5 ms·

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

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.

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.