3 ms·

So China burns coal, to generate power, at huge heat and transmission loses, to power “clean” EV cars. Much worse for the planet. Clean gasoline cars, once th

So China burns coal, to generate power, at huge heat and transmission loses, to power “clean” EV cars. Much worse for the planet. Clean gasoline cars, once they implement particulate filters on them, are going to be cheap, and pollute a whole lot less than burning coal. EVs will be an option but they’re going to have to force the chargers through the grid to only charge during the day to take advantage of solar, and properly account for upstream and downstream emissions on the battery pack manufacturing and disposal. A full life cycle has to be considered. A gasoline engine, runs for a very long lifetime now, and then immediately becomes high value scrap that can be used and sold immediately. No dangerous batteries to deal with.

triceratops 2y ago
> So China burns coal, to generate power, at huge heat and transmission loses, to power “clean” EV cars That's one more on the climate change/EV bingo card. No they burn coal to generate the electricity they were already using for everything they did before they started buying all these EVs. Most of their new electricity generation in the past 3 years - when EV adoption has taken off - is from wind, solar, and hydro. [1] > A gasoline engine, runs for a very long lifetime now, and then immediately becomes high value scrap that can be used and sold immediately. No dangerous batteries to deal with. Right because all the dangerous byproducts in a gasoline car - the gasoline, various oils and lubricants - have already been used up and discarded into the environment. Gasoline cars have lead-acid batteries, and those are plenty dangerous and nasty. An EV battery goes into a recycling plant, just like an ICE car battery. The rest is equally high value scrap that can be used and sold immediately. You probably think lithium extraction is bad for the environment too, right? While ignoring oil spills, methane leaks, and damage and water pollution from fracking? 1. So China burns coal, to generate power, at huge heat and transmission loses, to power “clean” EV cars
to11mtm 2y ago
> So China burns coal, to generate power, at huge heat and transmission loses, Are they truly burning coal or are they making syngas for use with a CCGT and shipping the coke off for their steel? (Probably a bit of both, my wager.) Cause a CCGT is gonna be -at least- as efficient as an atkinson cycle gas engine. > once they implement particulate filters on them, You can hypothetically do this with a coal plant too, and what's even better is, it's easier to 'check up on' one power plant vs thousands or millions of individuals to make sure the filter is present and being maintained. (e.x. Cat deletes on gas engines.) > A gasoline engine, runs for a very long lifetime now, Short of something with a Toyota HSD style setup, you've still got a lot of -other- components that break down in increasing frequency to support that. Your Steel Belt CVTs, your 8-10 speed transmissions with too much complexity slammed in resulting in various reliability issues... And lately almost every manufacturer, even Toyota, has had to do a recall on some engines due to very bad failure modes. And all of it in the name of trying to keep gas engines to the need for efficiency while also trying to add far more power than most people need in a daily.
- tw8345 2y ago
  The ford 10R80. 10 speed transmission is famous for being terrible dispute being in use since 2018. As for toyota their new engines and transmissions arent really any better for fuel economy but seem to have reliability issues anyway. I think its more of a problem of too much power as the HP war rages on for more powerful engines.
  - to11mtm 2y ago
    > As for toyota their new engines and transmissions arent really any better for fuel economy but seem to have reliability issues anyway. I mentioned HSD specifically, which refers to a Hybrid Setup where the transmission is typically a setup where in simple form there's a single speed gearbox, two motor/generators (one of which more or less replaces a torque converter to minimize losses) and an electronically controlled clutch for the motor to act in direct drive to, again, minimize losses. Rav4 Hybrids, Maverick Hybrids, Escape hybrids all have pretty good overall reliability track records as far as the engine/transmission goes (interestingly, some of the Ford models have a 'potential recall' on some VIN ranges but it seems like a supplier issue on the crankshafts... which TBH sounds like it hit other manufacturers e.x. Toyota.) The 'simple' Hybrid model like this typically involves: - A boring engine with atkinson-style capable VVT. Ford normally uses a variant of a Mazda design that is well proven, You don't need direct injection or turbos, AFAIK even Toyota follows the same pattern (unless they're doing D4S now... but doubt it based on observations of hybrids in the winter) - Transmission like noted above - A battery between 1.3 and 3.0 Killowatt hours (probably closer to 2.0 median tho). For comparison a tesla model 3 starts at ~50Kwh battery, costs for maintenance are overblown on hybrids frequently. - A mileage above 35MPG for something like a Rav4/Maverick/Escape hybrid. Far more for a Prius sized/profiled vehicle. - Maybe 1-2 seconds of torque decently above 200 lb-ft of torque in a burst, again on something like a 2.5 liter. > I think its more of a problem of too much power as the HP war rages on for more powerful engines. Yeah people miss the point there. Most people really want torque to help get them to a highway driving speed safely enough to deal with the rest of the folks out there and have enough HP to get to necessary evasion speed. (And, a transmission that can keep up with that.) For >90% of my driving, the Hybrid gives me enough 'oomph' compared to my older M/T WRX that, well, the WRX now has a maintenance backlog (FML). If you can hit >200 pound feet in a compact to midsize (C/D class), frankly, that's enough. The average person on the highway being able to hit 0-60 in <10 seconds is often a liability, because it makes them overconfident.
AtlasBarfed 2y ago
Bad propaganda, but whatever I'll bite. If you have a nation of gasoline cars, you can only use gasoline to move them. If you have a nation of EVs, you can use coal ... or solar ... or wind ... or geothermal ... or natural gas ... or nuclear to move them. ICEs are really, what, 20-30% efficient? While coal in a powerplant is likely 37% efficient. Transmission losses is 5%, then the EV is 90% efficient in power to wheels. And again, if your entire nation's transportation is EVs, you can change the source of electricity by replacing the plants. If your nation's transportation is gasoline ... you can only use gasoline. There is no path to transition. Sodium Ion batteries in the 150 wh/kg should enable a dirt dirt cheap 200 mile range city car, and should be able to do almost 300 mile range cars as well. 200+ wh/kg LFP should be able to do 300-400 mile cars.
- baranul 2y ago
  Good points. The Chinese are giving themselves more options, while other countries or persons pointing the finger, have less or are purposefully limiting their options.
cvz 2y ago
A good gasoline engine is, like, 30% efficient. Powerplants are generally a bit better than that.
anakaine 2y ago
China has been pivoting hard for the past decade to move away from coal fired power generation. They're not coal free by any means, but that hard pivot has made nearly every other nation pay attention to just how rapidly it can be done, how it enables industry and economy, how it improved their air quality in areas where coal has been replaced, etc. Don't think you're magically picking up some gotcha here that they have not thought of. They're not dumb, and they're absolutely smashing the pants off the energy transition, which is hard for a manufacturing economy.
fulafel 2y ago
Energy mixes of USA & China: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/fossil-fuels-share-energy?tab=chart&country=CHN~USA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/fossil-fuels-share-energy... Both are villains having 80% fossil energy, but China has the curve sloping downwards a bit faster (much too slowly still). They're close enough that making a treaty to jointly ramp this down (like EU is showing by example) would be painless for both countries from the competition perspectively.
Two4 2y ago
Even if EVs are 100% powered by coal-generated electricity, the efficiency gains are massive, both at the generation end and the consumption end. EVs have up to double the efficiency in terms of power delivered to the wheels, and coal generation units are highly tuned and scaled to extract power as efficiently as possible. Even units balling straight out of the 70s thrash vehicle engines in terms of efficiency. You do lose some electricity due to transmission loss, but even the leakiest of grids aren't enough to cause coal power to be less efficient per joule of fuel than vehicle engines. This ultimately means that EVs contribute far less greenhouse gases than ICEVs, even when all electricity comes from coal.

triceratops 2y ago

> So China burns coal, to generate power, at huge heat and transmission loses, to power “clean” EV cars That's one more on the climate change/EV bingo card. No they burn coal to generate the electricity they were already using for everything they did before they started buying all these EVs. Most of their new electricity generation in the past 3 years - when EV adoption has taken off - is from wind, solar, and hydro. [1] > A gasoline engine, runs for a very long lifetime now, and then immediately becomes high value scrap that can be used and sold immediately. No dangerous batteries to deal with. Right because all the dangerous byproducts in a gasoline car - the gasoline, various oils and lubricants - have already been used up and discarded into the environment. Gasoline cars have lead-acid batteries, and those are plenty dangerous and nasty. An EV battery goes into a recycling plant, just like an ICE car battery. The rest is equally high value scrap that can be used and sold immediately. You probably think lithium extraction is bad for the environment too, right? While ignoring oil spills, methane leaks, and damage and water pollution from fracking? 1. So China burns coal, to generate power, at huge heat and transmission loses, to power “clean” EV cars

to11mtm 2y ago

> So China burns coal, to generate power, at huge heat and transmission loses, Are they truly burning coal or are they making syngas for use with a CCGT and shipping the coke off for their steel? (Probably a bit of both, my wager.) Cause a CCGT is gonna be -at least- as efficient as an atkinson cycle gas engine. > once they implement particulate filters on them, You can hypothetically do this with a coal plant too, and what's even better is, it's easier to 'check up on' one power plant vs thousands or millions of individuals to make sure the filter is present and being maintained. (e.x. Cat deletes on gas engines.) > A gasoline engine, runs for a very long lifetime now, Short of something with a Toyota HSD style setup, you've still got a lot of -other- components that break down in increasing frequency to support that. Your Steel Belt CVTs, your 8-10 speed transmissions with too much complexity slammed in resulting in various reliability issues... And lately almost every manufacturer, even Toyota, has had to do a recall on some engines due to very bad failure modes. And all of it in the name of trying to keep gas engines to the need for efficiency while also trying to add far more power than most people need in a daily.

tw8345 2y ago
The ford 10R80. 10 speed transmission is famous for being terrible dispute being in use since 2018. As for toyota their new engines and transmissions arent really any better for fuel economy but seem to have reliability issues anyway. I think its more of a problem of too much power as the HP war rages on for more powerful engines.
- to11mtm 2y ago
  > As for toyota their new engines and transmissions arent really any better for fuel economy but seem to have reliability issues anyway. I mentioned HSD specifically, which refers to a Hybrid Setup where the transmission is typically a setup where in simple form there's a single speed gearbox, two motor/generators (one of which more or less replaces a torque converter to minimize losses) and an electronically controlled clutch for the motor to act in direct drive to, again, minimize losses. Rav4 Hybrids, Maverick Hybrids, Escape hybrids all have pretty good overall reliability track records as far as the engine/transmission goes (interestingly, some of the Ford models have a 'potential recall' on some VIN ranges but it seems like a supplier issue on the crankshafts... which TBH sounds like it hit other manufacturers e.x. Toyota.) The 'simple' Hybrid model like this typically involves: - A boring engine with atkinson-style capable VVT. Ford normally uses a variant of a Mazda design that is well proven, You don't need direct injection or turbos, AFAIK even Toyota follows the same pattern (unless they're doing D4S now... but doubt it based on observations of hybrids in the winter) - Transmission like noted above - A battery between 1.3 and 3.0 Killowatt hours (probably closer to 2.0 median tho). For comparison a tesla model 3 starts at ~50Kwh battery, costs for maintenance are overblown on hybrids frequently. - A mileage above 35MPG for something like a Rav4/Maverick/Escape hybrid. Far more for a Prius sized/profiled vehicle. - Maybe 1-2 seconds of torque decently above 200 lb-ft of torque in a burst, again on something like a 2.5 liter. > I think its more of a problem of too much power as the HP war rages on for more powerful engines. Yeah people miss the point there. Most people really want torque to help get them to a highway driving speed safely enough to deal with the rest of the folks out there and have enough HP to get to necessary evasion speed. (And, a transmission that can keep up with that.) For >90% of my driving, the Hybrid gives me enough 'oomph' compared to my older M/T WRX that, well, the WRX now has a maintenance backlog (FML). If you can hit >200 pound feet in a compact to midsize (C/D class), frankly, that's enough. The average person on the highway being able to hit 0-60 in <10 seconds is often a liability, because it makes them overconfident.

AtlasBarfed 2y ago

Bad propaganda, but whatever I'll bite. If you have a nation of gasoline cars, you can only use gasoline to move them. If you have a nation of EVs, you can use coal ... or solar ... or wind ... or geothermal ... or natural gas ... or nuclear to move them. ICEs are really, what, 20-30% efficient? While coal in a powerplant is likely 37% efficient. Transmission losses is 5%, then the EV is 90% efficient in power to wheels. And again, if your entire nation's transportation is EVs, you can change the source of electricity by replacing the plants. If your nation's transportation is gasoline ... you can only use gasoline. There is no path to transition. Sodium Ion batteries in the 150 wh/kg should enable a dirt dirt cheap 200 mile range city car, and should be able to do almost 300 mile range cars as well. 200+ wh/kg LFP should be able to do 300-400 mile cars.

baranul 2y ago
Good points. The Chinese are giving themselves more options, while other countries or persons pointing the finger, have less or are purposefully limiting their options.

cvz 2y ago

A good gasoline engine is, like, 30% efficient. Powerplants are generally a bit better than that.

anakaine 2y ago

China has been pivoting hard for the past decade to move away from coal fired power generation. They're not coal free by any means, but that hard pivot has made nearly every other nation pay attention to just how rapidly it can be done, how it enables industry and economy, how it improved their air quality in areas where coal has been replaced, etc. Don't think you're magically picking up some gotcha here that they have not thought of. They're not dumb, and they're absolutely smashing the pants off the energy transition, which is hard for a manufacturing economy.

fulafel 2y ago

Energy mixes of USA & China: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/fossil-fuels-share-energy?tab=chart&country=CHN~USA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/fossil-fuels-share-energy... Both are villains having 80% fossil energy, but China has the curve sloping downwards a bit faster (much too slowly still). They're close enough that making a treaty to jointly ramp this down (like EU is showing by example) would be painless for both countries from the competition perspectively.

Two4 2y ago

Even if EVs are 100% powered by coal-generated electricity, the efficiency gains are massive, both at the generation end and the consumption end. EVs have up to double the efficiency in terms of power delivered to the wheels, and coal generation units are highly tuned and scaled to extract power as efficiently as possible. Even units balling straight out of the 70s thrash vehicle engines in terms of efficiency. You do lose some electricity due to transmission loss, but even the leakiest of grids aren't enough to cause coal power to be less efficient per joule of fuel than vehicle engines. This ultimately means that EVs contribute far less greenhouse gases than ICEVs, even when all electricity comes from coal.