6 ms·

Why would EVs threaten oil & gas industry - they contain lots of plastic that is currently made out of oil. Also electricity is still being generated from fossi

by zirgs 4y ago

Why would EVs threaten oil & gas industry - they contain lots of plastic that is currently made out of oil. Also electricity is still being generated from fossil fuels in many places. And I don't see stuff like diesel generators going away any time soon. Renewables won't help if a hospital loses power.

epolanski 4y ago
You can't be serious, it's obvious that EVs curb oil and gas consumption and profits.
- beepbooptheory 4y ago
  How is that obvious? At least in the U.S., there is a pretty high chance that nonrenewables are charging your battery.
  - crop_rotation 4y ago
    Non renewables are not all the same. What a car runs on and what is used to generate electricity are not the same non renewables.
  - marcyb5st 4y ago
    Power plants are more efficient than engines crammed within the trunk of a car. They have no limitations in space and weight and so you can do fancy things like heat recovery (you use the exhaust to pre-heat your fuel mix or reuse said heat for nearby industries), always have the combustion chamber at the best temperature for efficiency, ... . Plus, you can install much better filtration systems for combustion byproducts. All in all, if everyone would transition to an EV you would see a noticeable drop in oil consumption thanks to the mentioned benefits. EDIT: From a quick Google search I saw that: - The lower end efficiency for oil and coal power plants is 37%. Gas power plants achieve 56% on the lower end according to [1]. - Car engines vary between 20% (gasoline) and 40% (diesel) efficiency according to [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_station#:~:text=Typical%20thermal%20efficiency%20for%20utility,%2Dcycle%20gas%2Dfired%20plants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_station#:~:t.... [2] https://rentar.com/efficient-engines-thermodynamics-combustion-efficiency/ https://rentar.com/efficient-engines-thermodynamics-combusti...
    - AstralStorm 4y ago
      It is also much easier to integrate any renewables or other power sources for that. The big problem is mining the battery metals, involving worst kind of worker exploitation and danger, which is why we need ethically sourced nickel-sodium (also known as sodium-ion) tech to catch up with lithium-cobalt. That's not going to happen under capitalism though.
    - beepbooptheory 4y ago
      Got it, that all makes sense. I know its certainly got to be an improvement, I guess I just thought it was more qualified an improvement than it is! Even if still highly tied to geography I guess. We should definitely take what improvements we can get! (Also, sorry for injecting stupidity into the discourse in general. I didn't mean to anger people or say something wrong.)
      - marcyb5st 4y ago
        No problem. I am actually happy you asked instead of remaining convinced of your ideas. I think if you and others ask these questions it means that there's room for improvement in how we should discuss EVs and renewables!
  - bluGill 4y ago
    That depends. If you live in Iowa, or Kansas there is a high chance your EV is charged entirely from wind power. Both states are exporting to other nearby states (which are also building more wind). Texas also has a lot of wind generation (more than the above two combined), but their population is larger so overall it comes out to less. CA has a lot of solar power (more deserts should), though I'm not sure how much. However if you live in other states you may find that roadblocks have been put in place and so your power has to come from non-renewables. Make no mistake, the limit is more legal than practical these days, renewables can easily be most of your power mix, and are already the cheapest source of power.
    - beepbooptheory 4y ago
      Im confused, every one is telling me I am wrong and downvoting me, but saying different things. Am I wrong because even if you charge the batteries with power that comes from nonrenewable energy, its still more efficient, and in that becomes different from nonrenewable power? Am I wrong because, in the U.S., its about 50/50 renewable/nonrenewable so the claim that your likely to charge your battery with nonrenewable energy is laughable? Am I wrong because it depends where you are in the country? I'm really just trying to understand, I didn't think I was making such a huge claim. I just thought it wasn't controversial to say most of our energy comes from nonrenewables still, bracketing whatever economic or political or logistical forces have made it that way. Regardless, I will definitely think twice before talking about any of this on here. Lesson learned.
      - bluGill 4y ago
        > Am I wrong because even if you charge the batteries with power that comes from nonrenewable energy, its still more efficient, and in that becomes different from nonrenewable power? this is an it depends. The best combined cycle power plants are more efficient - even accounting for transmissions losses than an ICE. However there are a few power plants that are less efficient. Coal is about equal efficiency to a ICE in the ideal cases for both. Running an ICE at ideal efficiency is unlikely though, while they manage coal to put close to ideal, though after transmission losses the difference isn't so great if you are doing highway driving (but city driving is vastly worse). The worst case power plants are worse then city driving in an ICE. These power plants are typically mothballed, but they when there is an emergency. They are generally only used every 5 years, but they are a part of every power utilities emergency plans. As power demand goes up power gets less efficient in general, so Christmas season is going to be less efficient. > Am I wrong because, in the U.S., its about 50/50 renewable/nonrenewable so the claim that your likely to charge your battery with nonrenewable energy is laughable? This is wrong. US generation is about 20% renewable (as of last year) overall. Some areas have far more renewable than others (my utility claims >80% wind for me in marketing, but I cannot find and source that can be scientifically claimed). Some areas have far less. You may also count nuclear power as green even though it isn't renewable. Most energy comes from non-renewables for sure. However that is overall and so your specific situation may be different.
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    It's pretty fucking obvious that more electric cars will mean, overall, less gasoline and oil use, yes.
    - beepbooptheory 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - yamtaddle 4y ago
        "Some form of power" != oil and gasoline. > Thanks for being patient with my stupidity. No problem.
        beepbooptheory 4y ago
        So, just to be clear, if you are in some random place in the united states, the energy you will use to charge your car's battery is most likely to come from renewable energy like solar, wind, geothermal, and very unlikely to come from oil/gasoline, natural gas, or coal? And I should, in fact, feel stupid because this is an extremely apparent/obvious fact to actually smart people?
        yamtaddle 4y ago
        > So, just to be clear, if you are in some random place in the united states, the energy you will use to charge your car's battery is most likely to come from renewable energy like solar, wind, geothermal, and very unlikely to come from oil/gasoline, natural gas, or coal? Nobody in this chain of comments was concerned with most of this, so it hardly matters (to the discussion at hand) what I answer, or cite, or whatever. That's much of the problem with what you've been posting. All that was originally claimed was that broader EV deployment will tend to reduce petroleum use, so may be viewed as a threat by petroleum industry, which... I mean, yes, that's obvious. I would certainly find evidence to the contrary quite surprising. > And I should, in fact, feel stupid because this is an extremely apparent/obvious fact to actually smart people? No—because you keep trying to argue against the proposition you want to argue against, instead of the one that was actually advanced, which is why I've twice tried to redirect you back to the actual topic. The "but much electricity comes from burning fossil fuels!" observation isn't terribly interesting even when it isn't a non-sequitur, but given the topic at hand, which was narrowly about effects of EV deployment on the petroleum industry in particular, it's also being mis-applied. We could get 100% of our electricity from coal, for instance, and the original claim might still be true. Technically, we could even get 100% of our electricity from petroleum, and it might still be true—though in that case I'd certainly allow that it wouldn't be obviously-true.

by zirgs 4y ago

epolanski 4y ago

You can't be serious, it's obvious that EVs curb oil and gas consumption and profits.

beepbooptheory 4y ago
How is that obvious? At least in the U.S., there is a pretty high chance that nonrenewables are charging your battery.
- crop_rotation 4y ago
  Non renewables are not all the same. What a car runs on and what is used to generate electricity are not the same non renewables.
- marcyb5st 4y ago
  Power plants are more efficient than engines crammed within the trunk of a car. They have no limitations in space and weight and so you can do fancy things like heat recovery (you use the exhaust to pre-heat your fuel mix or reuse said heat for nearby industries), always have the combustion chamber at the best temperature for efficiency, ... . Plus, you can install much better filtration systems for combustion byproducts. All in all, if everyone would transition to an EV you would see a noticeable drop in oil consumption thanks to the mentioned benefits. EDIT: From a quick Google search I saw that: - The lower end efficiency for oil and coal power plants is 37%. Gas power plants achieve 56% on the lower end according to [1]. - Car engines vary between 20% (gasoline) and 40% (diesel) efficiency according to [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_station#:~:text=Typical%20thermal%20efficiency%20for%20utility,%2Dcycle%20gas%2Dfired%20plants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_station#:~:t.... [2] https://rentar.com/efficient-engines-thermodynamics-combustion-efficiency/ https://rentar.com/efficient-engines-thermodynamics-combusti...
  - AstralStorm 4y ago
    It is also much easier to integrate any renewables or other power sources for that. The big problem is mining the battery metals, involving worst kind of worker exploitation and danger, which is why we need ethically sourced nickel-sodium (also known as sodium-ion) tech to catch up with lithium-cobalt. That's not going to happen under capitalism though.
  - beepbooptheory 4y ago
    Got it, that all makes sense. I know its certainly got to be an improvement, I guess I just thought it was more qualified an improvement than it is! Even if still highly tied to geography I guess. We should definitely take what improvements we can get! (Also, sorry for injecting stupidity into the discourse in general. I didn't mean to anger people or say something wrong.)
    - marcyb5st 4y ago
      No problem. I am actually happy you asked instead of remaining convinced of your ideas. I think if you and others ask these questions it means that there's room for improvement in how we should discuss EVs and renewables!
- bluGill 4y ago
  That depends. If you live in Iowa, or Kansas there is a high chance your EV is charged entirely from wind power. Both states are exporting to other nearby states (which are also building more wind). Texas also has a lot of wind generation (more than the above two combined), but their population is larger so overall it comes out to less. CA has a lot of solar power (more deserts should), though I'm not sure how much. However if you live in other states you may find that roadblocks have been put in place and so your power has to come from non-renewables. Make no mistake, the limit is more legal than practical these days, renewables can easily be most of your power mix, and are already the cheapest source of power.
  - beepbooptheory 4y ago
    Im confused, every one is telling me I am wrong and downvoting me, but saying different things. Am I wrong because even if you charge the batteries with power that comes from nonrenewable energy, its still more efficient, and in that becomes different from nonrenewable power? Am I wrong because, in the U.S., its about 50/50 renewable/nonrenewable so the claim that your likely to charge your battery with nonrenewable energy is laughable? Am I wrong because it depends where you are in the country? I'm really just trying to understand, I didn't think I was making such a huge claim. I just thought it wasn't controversial to say most of our energy comes from nonrenewables still, bracketing whatever economic or political or logistical forces have made it that way. Regardless, I will definitely think twice before talking about any of this on here. Lesson learned.
    - bluGill 4y ago
      > Am I wrong because even if you charge the batteries with power that comes from nonrenewable energy, its still more efficient, and in that becomes different from nonrenewable power? this is an it depends. The best combined cycle power plants are more efficient - even accounting for transmissions losses than an ICE. However there are a few power plants that are less efficient. Coal is about equal efficiency to a ICE in the ideal cases for both. Running an ICE at ideal efficiency is unlikely though, while they manage coal to put close to ideal, though after transmission losses the difference isn't so great if you are doing highway driving (but city driving is vastly worse). The worst case power plants are worse then city driving in an ICE. These power plants are typically mothballed, but they when there is an emergency. They are generally only used every 5 years, but they are a part of every power utilities emergency plans. As power demand goes up power gets less efficient in general, so Christmas season is going to be less efficient. > Am I wrong because, in the U.S., its about 50/50 renewable/nonrenewable so the claim that your likely to charge your battery with nonrenewable energy is laughable? This is wrong. US generation is about 20% renewable (as of last year) overall. Some areas have far more renewable than others (my utility claims >80% wind for me in marketing, but I cannot find and source that can be scientifically claimed). Some areas have far less. You may also count nuclear power as green even though it isn't renewable. Most energy comes from non-renewables for sure. However that is overall and so your specific situation may be different.
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  It's pretty fucking obvious that more electric cars will mean, overall, less gasoline and oil use, yes.
  - beepbooptheory 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - yamtaddle 4y ago
      "Some form of power" != oil and gasoline. > Thanks for being patient with my stupidity. No problem.
      - beepbooptheory 4y ago
        So, just to be clear, if you are in some random place in the united states, the energy you will use to charge your car's battery is most likely to come from renewable energy like solar, wind, geothermal, and very unlikely to come from oil/gasoline, natural gas, or coal? And I should, in fact, feel stupid because this is an extremely apparent/obvious fact to actually smart people?
        yamtaddle 4y ago
        > So, just to be clear, if you are in some random place in the united states, the energy you will use to charge your car's battery is most likely to come from renewable energy like solar, wind, geothermal, and very unlikely to come from oil/gasoline, natural gas, or coal? Nobody in this chain of comments was concerned with most of this, so it hardly matters (to the discussion at hand) what I answer, or cite, or whatever. That's much of the problem with what you've been posting. All that was originally claimed was that broader EV deployment will tend to reduce petroleum use, so may be viewed as a threat by petroleum industry, which... I mean, yes, that's obvious. I would certainly find evidence to the contrary quite surprising. > And I should, in fact, feel stupid because this is an extremely apparent/obvious fact to actually smart people? No—because you keep trying to argue against the proposition you want to argue against, instead of the one that was actually advanced, which is why I've twice tried to redirect you back to the actual topic. The "but much electricity comes from burning fossil fuels!" observation isn't terribly interesting even when it isn't a non-sequitur, but given the topic at hand, which was narrowly about effects of EV deployment on the petroleum industry in particular, it's also being mis-applied. We could get 100% of our electricity from coal, for instance, and the original claim might still be true. Technically, we could even get 100% of our electricity from petroleum, and it might still be true—though in that case I'd certainly allow that it wouldn't be obviously-true.