‘Zero Emissions’ from Electric Vehicles? Here’s Why That Claim Has Zero Basis(nationalreview.com)
nationalreview.com
‘Zero Emissions’ from Electric Vehicles? Here’s Why That Claim Has Zero Basis
https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/12/zero-emissions-from-electric-vehicles-heres-why-that-claim-has-zero-basis/
16 comments
Hydrogen ICE is a pipe dream. BMW tried it in the early 2000's and failed. Toyota is prototyping it without much fanfare. (Their current test car, a tiny Yaris can do two laps of the test rink before refueling and maintenance).
All cars in the future will be propelled by electric motors. The only thing we're arguing is how are they going to transport the energy. Batteries? Hydrogen fuel cell? Some kind of generator, running biogas or 100% synthetic fuel? Most likely all of the above, depending on the use-case.
All cars in the future will be propelled by electric motors. The only thing we're arguing is how are they going to transport the energy. Batteries? Hydrogen fuel cell? Some kind of generator, running biogas or 100% synthetic fuel? Most likely all of the above, depending on the use-case.
ICE == "Internal Combustion Engine"
The current "Hydrogen Cars" don't have Internal Combustion Engines, they have electric motors powered by fuel cells.
WAY too many "Hydrogen is Coming Soon(tm)" people actually believe that a Hydrogen car is a regular ICE car with all the cool sounds, but you just fuel it with hydrogen and water comes out of the tailpipe.
It's easy for them to reason that way, because that would bring the smallest change to their world. They can just use their normal cars that make normal sounds and refuel them at their regular gas stations. But the car would be more environmentally friendly.
While in reality a HCV is just a normal electric car with a part of its battery replaced by pressurised hydrogen tanks and a fuel cell.
It's easy for them to reason that way, because that would bring the smallest change to their world. They can just use their normal cars that make normal sounds and refuel them at their regular gas stations. But the car would be more environmentally friendly.
While in reality a HCV is just a normal electric car with a part of its battery replaced by pressurised hydrogen tanks and a fuel cell.
https://archive.ph/JHx0D
There's little merit cherry picking and trying to impose a different context to what was meant.
Zero emission solutions doesn't imply zero emissions from the vehicle. Energy is being expended to create movement and as such will likely generate heat or noise even with the most efficient ever propulsion system that a team of the brightest might be able to create with present day technology.
Electric promises to usher in cleaner air in city streets and undoubtedly the fire during an accident issue might one day be solved.
I do actually see some big catches or issues with going electric ... the inevitable gotcha moment when most vehicles have to rely on batteries, I would guess first the battery price steeply increasing to eventually integrating security features into the modern car that at present most of us would find totally unpalatable.
It's sad that it reached a point where govt had to phase out IC car engines, but the car industry never showed much thought about using 6 stroke engines or seriously exploring other means to get as much energy out of the burnt fuel as they could.
There's little merit cherry picking and trying to impose a different context to what was meant.
Zero emission solutions doesn't imply zero emissions from the vehicle. Energy is being expended to create movement and as such will likely generate heat or noise even with the most efficient ever propulsion system that a team of the brightest might be able to create with present day technology.
Electric promises to usher in cleaner air in city streets and undoubtedly the fire during an accident issue might one day be solved.
I do actually see some big catches or issues with going electric ... the inevitable gotcha moment when most vehicles have to rely on batteries, I would guess first the battery price steeply increasing to eventually integrating security features into the modern car that at present most of us would find totally unpalatable.
It's sad that it reached a point where govt had to phase out IC car engines, but the car industry never showed much thought about using 6 stroke engines or seriously exploring other means to get as much energy out of the burnt fuel as they could.
"Zero emissions" when speaking of EVs and HCVs means "zero local pollution coming from the tailpipe". Yes we can split hairs about dust blown from the tires etc, but with Zero Emission vehicles we won't have smog anymore.
On electric car fires: They're really not an issue, firefighters need a one-day course of the dos and don'ts and maybe a few extra tools, but it's not some mystical art we haven't figured out yet. In short: lithium burns by itself, you can't put it out by taking oxygen away. You need to cool it for a long enough time for the reaction to stop.
> the car industry never showed much thought about using 6 stroke engines or seriously exploring other means to get as much energy out of the burnt fuel as they could
Oh they did. Toyota got up to a whopping 37% efficiency on a petrol engine.
Even the shittiest electric motor has 90%+ efficiency.
ICEs are just wasteful, which is a good thing in the winter since they produce their own heat - but a bad thing in the heat, because you need to spend energy cooling it.
On electric car fires: They're really not an issue, firefighters need a one-day course of the dos and don'ts and maybe a few extra tools, but it's not some mystical art we haven't figured out yet. In short: lithium burns by itself, you can't put it out by taking oxygen away. You need to cool it for a long enough time for the reaction to stop.
> the car industry never showed much thought about using 6 stroke engines or seriously exploring other means to get as much energy out of the burnt fuel as they could
Oh they did. Toyota got up to a whopping 37% efficiency on a petrol engine.
Even the shittiest electric motor has 90%+ efficiency.
ICEs are just wasteful, which is a good thing in the winter since they produce their own heat - but a bad thing in the heat, because you need to spend energy cooling it.
Yes the context of what zero emissions means seems simple enough, but there will be those who'll cherry pick right the way though from manufacture and environmental burden.
As for fires, presently not much of an issue bar the immediate issue of a burning car, but presents a problem should the batteries remain as is when there is a time when most cars on the road and large car parks are EV - it would be better if the industry adopted better batteries sooner rather than later rather than count on further income generated when the owners eventually move to a better battery configuration. eg [1]
Toyota has a 6 stroke, sorry I missed that. I follow such engine improvements with interest, but not so much since a 8 stroke was developed and news of it buried. (It was a test bench only engine, and didn't need additional cooling, said to be 225% than standard engine) Sadly I'm unable to find any additional information on it or the Toyota 6 stroke, but then again when I decided to check the details on the large 6 strokes that were used for power generation, one such large engine I'm sure was mentioned at length at wikipedia - it too seems to be yet another entry, that's been cleaned up and mention of it dropped. [2]
[1] https://hub.jhu.edu/2019/10/17/lithium-ion-battery-safety/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-stroke_engine
As for fires, presently not much of an issue bar the immediate issue of a burning car, but presents a problem should the batteries remain as is when there is a time when most cars on the road and large car parks are EV - it would be better if the industry adopted better batteries sooner rather than later rather than count on further income generated when the owners eventually move to a better battery configuration. eg [1]
Toyota has a 6 stroke, sorry I missed that. I follow such engine improvements with interest, but not so much since a 8 stroke was developed and news of it buried. (It was a test bench only engine, and didn't need additional cooling, said to be 225% than standard engine) Sadly I'm unable to find any additional information on it or the Toyota 6 stroke, but then again when I decided to check the details on the large 6 strokes that were used for power generation, one such large engine I'm sure was mentioned at length at wikipedia - it too seems to be yet another entry, that's been cleaned up and mention of it dropped. [2]
[1] https://hub.jhu.edu/2019/10/17/lithium-ion-battery-safety/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-stroke_engine
> there will be those who'll cherry pick right the way though from manufacture and environmental burden.
Yep, people tend to calculate EV emissions all the way from the "child miners of Congo". For ICEs they just grab whatever the manufacturer reports coughVWcough
Yep, people tend to calculate EV emissions all the way from the "child miners of Congo". For ICEs they just grab whatever the manufacturer reports coughVWcough
I am not going to finish reading this article as it’s clear what their angle is from glancing at the first couple of sentences.
No one has ever claimed that the process of making an EV vehicle is “zero emission”. Of course it’s not, what a ridiculous title.
No one has ever claimed that the process of making an EV vehicle is “zero emission”. Of course it’s not, what a ridiculous title.
> title
You should be used to the illegitimacy of reading a title on the literal side, that so frequently comes compressing an idea in a short sentence. The first paragraph makes a specific reference, with a link, to the interpretation of «zero emissions» the article intends to counter.
You should be used to the illegitimacy of reading a title on the literal side, that so frequently comes compressing an idea in a short sentence. The first paragraph makes a specific reference, with a link, to the interpretation of «zero emissions» the article intends to counter.
Is there any way to interpret this article in which it isn't intentionally stalling progress to benefit fossil fuel producers? I can't see any.
“More greenhouse gases are emitted in the manufacture of EVs than by the drilling, refining, smelting, and assembly for gas-powered cars.”
It sounds true but no evidence was provided.
Example they could compare a Ford F150 and one of the new F150 electric models. If there is a difference, the percentage is also significant.
The life time environmental/economic costs extend far beyond manufacture. Which is all this is claiming anyway at the highest.
It sounds true but no evidence was provided.
Example they could compare a Ford F150 and one of the new F150 electric models. If there is a difference, the percentage is also significant.
The life time environmental/economic costs extend far beyond manufacture. Which is all this is claiming anyway at the highest.
Don’t build electric vehicle batteries using non-renewable electricity for a start. If the battery is 100% built with renewable and you charge the car for its entire lifetime with renewable then it has to be acceptably low in emissions.
The “zero emissions” obviously only applies to creating movement, but the lifetime comparison to ICE is still relevant.
The “zero emissions” obviously only applies to creating movement, but the lifetime comparison to ICE is still relevant.
Well the article is paywalled, but:
1. I don't think anyone is under the delusion that electric vehicles consume no fossil fuel generated electricity. "Zero emissions" has never meant "free energy"
2. That electricity is typically produced more efficiently, and is always consumed more efficiently in terms of emissions/distance vs ICE cars leading to a net lower emissions of EVs over lifetime (including raw material & production). This only improves as more of the grid is decarbonized
3. There is a material value to de-localizing emissions from roads. See: asthma rates in children living near freeways
1. I don't think anyone is under the delusion that electric vehicles consume no fossil fuel generated electricity. "Zero emissions" has never meant "free energy"
2. That electricity is typically produced more efficiently, and is always consumed more efficiently in terms of emissions/distance vs ICE cars leading to a net lower emissions of EVs over lifetime (including raw material & production). This only improves as more of the grid is decarbonized
3. There is a material value to de-localizing emissions from roads. See: asthma rates in children living near freeways
Public transportations (trains) are the most efficient means of travel and transport. Cars an efficient means of sales and stock price growth
Is it worth responding to?
GM and Ford are converting their lineups to EVs. It's happening, and right wing reactionaries are going to get lower rates of cancer, heart disease and asthma whether they want it or not.
To be flippant, no kidding, that isn't surprising. Maybe we can power our cars off the energy spent talking past eachother over EVs the past decade.
The design goal of an EV is less emissions at the tailpipe, and to eventually be propelled by renewable electricity depending on your local grid.
The benefits of that are cleaner city air, and eventually lower carbon emissions from the generation of the energy that propels them. A current downside to that is the minerals used to make the batteries are costly to get.
EVs are one option forward, hydrogen ICE might be cool too. Neither is perfect yet, but they both have promising futures to be more sustainable than petrol/diesel.
Mining itself is an industry currently undergoing more electrification, which will bring down the carbon emissions of mining those minerals. Hydrogen from renewable energy is also possible, it just isn't cost effective versus fossil fuel derrived hydrogen while we still externalize the impact of fossil fuels.