6 ms·

It does because instead of directly burning said fossil fuel, you are indirectly burning it. This abstraction if you will allows change or improvement to the s

It does because instead of directly burning said fossil fuel, you are indirectly burning it. This abstraction if you will allows change or improvement to the source of the electricity in a way that you cannot do with gasoline.

hadem 14y ago
Can you further explain? Maybe I misunderstood you but if the power plant generating the electricity is equal to the automobiles burning the fuel, in the end, isn't it a wash? Similar to hybrid cars. They are better for the environment but that isn't that offset by the production of the batteries needed for the hybrid engine?
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  > if the power plant generating the electricity is equal to the automobiles burning the fuel, in the end, isn't it a wash? No. By abstracting the source of the energy, we can make one change in the method of power generation and immediately make a large number of electric cars "clean". So if we replace a coal plant with a nuclear or hydroelectric or solar plant, then everyone charging their electric cars with energy from that plant will suddenly be using clean energy. This isn't possible with the millions of gas cars out there, because they are only capable of using gas.
- schiffern 14y ago
  >Similar to hybrid cars. They are better for the environment but that isn't that offset by the production of the batteries needed for the hybrid engine? No. The oft-cited "Dust to Dust" report has been thoroughly debunked: http://grist.org/article/dust-to-dumb/ http://grist.org/article/dust-to-dumb/ For just one example, they assume (with no real justification) that a Hummer will last 300k miles and a Prius just 100k. Invalidating that single assumption flips the result, and it's not the only one. There's a false equivocacy going on in our heads when we fall victim to this kind of misinformation. "One advantage vs. one disadvantage. They must cancel out!" This is why it's important to do quantitative analysis. In reality, the addition of a battery and motor only adds about 10% to the embodied energy and disposal impact of a car, which itself is dwarfed by the fuel burned in its lifetime (by about 3:1). The interesting question for me is: why do people worry about the Nickel in their car's battery but not in their car's steel-alloy frame?
  - mc32 14y ago
    IIRC, what worries some people is the REEs that go into the mfg of electric batteries. REE mining tends to be dirty and tends to be, for now, in counties with little in the way of enviro regulation monitoring mining methods, etc.
- starpilot 14y ago
  Consider the range of efficiency of driving depending on mode: 0 mpg - stopped at a light 15 mpg - typical city driving 35 mpg - typical highway driving A powerplant is always running its turbines. It's like car motor that is always on cruise control on the highway, without giving up energy to stop in traffic or throttle down.
  - reportingsjr 14y ago
    Keep in mind that power plants do indeed spin their turbines down and spin them up again. This is due to the greatly increased demand for electricity during the day and reduced demand at night. This is why electricity is cheaper at night. They want people to move energy intensive stuff to run at night so it smooths out the grid energy usage cycle. The peak energy usage is normally right around dusk, since that is when people are getting home from work, lights are coming on, etc. If people charge their cars at this time that only makes things worse. Hopefully we get smart chargers that slow charging at this time, so while it doesn't cause a huge peak the car is still charging, and then increases charging power during the night. Just a thought.
iyulaev 14y ago
if the power plant generating the electricity is equal to the automobiles burning the fuel It's not. Even the worst, dirtiest coal plant is going to be more efficient than your car engine, since it converts much more of the energy (given of as heat) into electricity. Economies of scale definitely apply to power plants.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- whalesalad 14y ago
  You're right but then you get into a whole new can of worms: the inefficiency of energy storage and transportation. Gasoline loses less energy over time and distance than electricity does. And storing electricity in batteries is also 'lossy' as well.
  - tadfisher 14y ago
    Keep in mind that there is a variable cost to transport the gasoline as well; you need to fuel tankers, power refineries, and fuel the trucks to transport the fuel to the pump.
    - r00fus 14y ago
      Yes, it would be a pretty ridiculous situation where the EROEI [1] calculation would favor gas-powered car engines vs. coal-powered electricity pumped through grids and stored in batteries. Gas powered motors are still less brittle than grid-powered ones - it'd be tough to power a military force on grid power for example, but at that scale we should be using local fission powerplants anyway (ie, nuke subs). [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_inves...
  - pilom 14y ago
    Fortunately all of these calculations have been done by scientists. http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c20/page_131.shtml http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c20/page_13... TLDR: Electric vehicles still win, but only just barely when you include the battery manufacturing costs.
whalesalad 14y ago
This is a very good point. Like throwing a load balancer in front of a server. You can then replace that server or put 10 in it's place and the outside world has no idea. Similarly, if you unify the ways to receive energy into one single interface: a power plug or wall outlet, it makes it easier to change what's going on in the background. Thanks for your comment it really opened up my brain.
mgkimsal 14y ago
I'd come here to mention the abstraction aspect. This idea is probably the least discussed when talking about cars/power, and we tend to veer towards other specific fuels. "Oh, electric cars are no good - we need hydrogen cars!" Or something like that. Who's saying that? Seemed to be energy companies, but it's IIRC. Electric cars allow for any energy source to be used (as well as multiple), in the generation of the electricity. I suspect a lot of people don't want that flexibility/freedom, and would instead prefer to lock down a few more generations of drivers to one specific type of fuel, even if it's not gas.
- 2muchcoffeeman 14y ago
  I've thought about this benefit too, but never had a nice way to describe it. Thanks.

hadem 14y ago

Can you further explain? Maybe I misunderstood you but if the power plant generating the electricity is equal to the automobiles burning the fuel, in the end, isn't it a wash? Similar to hybrid cars. They are better for the environment but that isn't that offset by the production of the batteries needed for the hybrid engine?

w1ntermute 14y ago
> if the power plant generating the electricity is equal to the automobiles burning the fuel, in the end, isn't it a wash? No. By abstracting the source of the energy, we can make one change in the method of power generation and immediately make a large number of electric cars "clean". So if we replace a coal plant with a nuclear or hydroelectric or solar plant, then everyone charging their electric cars with energy from that plant will suddenly be using clean energy. This isn't possible with the millions of gas cars out there, because they are only capable of using gas.
schiffern 14y ago
>Similar to hybrid cars. They are better for the environment but that isn't that offset by the production of the batteries needed for the hybrid engine? No. The oft-cited "Dust to Dust" report has been thoroughly debunked: http://grist.org/article/dust-to-dumb/ http://grist.org/article/dust-to-dumb/ For just one example, they assume (with no real justification) that a Hummer will last 300k miles and a Prius just 100k. Invalidating that single assumption flips the result, and it's not the only one. There's a false equivocacy going on in our heads when we fall victim to this kind of misinformation. "One advantage vs. one disadvantage. They must cancel out!" This is why it's important to do quantitative analysis. In reality, the addition of a battery and motor only adds about 10% to the embodied energy and disposal impact of a car, which itself is dwarfed by the fuel burned in its lifetime (by about 3:1). The interesting question for me is: why do people worry about the Nickel in their car's battery but not in their car's steel-alloy frame?
- mc32 14y ago
  IIRC, what worries some people is the REEs that go into the mfg of electric batteries. REE mining tends to be dirty and tends to be, for now, in counties with little in the way of enviro regulation monitoring mining methods, etc.
starpilot 14y ago
Consider the range of efficiency of driving depending on mode: 0 mpg - stopped at a light 15 mpg - typical city driving 35 mpg - typical highway driving A powerplant is always running its turbines. It's like car motor that is always on cruise control on the highway, without giving up energy to stop in traffic or throttle down.
- reportingsjr 14y ago
  Keep in mind that power plants do indeed spin their turbines down and spin them up again. This is due to the greatly increased demand for electricity during the day and reduced demand at night. This is why electricity is cheaper at night. They want people to move energy intensive stuff to run at night so it smooths out the grid energy usage cycle. The peak energy usage is normally right around dusk, since that is when people are getting home from work, lights are coming on, etc. If people charge their cars at this time that only makes things worse. Hopefully we get smart chargers that slow charging at this time, so while it doesn't cause a huge peak the car is still charging, and then increases charging power during the night. Just a thought.

iyulaev 14y ago

if the power plant generating the electricity is equal to the automobiles burning the fuel It's not. Even the worst, dirtiest coal plant is going to be more efficient than your car engine, since it converts much more of the energy (given of as heat) into electricity. Economies of scale definitely apply to power plants.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
whalesalad 14y ago
You're right but then you get into a whole new can of worms: the inefficiency of energy storage and transportation. Gasoline loses less energy over time and distance than electricity does. And storing electricity in batteries is also 'lossy' as well.
- tadfisher 14y ago
  Keep in mind that there is a variable cost to transport the gasoline as well; you need to fuel tankers, power refineries, and fuel the trucks to transport the fuel to the pump.
  - r00fus 14y ago
    Yes, it would be a pretty ridiculous situation where the EROEI [1] calculation would favor gas-powered car engines vs. coal-powered electricity pumped through grids and stored in batteries. Gas powered motors are still less brittle than grid-powered ones - it'd be tough to power a military force on grid power for example, but at that scale we should be using local fission powerplants anyway (ie, nuke subs). [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_inves...
- pilom 14y ago
  Fortunately all of these calculations have been done by scientists. http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c20/page_131.shtml http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c20/page_13... TLDR: Electric vehicles still win, but only just barely when you include the battery manufacturing costs.

whalesalad 14y ago

This is a very good point. Like throwing a load balancer in front of a server. You can then replace that server or put 10 in it's place and the outside world has no idea. Similarly, if you unify the ways to receive energy into one single interface: a power plug or wall outlet, it makes it easier to change what's going on in the background. Thanks for your comment it really opened up my brain.

mgkimsal 14y ago

I'd come here to mention the abstraction aspect. This idea is probably the least discussed when talking about cars/power, and we tend to veer towards other specific fuels. "Oh, electric cars are no good - we need hydrogen cars!" Or something like that. Who's saying that? Seemed to be energy companies, but it's IIRC. Electric cars allow for any energy source to be used (as well as multiple), in the generation of the electricity. I suspect a lot of people don't want that flexibility/freedom, and would instead prefer to lock down a few more generations of drivers to one specific type of fuel, even if it's not gas.

2muchcoffeeman 14y ago
I've thought about this benefit too, but never had a nice way to describe it. Thanks.