5 ms·

I think you are not considering the difference in efficiency between a power plant and a car with an internal combustion engine. Switching to electric just beca

I think you are not considering the difference in efficiency between a power plant and a car with an internal combustion engine. Switching to electric just because of that is worth in the long term and additionally, some of the power comes from clean sources so even more so. I saw a video in YT where in a state like Utah in the US an ev becomes greener after the equivalent of few tens of gas tanks (don't remember the number). Will try to find out the sources.

mytailorisrich 4y ago
However Germany tries to spin it they are doing very badly on emissions. > Switching to electric just because of that is worth in the long term Is it, though? Batteries are not exactly environment-friendly and hydrogen seems too often ignored.
- TeMPOraL 4y ago
  Priorities. Materials used in batteries are something that can be managed, like any other toxic industrial chemicals. Emissions go up in the air, and are creating an extinction-level threat. It's important to think of the former, but trying to turn it into a deal-breaker is just suicidal.
  - mytailorisrich 4y ago
    A justification of those priorities would include an explanation on why hydrogen is being pretty much ignored apart from niche uses. I am not an expert so probably don't know many issues but on the face of it hydrogen seems much less disruptive than batteries. Also, it is a bit easy to claim that we need to rush and have the luxury to make bad decisions. We have had decades and still have decades, and cannot change the whole infrastructure again in 10-20 years...
    - rich_sasha 4y ago
      Hydrogen is generally very hard to store. Batteries have downsides but apart from them, they do work. Hydrogen can either be stored cryogenically (which is problematic in a car), or compressed. In the latter case, hydrogen leaks out through the metal (because its atoms are so small) and worse still, causes embrittlement of the metal. So while we know how to build a battery car today, which is safe and stable, it's much less the case for hydrogen. It's not like you can take eg LNG car tech and just fill it with hydrogen.
jryhjythtr 4y ago
>you are not considering the difference in efficiency between a power plant and a car with an internal combustion engine. The well-to-wheels analysis for an EV powered by a largely fossil-fuelled power grid is not good. Transmission and battery losses wipe out most of the (quite small) gains. >a state like Utah in the US an ev becomes greener after the equivalent of few tens of gas tanks Would love to see the source for that. Last time I checked, with a relatively "green" grid (something that almost everywhere in the US is a long way from achieving), the CO2 crossover point for an EV is at 20,000+ miles.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  The sleight of hand is in the definition of 'equivalent'. Batteries are expensive and motors are dirt cheap, so the only EVs with decent range are super high end, performance, luxury models. Compared to a 500hp luxury SUV they're great. Compared to an econobox they use about the same amount of energy per km. They're up if you compare whole system emissions for the car vs. Emissions at a ff plant. If you add in the fugitive methane or horror show that is coal mining and ash they're on par again.
  - jryhjythtr 4y ago
    >They're up if you compare whole system emissions for the car vs. Emissions at a ff plant. The sleight of hand is in the definition of "emissions". If you mean CO2 - then no, not really. If you are powering your EV with a fossil-fuel powered grid, then the transmission and battery losses make up for the small gain in power plant efficiency over an ICE (as I already said). The CO2 argument for an EV only works when the grid has a substantial "green generation" component. If you mean "emissions that are immediately bad for people" - it depends who you are talking about. EVs replace tailpipe emissions at the point of use with centralised emissions, both at the point of manufacture, and at the point of charging power generation (which will most likely be in a Western country with well-controlled emissions). As a cyclist, I have to admit it's nice not to breathe in tailpipe fumes. I try not to worry too much about all the damage being done by EV manufacture far far away from me.

mytailorisrich 4y ago

However Germany tries to spin it they are doing very badly on emissions. > Switching to electric just because of that is worth in the long term Is it, though? Batteries are not exactly environment-friendly and hydrogen seems too often ignored.

TeMPOraL 4y ago
Priorities. Materials used in batteries are something that can be managed, like any other toxic industrial chemicals. Emissions go up in the air, and are creating an extinction-level threat. It's important to think of the former, but trying to turn it into a deal-breaker is just suicidal.
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  A justification of those priorities would include an explanation on why hydrogen is being pretty much ignored apart from niche uses. I am not an expert so probably don't know many issues but on the face of it hydrogen seems much less disruptive than batteries. Also, it is a bit easy to claim that we need to rush and have the luxury to make bad decisions. We have had decades and still have decades, and cannot change the whole infrastructure again in 10-20 years...
  - rich_sasha 4y ago
    Hydrogen is generally very hard to store. Batteries have downsides but apart from them, they do work. Hydrogen can either be stored cryogenically (which is problematic in a car), or compressed. In the latter case, hydrogen leaks out through the metal (because its atoms are so small) and worse still, causes embrittlement of the metal. So while we know how to build a battery car today, which is safe and stable, it's much less the case for hydrogen. It's not like you can take eg LNG car tech and just fill it with hydrogen.

jryhjythtr 4y ago

>you are not considering the difference in efficiency between a power plant and a car with an internal combustion engine. The well-to-wheels analysis for an EV powered by a largely fossil-fuelled power grid is not good. Transmission and battery losses wipe out most of the (quite small) gains. >a state like Utah in the US an ev becomes greener after the equivalent of few tens of gas tanks Would love to see the source for that. Last time I checked, with a relatively "green" grid (something that almost everywhere in the US is a long way from achieving), the CO2 crossover point for an EV is at 20,000+ miles.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
The sleight of hand is in the definition of 'equivalent'. Batteries are expensive and motors are dirt cheap, so the only EVs with decent range are super high end, performance, luxury models. Compared to a 500hp luxury SUV they're great. Compared to an econobox they use about the same amount of energy per km. They're up if you compare whole system emissions for the car vs. Emissions at a ff plant. If you add in the fugitive methane or horror show that is coal mining and ash they're on par again.
- jryhjythtr 4y ago
  >They're up if you compare whole system emissions for the car vs. Emissions at a ff plant. The sleight of hand is in the definition of "emissions". If you mean CO2 - then no, not really. If you are powering your EV with a fossil-fuel powered grid, then the transmission and battery losses make up for the small gain in power plant efficiency over an ICE (as I already said). The CO2 argument for an EV only works when the grid has a substantial "green generation" component. If you mean "emissions that are immediately bad for people" - it depends who you are talking about. EVs replace tailpipe emissions at the point of use with centralised emissions, both at the point of manufacture, and at the point of charging power generation (which will most likely be in a Western country with well-controlled emissions). As a cyclist, I have to admit it's nice not to breathe in tailpipe fumes. I try not to worry too much about all the damage being done by EV manufacture far far away from me.