plants is not a good use of energy. Fortunately, that's not what we are doing. I just wish EV proponents would stop pretending it is. Is there a term for a self-inflicted straw-man?
- CraigJPerry 4y ago
  >> around 80% from your EV after round trip through a battery I didn't follow this part, there’s an energy loss in the process of charging the battery and there’s a loss in the process of converting from dc battery to ac traction motor, but it’s well shy of 20%. The high amperage involved in both charging and discharging mean losses are low (because if they were high, you’d generate so much heat as to make the system unusable) >> EVs powered by oil power plants is not a good use of energy It’s a huge step forward from ICE. You’ve cut disease rates in the population by moving tail pipe emissions away from population centres. You’ve swapped a circa 30% efficient process for a circa 40%-60% efficient process. Not to mention the emissions benefits of LNG over Gasoline or diesel.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    It is not a 40-50% process. Coal plants run around 33%.
    - CraigJPerry 4y ago
      Power supplied is a blend of coal, oil, gas, nuclear, renewables and some other smaller sources. 40-50% is a conservatively low number.
WalterBright 4y ago
> Even if you never used wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, etc. then you’d still be ahead in the BEV case. Yes, but not by much. A coal power plant averages 33% efficiency. Gas is 42%. Source: google > Neither of which have tailpipe emissions in populated areas unlike ICE. CO2 doesn't care where it's emitted. > But we do also use wind, solar, nuclear etc as power sources for BEV. And nowhere near the power needed if everyone switched to EVs.
- CraigJPerry 4y ago
  >> CO2 doesn't care where it's emitted Disease rates (e.g. asthma) in the population do though >> And nowhere near the power needed if everyone switched to EVs You’re saying that if demand for electricity goes up, it won’t be met? Why?
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Is asthma affected by CO2? > You’re saying that if demand for electricity goes up, it won’t be met? Yes. > Why? Because government does not price things based on supply&demand. Therefore, you get shortages (rolling blackouts).
    - CraigJPerry 4y ago
      Tailpipe emissions are far more harmful than only CO2 - which i suspect you know. I’m beginning to think you’re arguing in bad faith here
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
  > And nowhere near the power needed if everyone switched to EVs. This is pointless argument. We don't have enough EVs for everyone to switch to EVs. It looks like the bottleneck will be EV production, not wind & solar adoption. We only need to quadruple solar panels in the US to provide all electricity necessary for ALL cars to switch to EVs... This looks like it'll happen within 10 years. We won't be 100% on EVs in 20 years.

aidenn0 4y ago

And you're going to get around 80% from your EV after round trip through a battery. EVs powered by oil power plants is not a good use of energy. Fortunately, that's not what we are doing. I just wish EV proponents would stop pretending it is. Is there a term for a self-inflicted straw-man?

CraigJPerry 4y ago
>> around 80% from your EV after round trip through a battery I didn't follow this part, there’s an energy loss in the process of charging the battery and there’s a loss in the process of converting from dc battery to ac traction motor, but it’s well shy of 20%. The high amperage involved in both charging and discharging mean losses are low (because if they were high, you’d generate so much heat as to make the system unusable) >> EVs powered by oil power plants is not a good use of energy It’s a huge step forward from ICE. You’ve cut disease rates in the population by moving tail pipe emissions away from population centres. You’ve swapped a circa 30% efficient process for a circa 40%-60% efficient process. Not to mention the emissions benefits of LNG over Gasoline or diesel.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  It is not a 40-50% process. Coal plants run around 33%.
  - CraigJPerry 4y ago
    Power supplied is a blend of coal, oil, gas, nuclear, renewables and some other smaller sources. 40-50% is a conservatively low number.

WalterBright 4y ago

> Even if you never used wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, etc. then you’d still be ahead in the BEV case. Yes, but not by much. A coal power plant averages 33% efficiency. Gas is 42%. Source: google > Neither of which have tailpipe emissions in populated areas unlike ICE. CO2 doesn't care where it's emitted. > But we do also use wind, solar, nuclear etc as power sources for BEV. And nowhere near the power needed if everyone switched to EVs.

CraigJPerry 4y ago
>> CO2 doesn't care where it's emitted Disease rates (e.g. asthma) in the population do though >> And nowhere near the power needed if everyone switched to EVs You’re saying that if demand for electricity goes up, it won’t be met? Why?
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Is asthma affected by CO2? > You’re saying that if demand for electricity goes up, it won’t be met? Yes. > Why? Because government does not price things based on supply&demand. Therefore, you get shortages (rolling blackouts).
  - CraigJPerry 4y ago
    Tailpipe emissions are far more harmful than only CO2 - which i suspect you know. I’m beginning to think you’re arguing in bad faith here
onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
> And nowhere near the power needed if everyone switched to EVs. This is pointless argument. We don't have enough EVs for everyone to switch to EVs. It looks like the bottleneck will be EV production, not wind & solar adoption. We only need to quadruple solar panels in the US to provide all electricity necessary for ALL cars to switch to EVs... This looks like it'll happen within 10 years. We won't be 100% on EVs in 20 years.