3 ms·

Another point to consider here. Even if EVs are powered by fossil fuels. A powerplan producing electricity and transmitting it to your house is orders of magn

Another point to consider here. Even if EVs are powered by fossil fuels. A powerplan producing electricity and transmitting it to your house is orders of magnitude more efficient than generating energy from gasoline in a motorvehicle using an internal combustion engine. Also we can curb emissions at the power plant and track them dramatically easier. And more EVs does not mean more power plants turning on per se. Most EVs are charged at night when power usage drops dramatically (and when you get cheaper rates on your electricity). The real answer here is using more green house gas free power options like nuclear and solar and wind. I doubt we'll see much nuclear in the near future because it is so cheap to create solar and wind farms at this point and there's dramatically less risk despite it being dramatically less productive.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
kyrra 3y ago
EVs generate a bunch more carbon during their manufacturing process. > As of 2022, Woodley's research showed that aggregate use of EVs below 55,749 miles may — in the U.S., at least — fail to generate any emissions benefit over gas-powered vehicles. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/08/when-buying-an-ev-increases-your-carbon-footprint/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/08/when-buying-a... Also, If we end up using coal to charge an electric vehicle, its carbon emissions are actually higher than that of can you an ICE vehicle. Then if you have to replace the battery on your EV, that will reset some of that carbon offset.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  A Tesla Model 3 has a lower carbon footprint than an Toyota Corolla after 13,500 miles per Argonne National Labs (vs a Harvard puff piece). Only 20% of electricity in the US is generated with coal, and phaseout continues at speed. There is over 1TW of renewables in US interconnect queues. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38243912 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38243912 (citations) https://cleantechnica.com/2023/12/01/us-coal-electricity-dropped-in-2022-down-to-20-of-us-electricity/ https://cleantechnica.com/2023/12/01/us-coal-electricity-dro... https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=55439 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=55439 https://www.pv-tech.org/nearly-1tw-of-renewables-in-us-interconnection-queues-as-wait-times-continue-to-grow/ https://www.pv-tech.org/nearly-1tw-of-renewables-in-us-inter...
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    Correction: “The United States has at least 1,350 GW of wind and solar capacity and 680 GW of storage is waiting to be connected, which is enough to double the country’s electricity supply.” https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/12/08/solar-lcoe-now-29-lower-than-any-fuel-fossil-option-says-ey/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/12/08/solar-lcoe-now-29-low...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- idontwantthis 3y ago
  This is so boring stop.
  - p1necone 3y ago
    Expect the FUD to get more and more unhinged as it becomes harder and harder to for anyone not either malicious or stupid to believe it.
    - idontwantthis 3y ago
      BRB I’m gonna go build a new coal plant because my neighbor got a polestar.
goodSteveramos 3y ago
>And more EVs does not mean more power plants turning on per se. Most EVs are charged at night when power usage drops dramatically Consider: Scenario A: 1,000,000 EVs are put on the road. Scenario B: 1,000,000 gas cars are put on the road. Scenario A: 100% of zero carbon energy is consumed by existing demand. Remaining demand is met by fossil fuels including the energy needed to power the 1,000,000 EVs. Scenario B: 100% of zero carbon energy is consumed by existing demand. Remaining demand is met by fossil fuels, not including the energy to power additional EVs. In Scenario A, more energy is generated by fossil fuels by exactly the amount of energy used to charge the EVs. In the US, at no point in time, day or night, summer or winter does any zero carbon energy go to waste. So increasing demand means more fossil fuels being burned.
- jayd16 3y ago
  > In the US, at no point in time, day or night, summer or winter does any zero carbon energy go to waste. So increasing demand means more fossil fuels being burned. Are you just forgetting the part where there's less gasoline demand or any efficiency differences?
  - goodSteveramos 3y ago
    Yes. Those two factors are completely irrelevant for calculating the source of electric power used to charge new EVs. Gasoline demand and efficiency differences are instead captured in the carbon footprint estimates.
    - jayd16 3y ago
      But you yourself estimate 20% savings and then hand wave that away under "fossil fuels."
      - goodSteveramos 3y ago
        I have no idea what you are trying to say.
- 3y ago
nwiswell 3y ago
> orders of magnitude more efficient This is simply not true. It's more efficient, but a typical gasoline car gets around 20% efficiency (large diesel trucks can be significantly greater). A modern, state of the art combined cycle natural gas fired power plant is only up to around 60% efficient. There's some additional loss for distribution, charging the EV battery, and in the electric motor, but it's not large and you're probably about 50% efficient overall. Another win is that natural gas emits around 25% less CO2 than gasoline per unit of energy. And of course if you're powering your car with solar, then that's much better. Anyway, thermal efficiency is on the order of 2.5x better, not "orders of magnitude".

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

kyrra 3y ago

EVs generate a bunch more carbon during their manufacturing process. > As of 2022, Woodley's research showed that aggregate use of EVs below 55,749 miles may — in the U.S., at least — fail to generate any emissions benefit over gas-powered vehicles. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/08/when-buying-an-ev-increases-your-carbon-footprint/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/08/when-buying-a... Also, If we end up using coal to charge an electric vehicle, its carbon emissions are actually higher than that of can you an ICE vehicle. Then if you have to replace the battery on your EV, that will reset some of that carbon offset.

toomuchtodo 3y ago
A Tesla Model 3 has a lower carbon footprint than an Toyota Corolla after 13,500 miles per Argonne National Labs (vs a Harvard puff piece). Only 20% of electricity in the US is generated with coal, and phaseout continues at speed. There is over 1TW of renewables in US interconnect queues. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38243912 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38243912 (citations) https://cleantechnica.com/2023/12/01/us-coal-electricity-dropped-in-2022-down-to-20-of-us-electricity/ https://cleantechnica.com/2023/12/01/us-coal-electricity-dro... https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=55439 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=55439 https://www.pv-tech.org/nearly-1tw-of-renewables-in-us-interconnection-queues-as-wait-times-continue-to-grow/ https://www.pv-tech.org/nearly-1tw-of-renewables-in-us-inter...
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  Correction: “The United States has at least 1,350 GW of wind and solar capacity and 680 GW of storage is waiting to be connected, which is enough to double the country’s electricity supply.” https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/12/08/solar-lcoe-now-29-lower-than-any-fuel-fossil-option-says-ey/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/12/08/solar-lcoe-now-29-low...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
idontwantthis 3y ago
This is so boring stop.
- p1necone 3y ago
  Expect the FUD to get more and more unhinged as it becomes harder and harder to for anyone not either malicious or stupid to believe it.
  - idontwantthis 3y ago
    BRB I’m gonna go build a new coal plant because my neighbor got a polestar.

goodSteveramos 3y ago

>And more EVs does not mean more power plants turning on per se. Most EVs are charged at night when power usage drops dramatically Consider: Scenario A: 1,000,000 EVs are put on the road. Scenario B: 1,000,000 gas cars are put on the road. Scenario A: 100% of zero carbon energy is consumed by existing demand. Remaining demand is met by fossil fuels including the energy needed to power the 1,000,000 EVs. Scenario B: 100% of zero carbon energy is consumed by existing demand. Remaining demand is met by fossil fuels, not including the energy to power additional EVs. In Scenario A, more energy is generated by fossil fuels by exactly the amount of energy used to charge the EVs. In the US, at no point in time, day or night, summer or winter does any zero carbon energy go to waste. So increasing demand means more fossil fuels being burned.

jayd16 3y ago
> In the US, at no point in time, day or night, summer or winter does any zero carbon energy go to waste. So increasing demand means more fossil fuels being burned. Are you just forgetting the part where there's less gasoline demand or any efficiency differences?
- goodSteveramos 3y ago
  Yes. Those two factors are completely irrelevant for calculating the source of electric power used to charge new EVs. Gasoline demand and efficiency differences are instead captured in the carbon footprint estimates.
  - jayd16 3y ago
    But you yourself estimate 20% savings and then hand wave that away under "fossil fuels."
    - goodSteveramos 3y ago
      I have no idea what you are trying to say.
3y ago

nwiswell 3y ago

> orders of magnitude more efficient This is simply not true. It's more efficient, but a typical gasoline car gets around 20% efficiency (large diesel trucks can be significantly greater). A modern, state of the art combined cycle natural gas fired power plant is only up to around 60% efficient. There's some additional loss for distribution, charging the EV battery, and in the electric motor, but it's not large and you're probably about 50% efficient overall. Another win is that natural gas emits around 25% less CO2 than gasoline per unit of energy. And of course if you're powering your car with solar, then that's much better. Anyway, thermal efficiency is on the order of 2.5x better, not "orders of magnitude".