4 ms·

~20% of final energy consumption comes from electricity [1], that's 80% that doesn't. Electric cars driven by green sources whose production create no emission

~20% of final energy consumption comes from electricity [1], that's 80% that doesn't. Electric cars driven by green sources whose production create no emissions are a very very small part of the global energy mix. [1] https://www.iea.org/reports/key-world-energy-statistics-2021/final-consumption https://www.iea.org/reports/key-world-energy-statistics-2021...

agloe_dreams 3y ago
That's a brutally flawed thought process. 1. Electric vehicles use 1/4 or less the energy of gasoline vehicles for the same result. If 75% of cars were EVs, your angle of cars would be "EVs only use 18%!". 2. Just because current state is mostly gas does not mean that we do not intend to change this. The current limitation is a propagation issue. EV cars for example are getting cheaper...but fewer people can own new cars anyways, it's going to take time. 3. Heating is a major use of energy and much of the world is behind on better solutions such as heat pumps.
- throwaway167 3y ago
  Please check the link. It's total global energy consumption, of which cars are a very small part of the mix, of which electric are most useful at displacing pollution from cities to production facilities, not reducing it. Just stop driving so much. Replacing use of car A for car B doesn't address the underlying problem of needing a car, it's like hitting 'favourite' on Facebook for a feel good cause and believing you've made a difference.
  - agloe_dreams 3y ago
    I checked the link, my point stands and your explanation makes basically zero impact on anything here. This invention is only applicable to gasoline. Nothing in that link is applicable. Additionally, an EV powered by coal emits less emissions than a gasoline car. That is a fact, additionally, it enables a world where you replace the coal plant with zero emission options. Additionally, while I fully agree with your angle...in a city...much of the world does not actually work like that. You tell someone in Montana to stop using a car and they will ask for you to build a shrink ray. Saying' Stop using a car' is exactly the same as hitting like on FB for a social cause: It doesn't change reality of people needing to be at work, have food, or live life. The world isn't a happy imaginary place where 'Oh, just walk/take a bike/public transport!' works. It only works if it is better than the car. That is true in NYC and SF, that is not true between them.
tzs 3y ago
Even electric cars driven by non-green electricity are massively better than ICE cars from an emissions standpoint for at least two reasons: 1. As non-green electricity sources are replaced by green electricity sources, those non-green EVs become green EVs with no action required on the part of their owners. To switch someone using an ICE to a green car you have to get them to buy a new car. 2. If you have to use a burning fuel power source, you can try to capture some of the emissions where the fuel is burned to reduce the environmental impact. If you are burning the fuel in your car, that emissions capture has to be done at the car where you are quite limited in feasible weight and volume of your emissions capture equipment. If you are burning the fuel in a big power plant and then distributing the energy as electricity to EVs you don't have weight limits and have much less restrictive size limits on your emissions capture equipment.
- vondur 3y ago
  Heck, modern natural gas power plants can achieve up to 60% efficiency, which is far higher than a internal combustion engines. So even if you are charging electric vehicles from it, it will still be far more efficient than an individual petrol based car.
mulmen 3y ago
EVs don’t know or care where their electricity comes from. You can clean up the grid and EV emissions magically improve. This isn’t something ICE vehicles can do.
- dredmorbius 3y ago
  Strictly speaking, not quite true. Fossil-based hydrocarbon fuels could be replaced by non-fossil synfuel analogues which are themselves carbon neutral. This is based on proved chemistry, though the economics to date have not permitted anything but experimental and pilot-project scales of operation. One of the appeals of this route to me, however, is that by introducing equivalent fuels to the extant energy system it would be possible to convert to a green, sustainable energy economy without wholesale replacement of extant fleets, powerplants, and energy infrastructure for refining, transport, storage, and distribution of those fuels. In this sense it's the exact analogue of replacing underlying grid generation and storage infrastructure with EVs. Again, the slight fly in the soup is that neither economics nor the necessary scale of operations are proven, though the prospect isn't obviously unattainable, as many other proposed solutions are. (Say: biofuels, for which biological capacity simply isn't sufficient.)
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - mulmen 3y ago
    This is true but burning hydrocarbons is always going to be a dirty business. CO2 isn't the only nasty thing that comes out of a tailpipe. Theoretically improvements can be made with synthetic hydrocarbon fuels but you're not going to collect and resynthesize 100% of tailpipe emissions. With an EV the only harmful emissions are tires and brake pads. Cleaning up the electrical grid is also a lot more attainable given current technology than scaling up synthetic hydrocarbon production. If a car has an estimated lifespan of say 20 years then I am more confident in achieving cleaner grid power than I am in clean synfuels in that lifetime. There is also the matter of where you live. Some grids are already very clean and so the EVs that operate there really are low or even zero tailpipe emission. I am curious how a synfuel ICE vehicle compares to an EV in terms of energy per distance. How much energy does it take to synthesize the fuel?

agloe_dreams 3y ago

That's a brutally flawed thought process. 1. Electric vehicles use 1/4 or less the energy of gasoline vehicles for the same result. If 75% of cars were EVs, your angle of cars would be "EVs only use 18%!". 2. Just because current state is mostly gas does not mean that we do not intend to change this. The current limitation is a propagation issue. EV cars for example are getting cheaper...but fewer people can own new cars anyways, it's going to take time. 3. Heating is a major use of energy and much of the world is behind on better solutions such as heat pumps.

throwaway167 3y ago
Please check the link. It's total global energy consumption, of which cars are a very small part of the mix, of which electric are most useful at displacing pollution from cities to production facilities, not reducing it. Just stop driving so much. Replacing use of car A for car B doesn't address the underlying problem of needing a car, it's like hitting 'favourite' on Facebook for a feel good cause and believing you've made a difference.
- agloe_dreams 3y ago
  I checked the link, my point stands and your explanation makes basically zero impact on anything here. This invention is only applicable to gasoline. Nothing in that link is applicable. Additionally, an EV powered by coal emits less emissions than a gasoline car. That is a fact, additionally, it enables a world where you replace the coal plant with zero emission options. Additionally, while I fully agree with your angle...in a city...much of the world does not actually work like that. You tell someone in Montana to stop using a car and they will ask for you to build a shrink ray. Saying' Stop using a car' is exactly the same as hitting like on FB for a social cause: It doesn't change reality of people needing to be at work, have food, or live life. The world isn't a happy imaginary place where 'Oh, just walk/take a bike/public transport!' works. It only works if it is better than the car. That is true in NYC and SF, that is not true between them.

tzs 3y ago

Even electric cars driven by non-green electricity are massively better than ICE cars from an emissions standpoint for at least two reasons: 1. As non-green electricity sources are replaced by green electricity sources, those non-green EVs become green EVs with no action required on the part of their owners. To switch someone using an ICE to a green car you have to get them to buy a new car. 2. If you have to use a burning fuel power source, you can try to capture some of the emissions where the fuel is burned to reduce the environmental impact. If you are burning the fuel in your car, that emissions capture has to be done at the car where you are quite limited in feasible weight and volume of your emissions capture equipment. If you are burning the fuel in a big power plant and then distributing the energy as electricity to EVs you don't have weight limits and have much less restrictive size limits on your emissions capture equipment.

vondur 3y ago
Heck, modern natural gas power plants can achieve up to 60% efficiency, which is far higher than a internal combustion engines. So even if you are charging electric vehicles from it, it will still be far more efficient than an individual petrol based car.

mulmen 3y ago

EVs don’t know or care where their electricity comes from. You can clean up the grid and EV emissions magically improve. This isn’t something ICE vehicles can do.

dredmorbius 3y ago
Strictly speaking, not quite true. Fossil-based hydrocarbon fuels could be replaced by non-fossil synfuel analogues which are themselves carbon neutral. This is based on proved chemistry, though the economics to date have not permitted anything but experimental and pilot-project scales of operation. One of the appeals of this route to me, however, is that by introducing equivalent fuels to the extant energy system it would be possible to convert to a green, sustainable energy economy without wholesale replacement of extant fleets, powerplants, and energy infrastructure for refining, transport, storage, and distribution of those fuels. In this sense it's the exact analogue of replacing underlying grid generation and storage infrastructure with EVs. Again, the slight fly in the soup is that neither economics nor the necessary scale of operations are proven, though the prospect isn't obviously unattainable, as many other proposed solutions are. (Say: biofuels, for which biological capacity simply isn't sufficient.)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- mulmen 3y ago
  This is true but burning hydrocarbons is always going to be a dirty business. CO2 isn't the only nasty thing that comes out of a tailpipe. Theoretically improvements can be made with synthetic hydrocarbon fuels but you're not going to collect and resynthesize 100% of tailpipe emissions. With an EV the only harmful emissions are tires and brake pads. Cleaning up the electrical grid is also a lot more attainable given current technology than scaling up synthetic hydrocarbon production. If a car has an estimated lifespan of say 20 years then I am more confident in achieving cleaner grid power than I am in clean synfuels in that lifetime. There is also the matter of where you live. Some grids are already very clean and so the EVs that operate there really are low or even zero tailpipe emission. I am curious how a synfuel ICE vehicle compares to an EV in terms of energy per distance. How much energy does it take to synthesize the fuel?