6 ms·

Unfortunately, because Estonia derives almost all of their electrical power from coal, this is a wasteful setback for the environment. http://www.tradingeconom

Unfortunately, because Estonia derives almost all of their electrical power from coal, this is a wasteful setback for the environment. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/estonia/electricity-production-from-coal-sources-percent-of-total-wb-data.html http://www.tradingeconomics.com/estonia/electricity-producti...

lobster_johnson 14y ago
First of all, coal plants are vastly^H^H^H^H^H^Hsomewhat more efficient than gas-fueled car engines. Secondly, the electrical grid acts like a technology buffer. In the future, those coal plants can be replaced by water, wind, solar or something else, without changing the grid or the vehicle charging network.
tadfisher 14y ago
How so? Aren't coal-fired plants more efficient than internal combustion engines?
- newbie12 14y ago
  Not even close. First of all, mining and burning coal is far worse for the environment than oil. Mining is destructive, impacts water tables, and burning coal produces lots of toxic byproducts like mercury and other heavy metals. Further, there is significant loss/waste as you push electricity across the grid. There's no environmental case for EV-only cars, unless you are powering the grid with solar, wind, or hydro.
  - dbaupp 14y ago
    Do you have any numbers for these claims? (Not agreeing or disagreeing, just interested in some evidence either way.)
  - SilasX 14y ago
    >Not even close. First of all, mining and burning coal is far worse for the environment than oil. Mining is destructive, impacts water tables, ... Sure, but that's a different metric than the OP was asking about and talks about one particular method of mining. On the specific question of system efficiency -- mechanical output divided by heat content input ("well to wheels") -- it is indeed generally right that coal electricity + transmission/battery losses still has a higher efficiency than everyone burning gas in their own poorly-maintained vehicle. >There's no environmental case for EV-only cars, unless you are powering the grid with solar, wind, or hydro. If you make the question black-and-white, perhaps. But hopefully we can recognize that e.g. oil-derived electricity powering cars is a step up from millions of aging ICEs using that oil in refined form; - and that natural gas-generated electricity is a step up from that - and that it's easier to change the (ultimate) power source on an electric car than a gas-powered one, which has a very "picky" engine.
  - brownbat 14y ago
    > Further, there is significant loss/waste as you push electricity across the grid. Trucking hydrocarbons around to thousands of endpoints doesn't actually compare favorably to line loss.
endijs 14y ago
To be more precise, Estonia burns Oil shale rather than coal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_in_Estonia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_in_Estonia
jtchang 14y ago
The whole idea with electric vehicles is that it is an abstraction layer.
NickM 14y ago
Even if they derived 100% of their electricity from coal, it would be a huge win for the environment. There have been multiple studies done on this, and power plants and electric motors are massively more efficient and clean than gasoline cars. Even when you factor in transmission losses, charging losses, etc. and assume you're using 100% coal power, EVs beat ICEs by a wide margin. Not to mention, solar is rapidly approaching the point where it will be cheaper than coal, so it's only a matter of time before coal will start getting phased out anyway.
- uvdiv 14y ago
  Even when you factor in transmission losses, charging losses, etc. and assume you're using 100% coal power, EVs beat ICEs by a wide margin. I'm pretty sure it's the opposite. Do you have a particular study/calculation in mind? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/automobiles/how-green-are-electric-cars-depends-on-where-you-plug-in.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/automobiles/how-green-are-...
mmanfrin 14y ago
Except that it is much easier to replace macro-level power plants with cleaner tech than it is to replace piecemeal an entire citizenry of personal vehicles. Moving to electric makes you reliant on current means of energy production, but to move to cleaner tech you replace 100 power plants instead of 10,000,000 cars.
brotheri 14y ago
Other comments aside - just glancing at the graph in your link - seems like the % is on a steady decline... LGTM.
jespersaron 14y ago
Your data is a bit outdated, currently about 20% of the electricity produced in Estonia comes from renewable sources (biofuel, wind) and the figure is growing rapidly. Plus the electric cars can only buy renewable energy, it would nullify the point of selling CO2 quotas if they used fossil fuel to produce that energy ;)

lobster_johnson 14y ago

First of all, coal plants are vastly^H^H^H^H^H^Hsomewhat more efficient than gas-fueled car engines. Secondly, the electrical grid acts like a technology buffer. In the future, those coal plants can be replaced by water, wind, solar or something else, without changing the grid or the vehicle charging network.

tadfisher 14y ago

How so? Aren't coal-fired plants more efficient than internal combustion engines?

newbie12 14y ago
Not even close. First of all, mining and burning coal is far worse for the environment than oil. Mining is destructive, impacts water tables, and burning coal produces lots of toxic byproducts like mercury and other heavy metals. Further, there is significant loss/waste as you push electricity across the grid. There's no environmental case for EV-only cars, unless you are powering the grid with solar, wind, or hydro.
- dbaupp 14y ago
  Do you have any numbers for these claims? (Not agreeing or disagreeing, just interested in some evidence either way.)
- SilasX 14y ago
  >Not even close. First of all, mining and burning coal is far worse for the environment than oil. Mining is destructive, impacts water tables, ... Sure, but that's a different metric than the OP was asking about and talks about one particular method of mining. On the specific question of system efficiency -- mechanical output divided by heat content input ("well to wheels") -- it is indeed generally right that coal electricity + transmission/battery losses still has a higher efficiency than everyone burning gas in their own poorly-maintained vehicle. >There's no environmental case for EV-only cars, unless you are powering the grid with solar, wind, or hydro. If you make the question black-and-white, perhaps. But hopefully we can recognize that e.g. oil-derived electricity powering cars is a step up from millions of aging ICEs using that oil in refined form; - and that natural gas-generated electricity is a step up from that - and that it's easier to change the (ultimate) power source on an electric car than a gas-powered one, which has a very "picky" engine.
- brownbat 14y ago
  > Further, there is significant loss/waste as you push electricity across the grid. Trucking hydrocarbons around to thousands of endpoints doesn't actually compare favorably to line loss.

endijs 14y ago

To be more precise, Estonia burns Oil shale rather than coal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_in_Estonia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_in_Estonia

jtchang 14y ago

The whole idea with electric vehicles is that it is an abstraction layer.

NickM 14y ago

Even if they derived 100% of their electricity from coal, it would be a huge win for the environment. There have been multiple studies done on this, and power plants and electric motors are massively more efficient and clean than gasoline cars. Even when you factor in transmission losses, charging losses, etc. and assume you're using 100% coal power, EVs beat ICEs by a wide margin. Not to mention, solar is rapidly approaching the point where it will be cheaper than coal, so it's only a matter of time before coal will start getting phased out anyway.

uvdiv 14y ago
Even when you factor in transmission losses, charging losses, etc. and assume you're using 100% coal power, EVs beat ICEs by a wide margin. I'm pretty sure it's the opposite. Do you have a particular study/calculation in mind? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/automobiles/how-green-are-electric-cars-depends-on-where-you-plug-in.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/automobiles/how-green-are-...

mmanfrin 14y ago

Except that it is much easier to replace macro-level power plants with cleaner tech than it is to replace piecemeal an entire citizenry of personal vehicles. Moving to electric makes you reliant on current means of energy production, but to move to cleaner tech you replace 100 power plants instead of 10,000,000 cars.

brotheri 14y ago

Other comments aside - just glancing at the graph in your link - seems like the % is on a steady decline... LGTM.

jespersaron 14y ago

Your data is a bit outdated, currently about 20% of the electricity produced in Estonia comes from renewable sources (biofuel, wind) and the figure is growing rapidly. Plus the electric cars can only buy renewable energy, it would nullify the point of selling CO2 quotas if they used fossil fuel to produce that energy ;)