4 ms·

>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

>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.
XorNot 3y ago
In Scenario A, more clean energy deployment immediately reduces transportation CO2 emissions. In fact, every single bit of roof top solar being deployed contributes, in some small way, to reducing CO2 emissions from transportation. In Scenario B, no amount of clean energy deployment changes the emissions of transportation. In fact, a good chunk of that production is likely wasted due to the mismatch of production and demand, without the benefit of storage.
- goodSteveramos 3y ago
  Why are you only concerned with emissions of transportation and not total emissions? Replacing 10 GWh of fossil fuels with 10 GWh of renewables will reduce total emissions in both scenarios because that 10GWh of fossil fuel energy was being consumed fully in both scenarios. Eventually, when almost all electricity is carbon free, adding more carbon-free capacity will stop reducing emissions because your capacity greatly exceeds demand. Once that happens, then yes, scenario A will result in greater reduction of emissions for every unit of new carbon free electrical production because it is offsetting gasoline combustion. But my point is that we are decades away from electricity being nearly 100% carbon free.
  - XorNot 3y ago
    Because the scenarios in question are only concerned with emissions from transportation, but more importantly disregard storage. Multiple countries at present, at times, exceed their energy demand by renewable production...but the excess is pretty much just lost, their isn't adequate storage to bank that energy. EVs do bank that energy, and more importantly they're likely to do it during the parts of the day demand isn't as high (i.e. peak sunshine). Moreover, centralized emissions control or reduction is much more addressable then 1,000,000 individual combustion engines.

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.

XorNot 3y ago

In Scenario A, more clean energy deployment immediately reduces transportation CO2 emissions. In fact, every single bit of roof top solar being deployed contributes, in some small way, to reducing CO2 emissions from transportation. In Scenario B, no amount of clean energy deployment changes the emissions of transportation. In fact, a good chunk of that production is likely wasted due to the mismatch of production and demand, without the benefit of storage.

goodSteveramos 3y ago
Why are you only concerned with emissions of transportation and not total emissions? Replacing 10 GWh of fossil fuels with 10 GWh of renewables will reduce total emissions in both scenarios because that 10GWh of fossil fuel energy was being consumed fully in both scenarios. Eventually, when almost all electricity is carbon free, adding more carbon-free capacity will stop reducing emissions because your capacity greatly exceeds demand. Once that happens, then yes, scenario A will result in greater reduction of emissions for every unit of new carbon free electrical production because it is offsetting gasoline combustion. But my point is that we are decades away from electricity being nearly 100% carbon free.
- XorNot 3y ago
  Because the scenarios in question are only concerned with emissions from transportation, but more importantly disregard storage. Multiple countries at present, at times, exceed their energy demand by renewable production...but the excess is pretty much just lost, their isn't adequate storage to bank that energy. EVs do bank that energy, and more importantly they're likely to do it during the parts of the day demand isn't as high (i.e. peak sunshine). Moreover, centralized emissions control or reduction is much more addressable then 1,000,000 individual combustion engines.