American EVs reduced gasoline consumption by just 0.54% in 2021(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
American EVs reduced gasoline consumption by just 0.54% in 2021
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/11/american-evs-reduced-gasoline-consumption-by-just-0-54-in-2021/
107 comments
Having trouble finding a primary source, but it looks like EVs are only 0.43% of operational cars in the US. So, something on the order of a half percent decrease in fuel seems reasonable. Likely hitting above their weight as 2 car families opt to drive the new EV over the older gas car.
https://www.experian.com/blogs/insights/2021/10/ev-registrat...
https://www.experian.com/blogs/insights/2021/10/ev-registrat...
Also - EVs just started to be somewhat available to the average consumer only 3-4 years ago.
Given projected growth rates of adoption and the average lifespan of ICE vehicles - this number is going to be quite impressive in 10 years - like the entire oil output of a big OPEC country [1].
i.e. ~10% of all cars on the road in the US will be EVs, and another ~8% will be PHEVs.
Combined with rates in China & the EU - the difference is going to literally change the entire geopolitics of the planet.
You're looking at ~10M barrels of oil per day - that's ~35% of OPEC...
By 20 years - you're looking at 100% of OPEC...
[1] https://www.eei.org/News/news/All/eei-projects-26-million-el...
Given projected growth rates of adoption and the average lifespan of ICE vehicles - this number is going to be quite impressive in 10 years - like the entire oil output of a big OPEC country [1].
i.e. ~10% of all cars on the road in the US will be EVs, and another ~8% will be PHEVs.
Combined with rates in China & the EU - the difference is going to literally change the entire geopolitics of the planet.
You're looking at ~10M barrels of oil per day - that's ~35% of OPEC...
By 20 years - you're looking at 100% of OPEC...
[1] https://www.eei.org/News/news/All/eei-projects-26-million-el...
Yes, I remember when only a handful of people had the iPhone too.
Why do we have these silly discussions?
Six years ago Tesla was going out of business and the stock price was going to tank.
When that didn’t happen, we started having other silly conversations.
If everyone in LA and New York drove an electric car they’d sure have much cleaner air.
Not sure why the EV Bus Revolution hasn’t started in the United States.
https://chargedevs.com/newswire/the-vehicles/byd-delivers-ov...
Why do we have these silly discussions?
Six years ago Tesla was going out of business and the stock price was going to tank.
When that didn’t happen, we started having other silly conversations.
If everyone in LA and New York drove an electric car they’d sure have much cleaner air.
Not sure why the EV Bus Revolution hasn’t started in the United States.
https://chargedevs.com/newswire/the-vehicles/byd-delivers-ov...
Transit companies get shafted in municipal budgets politically. Increasing ridership by increasing frequency (more drivers / more cheap diesel or lng buses) is a better investment of limited budgets than electrification.
But also sometimes transit agencies just do dumb things (see, Boston de-electrifying a few bus lines).
But also sometimes transit agencies just do dumb things (see, Boston de-electrifying a few bus lines).
> Not sure why the EV Bus Revolution hasn’t started in the United States.
It's mostly because it takes 10-20 years to transition a transit agency to ZEBs. Many agencies in the US are in the process of doing this. The timeline is due to things like:
- FTA monies used to purchase existing ICEBs require vehicles to be retained for their "useful life", which is often 12 years/500k miles;
- Retrofits or rebuilds of bus garages take many years and hundreds of millions of dollars. The timeline is dependent on design + construction + utility requests (which alone can sometimes take 2-3 years);
- Budgets!
Along with that comes refactoring service, due to so many vehicle service blocks not being compatible with the ranges of current batter-electric bus technology.
It's mostly because it takes 10-20 years to transition a transit agency to ZEBs. Many agencies in the US are in the process of doing this. The timeline is due to things like:
- FTA monies used to purchase existing ICEBs require vehicles to be retained for their "useful life", which is often 12 years/500k miles;
- Retrofits or rebuilds of bus garages take many years and hundreds of millions of dollars. The timeline is dependent on design + construction + utility requests (which alone can sometimes take 2-3 years);
- Budgets!
Along with that comes refactoring service, due to so many vehicle service blocks not being compatible with the ranges of current batter-electric bus technology.
Agreed. I had email around 1991 (before we had DNS - we had some different weird address format ;-) when no-one knew what "the internet" is. People I told back than didn't understand the coming changes.
I was an early adopter of "the Internet" in the 00s. Nowadays I'm "too old to know/use X/Y/Z". Damn kids, I helped build this sheet! :D
Half the people in New York City don't have a car at all. Adding more cars in dense downtowns is not a solution; cars on streets just don't scale to that density.
New York City needs fewer cars, not more. Given the longevity of the modern ICE car (15-20 years) it's going to take a long time to replace existing ICE cars in NYC.
In rural places, replacing ICE with electric is surely a good thing. In cities, we need to scale down car use significantly, while scaling up walkability, bikeability, and public transit. Even if we switched every car and every gas station over to electric today, we'd still have to burn insane amounts of coal and natural gas to power those cars -- not to mention the microplastic pollution generated by tires and roads that is actually made worse by the increased weight of electric vehicles.
The solution is fewer cars, and those cars that can't be replaced by other modes of transit ought to be electrified.
New York City needs fewer cars, not more. Given the longevity of the modern ICE car (15-20 years) it's going to take a long time to replace existing ICE cars in NYC.
In rural places, replacing ICE with electric is surely a good thing. In cities, we need to scale down car use significantly, while scaling up walkability, bikeability, and public transit. Even if we switched every car and every gas station over to electric today, we'd still have to burn insane amounts of coal and natural gas to power those cars -- not to mention the microplastic pollution generated by tires and roads that is actually made worse by the increased weight of electric vehicles.
The solution is fewer cars, and those cars that can't be replaced by other modes of transit ought to be electrified.
You probably aren’t gonna believe this, but I never said, for the people that don’t have cars to go buy electric cars
I simply meant replace all gas cars with electric, and we’d have cleaner air
I simply meant replace all gas cars with electric, and we’d have cleaner air
Quote:
> If everyone in LA and New York drove an electric car they’d sure have much cleaner air.
Apologies if I misunderstood you. But surely you can understand how this statement sounds as if you're talking about every person in those cities, not just the current ICE drivers.
> If everyone in LA and New York drove an electric car they’d sure have much cleaner air.
Apologies if I misunderstood you. But surely you can understand how this statement sounds as if you're talking about every person in those cities, not just the current ICE drivers.
English can be ambiguous, especially when written quickly online.
To pass the Turing test, a computer has to infer the missing context.
For example, “is this human really saying the solution is for every human being to buy an electric car ” or is he implying that people should trade in their gasoline cars for electric ones?
Statistically speaking, how often do people say everyone should buy an electric car, even if they don’t own or need a car?
To pass the Turing test, a computer has to infer the missing context.
For example, “is this human really saying the solution is for every human being to buy an electric car ” or is he implying that people should trade in their gasoline cars for electric ones?
Statistically speaking, how often do people say everyone should buy an electric car, even if they don’t own or need a car?
It looks like the 0.43% stat is just on EV's and doesn't include plug-in hybrids. If you look at the stats in the article (2.1 mil plug-in + 1.3 mil EVs / 276 mil total cars) it comes out to 1.2%. So I agree that is still reasonable and within the order of magnitude I would expect but I think that is why they are saying "only" because they would expect it to be closer to the 1.2%. But I think one of the things offsetting it and why the plug-ins aren't helping as much is that for longer drives you are running through the plug-in battery or you are just driving a gas car.
I would be curious if there was an average miles driven per day/week/whatever for each of the different types of cars.
I would be curious if there was an average miles driven per day/week/whatever for each of the different types of cars.
Hybrids are a scam. They give people a good conscience but use more fuel than equivalent cars as they are heavier and more costly to produce. If you do not tightly watch it, you're burning more fuel.
So I'd argue to not count Hybrids as "EV-equivalent". They are not saving fuel.
So I'd argue to not count Hybrids as "EV-equivalent". They are not saving fuel.
Depends, "real" hybrids like Priuses definitely save fuel, I'd say the powertrain consumes 20% less fuel before you layer on other energy saving techniques like crap tires.
I think the main confounder is that sales are doubling year on year, so the most recent year's sales add the most to the number of cars, but at the same time, those sales will be spread through the year, so will on average only have 6 months of fuel savings.
Also likely hitting above their weight as people who drive more have a much larger incentive to switch to EVs. Not just fuel costs, but time spent going to the gas station a few times a week if you've got a long commute.
> the future will require many more people to walk, cycle, or take the bus to get to where they're going.
People would probably gladly do that if they could.
I'm from Europe, I spent some years in the US, I never had a car in Europe (I wouldn't have one even if you paid me to), I couldn't do most things without a vehicle in the US (except NYC)
People would probably gladly do that if they could.
I'm from Europe, I spent some years in the US, I never had a car in Europe (I wouldn't have one even if you paid me to), I couldn't do most things without a vehicle in the US (except NYC)
[deleted]
Sales of EVs are growing linearly so the displacement effect of EVs grows quadratically (at least for the first 10 years before any significant number are taken out of service).
Quadratics aren't quite exponentials, but they're still pretty fast for a society. US gasoline consumption grew only 5% from 2010 to 2019, so by 2023, EV sales will be offsetting all growth in gasoline demand. By 2024, gas demand will be less each year than before. By 2030, significant numbers of gas stations will be reducing/converting pump counts. That sounds like a pretty awesome arc for the 2020s compared to the 2010s.
And the linear sales growth constant seems decently high too: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1231872/battery-electric...
Gas consumption: https://www.statista.com/statistics/188448/total-us-domestic...
Quadratics aren't quite exponentials, but they're still pretty fast for a society. US gasoline consumption grew only 5% from 2010 to 2019, so by 2023, EV sales will be offsetting all growth in gasoline demand. By 2024, gas demand will be less each year than before. By 2030, significant numbers of gas stations will be reducing/converting pump counts. That sounds like a pretty awesome arc for the 2020s compared to the 2010s.
And the linear sales growth constant seems decently high too: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1231872/battery-electric...
Gas consumption: https://www.statista.com/statistics/188448/total-us-domestic...
>This report is not an argument against people buying EVs, of course; any gas savings is an improvement on turning that gasoline into atmospheric pollution that worsens climate change. But it should be clear now that EVs on their own are not a panacea to our transport-related climate problems, and the future will require many more people to walk, cycle, or take the bus to get to where they're going.
I don't understand how the 0.54% statistic has any bearing on this conclusion. Like if all miles were driven by EVs, then it would be a 100% reduction in gasoline (using the metric in the study). Would that make EVs a panacea?
I don't understand how the 0.54% statistic has any bearing on this conclusion. Like if all miles were driven by EVs, then it would be a 100% reduction in gasoline (using the metric in the study). Would that make EVs a panacea?
> Like if all miles were driven by EVs, then it would be a 100% reduction in gasoline (using the metric in the study).
It wouldn't be quite 100%. Generators, mowers, ATVs, and some other things are also using gasoline. I don't see in the article if that was accounted for. I doubt it would be much more than a few percent at the most, though.
It wouldn't be quite 100%. Generators, mowers, ATVs, and some other things are also using gasoline. I don't see in the article if that was accounted for. I doubt it would be much more than a few percent at the most, though.
Well, but the metric in the study doesn't count those anyway. It's just about gasoline used by cars, and they get their number by considering how much gas would have been used if all the miles driven by EV had instead been driven by a similar gas-consuming vehicle.
> they get their number by considering how much gas would have been used if all the miles driven by EV had instead been driven by a similar gas-consuming vehicle.
That wasn't clear to me from the article. I gathered (incorrectly) that the numbers were based off amount of gasoline sold. Thanks for the clarification.
That wasn't clear to me from the article. I gathered (incorrectly) that the numbers were based off amount of gasoline sold. Thanks for the clarification.
Fuel consumption is only a portion of the transportation related emissions. Road construction, vehicle consumables like tires, and car related infrastructure like parking lots and garages all contribute.
There's also some cost to bear with the huge numbers of vehicle accidents and deaths each year from driving.
There's also some cost to bear with the huge numbers of vehicle accidents and deaths each year from driving.
That would be good journalism.
Compounding curve, reducing gas consumption by 1/200 units of gas consumed is good, and over time this amount will increase until the point at which EVs are economically cheaper than gas, at which point it will experience takeoff.
> the point at which EVs are economically cheaper than gas
From a fueling standpoint, EVs are already far cheaper than gas. So much so that many people are already jumping to EVs despite having to make compromises when road tripping.
From a fueling standpoint, EVs are already far cheaper than gas. So much so that many people are already jumping to EVs despite having to make compromises when road tripping.
But not from a total lifecycle perspective. 100000 miles at 25 mpg at $5/gal is $20,000, and that's spread out over the ten years you drive those 100,000 miles. Add in another few thousand in extra maintenance costs for gasoline, subtract out a few thousand for the cost of charging at home, subtract out a bit more to get the charger installed, and for a full size car the fuel savings are about $12,000 up front.
For compact cars comparable to cars that get better mileage, that's less.
For compact cars comparable to cars that get better mileage, that's less.
For compact cars it's a bit easier to win on TCO. You just get a Bolt and call it good. Pretty tough to beat the TCO there.
I do agree that EVs have more coverage on the premium end of the market than in the low/mid tier. Though a Model 3 at about 40K is reasonably competitive in that segment.
I do agree that EVs have more coverage on the premium end of the market than in the low/mid tier. Though a Model 3 at about 40K is reasonably competitive in that segment.
Where does the math work out? In much of Europe, charging instead of fueling is around 2x more expensive per KW of useful energy and that's with diesel/petrol being 2 Euros/Liter.
And we're not even getting into the reduced range, availability of (fast) charging stations, availability of electric work vans, the cost of EVs, cost of repair/batteries, etc.
Right now for the vast majority of people, EVs are frankly, ridiculously unaffordable.
And we're not even getting into the reduced range, availability of (fast) charging stations, availability of electric work vans, the cost of EVs, cost of repair/batteries, etc.
Right now for the vast majority of people, EVs are frankly, ridiculously unaffordable.
> Where does the math work out?
I cannot speak for Europe. But in the US, gasoline is $3.51/gallon, electricity is $0.166/kWh. The average car gets 24.2 mpg. The average EV goes 2.9 miles/kWh. The average miles per year driven is 14263. So the average EV driver will spend about $100 per month less on fueling.
But there's a lot of variability to that. You can buy a Chevy Bolt for $26.5K, it consumes 3.44 kWh/mi, and in Portland you can charge at night for $0.042/kWh. The lifetime fueling cost is less than one average new car payment.
A quick google search suggests gasoline is approximately twice as expensive in Europe, electricity three times as expensive, and miles driven about half. The fueling cost will be much closer, but the EV still comes out ahead.
I cannot speak for Europe. But in the US, gasoline is $3.51/gallon, electricity is $0.166/kWh. The average car gets 24.2 mpg. The average EV goes 2.9 miles/kWh. The average miles per year driven is 14263. So the average EV driver will spend about $100 per month less on fueling.
But there's a lot of variability to that. You can buy a Chevy Bolt for $26.5K, it consumes 3.44 kWh/mi, and in Portland you can charge at night for $0.042/kWh. The lifetime fueling cost is less than one average new car payment.
A quick google search suggests gasoline is approximately twice as expensive in Europe, electricity three times as expensive, and miles driven about half. The fueling cost will be much closer, but the EV still comes out ahead.
The electric grid is a big bottleneck that I don't think has a solution yet. At some point EVs will create stress on the grid, slowing down the adoption and leaving the state of this transition in the worst of both worlds--costly electricity but many people still using gas. IMHO, the #1 priority should be cheaper electricity. Everything else follows from that, like more demand for EVs. It seems focusing on EVs too much is putting the horse before the cart, or w/e that saying is.
EV's mostly charge at night, and the grid is sized to handle air conditioners during the day time. So if the grid can handle air conditioning during the day time, it should be fine.
This is not the full story; the grid is sized to allow peak load heat shed during the cooler night hours; if we do not have those hours to cool it we start seeing a drastic increase in failures.
I've heard some talk that some of the PG&E caused fires are due to the grids not getting enough time to cool and accelerating failures. Note that this doesn't excuse their lack of investment in infrastructure.
Basically, we need to hugely over provision the grid to handle 24/7 loading without the current failure modes. That will require a complete rethink on what constitutes the base load, how solar can help and how it can't, etc.
I've heard some talk that some of the PG&E caused fires are due to the grids not getting enough time to cool and accelerating failures. Note that this doesn't excuse their lack of investment in infrastructure.
Basically, we need to hugely over provision the grid to handle 24/7 loading without the current failure modes. That will require a complete rethink on what constitutes the base load, how solar can help and how it can't, etc.
"I've heard some talk that some of the PG&E caused fires are due to the grids not getting enough time to cool"
Source?
Source?
Nothing that I could reference or I would have put it in there. I have family in some of the effected areas (Marin and Navato) and that's one of the discussion points.
It seems plausible but I have nothing more than that.
Edit: I don't think the grid being hot would cause a fire, to be clear. I'm under the impression that it causes the lines to sag, increasing the occurrence of the primary mode of wildfire cause, vegetation contact. Further, running the transformers hotter shortens their life (as it does with most electrical equipment).
It seems plausible but I have nothing more than that.
Edit: I don't think the grid being hot would cause a fire, to be clear. I'm under the impression that it causes the lines to sag, increasing the occurrence of the primary mode of wildfire cause, vegetation contact. Further, running the transformers hotter shortens their life (as it does with most electrical equipment).
> the grid is sized to allow peak load heat shed during the cooler night hours
IIRC, the big concern with cooling off time was not simply due to high loads, but rather high loads combined with high ambient temperatures at night. I.e. it wasn't so much of a concern in places that dropped below 80F overnight.
IIRC, the big concern with cooling off time was not simply due to high loads, but rather high loads combined with high ambient temperatures at night. I.e. it wasn't so much of a concern in places that dropped below 80F overnight.
Correct. Running those same transmission lines overnight (to charge EV's) would continue to put heat into them, meaning that temperature issue is exacerbated.
So places like Arizona, maybe SoCal, they'd have trouble in the summer. Places in the north that always get well below 80F would be okay for a good long time.
In either case I don't see it as a big deal. Power companies exist to sell us power, they'll figure it out.
In either case I don't see it as a big deal. Power companies exist to sell us power, they'll figure it out.
They are already having trouble in the more northern areas of California. I first heard this referenced with respect to Paradise.
That implies the issue is far worse than you seem to think.
Also, a glib "they'll figure it out" is less than a step removed from sticking your head in the sand. You don't have to be a domain expert to learn and understand the first order principles at issue here.
That implies the issue is far worse than you seem to think.
Also, a glib "they'll figure it out" is less than a step removed from sticking your head in the sand. You don't have to be a domain expert to learn and understand the first order principles at issue here.
Is there a legitimate concern that they won't figure it out? This is just an exercise in engineering, and they've been expanding the grid for decades. The kind of growth required to support EVs even if every single car sold today was electric is entirely within the bounds of past success. How is it glib to assume that power engineers are capable of engineering a grid that can support our needs?
Do renewables also require cooling times or is that restricted to natural gas/coal plants? If we continue on this pace of installing so much solar will the peak plants get used less frequently? Or was that just sloppy language on peak vs base loads? I have not seen anything near-term realistic on removing fossil fuel base load generation.
I think you may have extended what I'm talking about in ways I didn't intend; there was no sloppy language.
The transmission infrastructure needs cooling off time, not the generation.
Base load has to be completely changed if we consider charging EV's at a population level, which changes how we look at renewables that aren't around the clock (i.e. solar).
To be clear I'm 100% behind getting rid of ICE, coal, gas, etc. as soon as we can. That doesn't mean there aren't assumptions that won't have to be challenged.
As for my background and experience, I worked in Nuclear Power generation. I'm not a complete domain expert, but neither am I speaking from a place of no experience.
The transmission infrastructure needs cooling off time, not the generation.
Base load has to be completely changed if we consider charging EV's at a population level, which changes how we look at renewables that aren't around the clock (i.e. solar).
To be clear I'm 100% behind getting rid of ICE, coal, gas, etc. as soon as we can. That doesn't mean there aren't assumptions that won't have to be challenged.
As for my background and experience, I worked in Nuclear Power generation. I'm not a complete domain expert, but neither am I speaking from a place of no experience.
Transmission vs generation was my confusion. I was thinking of minor plant maintenance activities being easier to schedule during off hours. Off hours which might be significantly reduced if EVs put additional load at night.
That's actually a valid point, and that may actually be a factor in the base load plants, i.e. they are sized to be able to rotate generating sources and if we have to run them harder that overprovision may not be sufficient.
on what basis are you assuming that EVs charge mostly at night? Trucks, offices etc are easy examples to point to.
The grid operators are watching EVs coming and making plans.
The limit is regulation, not technical. Often the law doesn't allow them to build the lines where they need to.
The limit is regulation, not technical. Often the law doesn't allow them to build the lines where they need to.
this is not complete. the limit is often technical because EVs and electric heating increase the energy and peak power demands on the grid. Grid operators also do not have infinite capacity to retire entire neighbourhoods to support the increased power demands of increased HVAC capacity combined with EV capacity.
Wires have an expected lifespan of about 15 years. They can go longer only if accept poor reliability.
Wires themselves last longer, but the poles, insulation (a big problem underground), transformers, breakers, and all the other parts don't and get replaced all the time.
Most neighborhoods.are fine, with just smaller taps to bring more power in. They have years to fix this.
Wires themselves last longer, but the poles, insulation (a big problem underground), transformers, breakers, and all the other parts don't and get replaced all the time.
Most neighborhoods.are fine, with just smaller taps to bring more power in. They have years to fix this.
EVs that are not used acting as local batteries decrease the demand on the grid.
If every car in Germany would be an EV the battery capacity could power all of Germanys electric power needs for two days.
Things are more complex than they seem to be at first sight.
If every car in Germany would be an EV the battery capacity could power all of Germanys electric power needs for two days.
Things are more complex than they seem to be at first sight.
EVs = grid storage gets thrown around a lot. There is currently no viable pricing model for these services, they have not been trialed at any scale and there is little to no legal framework with either vehicle manufactures or battery suppliers in terms of the warranty.
Your claim of batteries powering a gigawatt scale grid for two days does not pass the smell test. Something is off so it might help to show calculations or sources.
Your claim of batteries powering a gigawatt scale grid for two days does not pass the smell test. Something is off so it might help to show calculations or sources.
"Your claim of batteries powering a gigawatt scale grid for two days does not pass the smell test."
What smell test? What doesn't specifically sound right?
I might have miscalculated of course,
50M cars x 50kwh = 2500Gwh = 2.5Twh
Germany Electricty usage:
561,8 Twh/ year -> /365 = 1.54Twh / day
So two days ~3TwH, Battery capacity ~2.5Twh
I would be interested in any corrections, especially as you are a renewable energy researcher and I'm just a coder.
What smell test? What doesn't specifically sound right?
I might have miscalculated of course,
50M cars x 50kwh = 2500Gwh = 2.5Twh
Germany Electricty usage:
561,8 Twh/ year -> /365 = 1.54Twh / day
So two days ~3TwH, Battery capacity ~2.5Twh
I would be interested in any corrections, especially as you are a renewable energy researcher and I'm just a coder.
Yes second order effects.
"If they perform scheduled charges for times in which electricity is cheaper, the US power grid could deal with 65 million EVs."
https://insideevs.com/news/436665/24-million-evs-limit-curre...
2021 sales were less that 1% of that. At what point does the bottleneck kick in? I would imagine electric utilities have a huge incentive to make this work given that demand has been flat at ~4 trillion kWh for over a decade.
https://insideevs.com/news/436665/24-million-evs-limit-curre...
2021 sales were less that 1% of that. At what point does the bottleneck kick in? I would imagine electric utilities have a huge incentive to make this work given that demand has been flat at ~4 trillion kWh for over a decade.
Yes + people always forget second order effects. Increasing EV numbers will lead to changes in the power grid. It's like saying in 1886 "If all horses would be replaced by cars, the petroleum industry would collapse".
That's a little concerning that its only 65 million. For comparison there are almost 300 million cars in the U.S., so this would be just a 20% adoption rate we are capable of. The reason why I am concerned is not for lack of power, its that I know for a fact the red states in this country will favor making up the slack with fossil fuel based power, because that's significantly faster and cheaper to construct than the best alternative, nuclear power. Even in california nuclear power can hardly catch a break, diablo canyon is limping along, they've already closed san onofre, and I don't think any new power plant is in the pipeline currently.
I think your arguments would be more effective if you removed the tribalism from your politics. Leftists are not consistent friends to nuclear power and in fact nuclear power generation does not seem to have any relation to a states partisan lean: https://www.statista.com/statistics/187270/us-nuclear-power-...
I see no tribalism here, I mentioned red states and I mentioned california both having issues. It's hard not to single out the red states considering things like the texas power grid making national news for its lack of foresight, or how the coal industry in west virginia seems to influence any senator that comes out of that state. You even have shale politicians in Ohio these days.
As discussed in the article these EVs only added 0.15% to electricity demand, so at 100% EVs were talking 30% extra demand.
I don't know about the US, but in the UK electricity demand has dropped ~20% in the past 10 years. (10% in 7 years if you want to avoid covid etc) Adding in the fact that EVs are more likely to be charged off peak and I'd be surprised if it made any appreciable difference.
I don't know about the US, but in the UK electricity demand has dropped ~20% in the past 10 years. (10% in 7 years if you want to avoid covid etc) Adding in the fact that EVs are more likely to be charged off peak and I'd be surprised if it made any appreciable difference.
You make a good point but this sort of thinking is unfortunately dismissed here by those who view technology as the solution to all problems.
Your observation is correct - the grid as designed is indeed a bottleneck and this will become increasingly obvious in northern climates as more services switch to electric - heat and transportation are good examples. An excellent case in point is the trans canada highway which has failed to electrify large sections due to insufficient grid capacity. Before people point to a map from an auto maker, do those maps show instances where the power feeding EV chargers has overloaded a circuit causing multiple hours of no charging?
Cheaper electricity should indeed be a short term goal.
Your observation is correct - the grid as designed is indeed a bottleneck and this will become increasingly obvious in northern climates as more services switch to electric - heat and transportation are good examples. An excellent case in point is the trans canada highway which has failed to electrify large sections due to insufficient grid capacity. Before people point to a map from an auto maker, do those maps show instances where the power feeding EV chargers has overloaded a circuit causing multiple hours of no charging?
Cheaper electricity should indeed be a short term goal.
Plugin hybrids would bridge that gap pretty effectively- especially for short trips where it could go battery only.
Yeah, I agree, hybrids could be a good transition while the grid is upgraded.
What I'd like to see is a special panel (say when replacing your 100 amp service) that has one side defined as "always available" and another side defined as "utility brownout" and you could put things like the fridge and lights on "always available" and the AC and car charger on "utility brownout".
They have these devices for AC units already, but it could be so much smarter.
They have these devices for AC units already, but it could be so much smarter.
It seems the right thing to look at is how much energy was saved/added/shifted and from what sources.
Less gasoline is good unless the alternative is coal-fired electricity.
Less gasoline is good unless the alternative is coal-fired electricity.
This. We bought a small EV a little over a year ago, and I expect our personal gasoline reduction is close to 50% -- easily more than half our trips are now in the EV. However, the grid in our area is primarily coal-based, so I'm aware we're just shifting. I've begun my own solar charging project to address that, but its expensive and will take multiple years to get ROI, and is clearly not for everyone.
My thesis is diversification -- having 100% of the average family's transportation needs dependent on gasoline creates (or creates potential for) lots of problems. Frankly the infrastructure is not there (in my area) for everyone to go 100% EV, but I'm in favor of experimentation and diversification.
If you took the gasoline that powers one car and put it in a power plant that powered EVs, you could power maybe 4 or 5 EVs with that gasoline. So even that is a net positive.
Why? Because converting gasoline to electricity in a large-scale plant is far more efficient than converting gasoline to motion in little engines scattered about in the environment. Once the power is available as electricity, the downstream losses are really quite small (10%? 5%?) compared to the downstream losses for gasoline - 85% just in the car itself, and that's not even including delivering the gasoline to the gas station or the energy required to pump it into the car etc.
Why? Because converting gasoline to electricity in a large-scale plant is far more efficient than converting gasoline to motion in little engines scattered about in the environment. Once the power is available as electricity, the downstream losses are really quite small (10%? 5%?) compared to the downstream losses for gasoline - 85% just in the car itself, and that's not even including delivering the gasoline to the gas station or the energy required to pump it into the car etc.
You are shifting the reduced amount of energy that your car consumes. So even with a coal-based grid, it is a net-positive. The MPGe rating is a great indication of this.
Even with a pure coal fired grid, an EV only produces as much carbon as an ICEV getting 40mpg. Most grids are much cleaner and there are only a couple of such fully coal powered grids in the US. In the last few years, the percent of coal use in the US electric grid has fallen from about 40% to 18% and it is predicted to continue falling.
Take a look at this map showing the carbon output of an EV in various districts measured in equivalent MPG. https://blog.ucsusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Microsoft...
Take a look at this map showing the carbon output of an EV in various districts measured in equivalent MPG. https://blog.ucsusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Microsoft...
If we want to prevent a future of EVs being powered by fossil fuels, we need to start building nuclear powerplants like right this instant. This will be tough considering even the most forward thinking state, California, has hardly an interest in nuclear power. The federal government had to bail out diablo canyon before the state was going to let it die like they let san onofre die to replace it with a natural gas plant that produces less power.
I’d like to see the results for just California, where EV adoption is highest. What has happened to gasoline use in the state where 18% of new car sales are EVs?
I think that's fantastic, actually. It's only been a few years. I'm starting to see EVs everywhere, more each day.
I basically just see them in snobby rich areas.
Same place as the virtue signal yard signs with luxury shops everywhere.
Same place as the virtue signal yard signs with luxury shops everywhere.
That is a very snobby attitude. Do you assume that only poor people are earnest? You do a disservice to the whole income spectrum by prompting the stereotype of the “honest working man vs the rapacious rich man”.
> Do you assume that only poor people are earnest?
I don't assume, in my experience I've seen that highfalutin self-advertising of progressive ideals is concentrated in wealthy areas. It's sanctimonious and always among people who are insulated enough from reality to pretend they actually believe in those ideals.
I don't assume, in my experience I've seen that highfalutin self-advertising of progressive ideals is concentrated in wealthy areas. It's sanctimonious and always among people who are insulated enough from reality to pretend they actually believe in those ideals.
Hilariously, in my circle of friends none of the die hard progressives own an EV, it's the three firebreathing Trump supporters that are all-in on electric vehicles. They drive a lot of miles and appreciate the tremendous cost savings. None of them strike me as particularly sanctimonious. I think you're just extremely ideological and you see what you want to see.
the argument that makes the most sense to me about why EVs with slightly less than 1% have “only” reduced CO2 by 0.54% is that until recently the available EVs were mainly replacing relatively gas efficient vehicles: hatchbacks, sedans, and small SUVs. The owners of less efficient trucks and large SUVs have not seen EV equivalents to switch to. that is starting to change with the introduction of the Ford F150 Lightning and the upcoming Silverado and other larger EV SUVs. Also the number of PHEV SUVs has increased in the last year or so. As EVs become available to replace vehicles across the range, that impact number should correct and more closely track market penetration.
When does the deluge of electronics waste begin? Are there any studies about the carbon footprint of recycling these things?
Yes. There is a lot of information on the manufacturing cost of EVs in terms of environmental footprints. One thing we know for sure is that mining resources from dead cars is far less resource intensive than mining resources from traditional resource extraction.
And you have to keep in mind that the carbon footprint of a traditional car is very well understood, and it is enormous. An efficient mid-size car will consume something like 12x its weight in gasoline, and harvesting that gasoline also has a carbon footprint.
And you have to keep in mind that the carbon footprint of a traditional car is very well understood, and it is enormous. An efficient mid-size car will consume something like 12x its weight in gasoline, and harvesting that gasoline also has a carbon footprint.
To date, the number of EVs is small compared to the rest of vehicles. On top of that, relatively few of those EVs have crashed or had their batteries fail. Aside from the first gen Leaf, which had an inadequate cooling system, EV batteries seem to be lasting 10-20 years. At least some batteries are being repurposed for grid storage.
The result is that there are not a lot of batteries that can be recycled yet. There are groups looking into how to do it on an industrial scale and there are some prototype programs out there to test out the processes, but this is not a problem that needs to be solved in the near term.
https://electrek.co/2022/10/14/us-increases-ev-battery-recyc...
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/07/volkswagen-partners-wit...
The result is that there are not a lot of batteries that can be recycled yet. There are groups looking into how to do it on an industrial scale and there are some prototype programs out there to test out the processes, but this is not a problem that needs to be solved in the near term.
https://electrek.co/2022/10/14/us-increases-ev-battery-recyc...
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/07/volkswagen-partners-wit...
All modern cars have tons of electronics already.
My new (medium class) ICE car has a bunch more than a small second-car EV I recently drove (Renault Twingo).
Car batteries meanwhile, are likely to be recycled as much as possible, as they are the priciest single component of the car.
My new (medium class) ICE car has a bunch more than a small second-car EV I recently drove (Renault Twingo).
Car batteries meanwhile, are likely to be recycled as much as possible, as they are the priciest single component of the car.
Tons? The Tesla Model 3 has over half a ton of electronics. Just the battery is 1000+ lbs.
There are tons of non-native english speakers on this site, so as a PSA "tons" is an idiom that means "lots". It has other meanings than weight. Variants include "tonnage", "metric tons", and "fuckton(s)"
I'm a native English speaker. I thought it was funny they used the word tons when there is a literal half a ton of battery in a Tesla Model 3.
As in "a lot".
Modulo the battery (which I mentioned separately), I don't think Model 3 has much more electronics than modern ICE cars in its class. A modern car isn't even a computer on wheels, it's network of many computers, on wheels.
Modulo the battery (which I mentioned separately), I don't think Model 3 has much more electronics than modern ICE cars in its class. A modern car isn't even a computer on wheels, it's network of many computers, on wheels.
I'm aware. Saying a gas vehicle and an electric vehicle have practically the same amount of electronics if you ignore the battery is silly though. I just have to ignore the 1000+ lb battery.
> they are the priciest single component of the car.
What's the lifespan on that battery?
> they are the priciest single component of the car.
What's the lifespan on that battery?
It is not silly. The recyclability story is different for batteries vs general electronics. Electronics in general are not well recycled. The batteries can be once the programs are setup.
The future programs are what I'm worried about. I worry that it'll in practice just end up being trash barges of e-waste going to China "recyclers". I truly hope they materialize because one way or another gas vehicles are a huge source of pollution we need to deal with.
Battery is an electric component, not an electronic one:
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/5699/electronic-...
[deleted]
Would this be related to the massive fossil fuel consumption is in logistics; shipping and semi trailers?
I think the simplest way to express my concern with this article is that I would like to have "just" 0.54% of Elon Musk's wealth direct deposited into my bank account tomorrow.
Good for him but is the point of article about Musk?
In every single one of these discussions people always fail to look at reality in the proper context. Baselines are important if the objective is to evaluate the merit of any proposed solutions.
There are many reality-check baselines one can refer to in the case of the planetary-scale problem we are discussing. Here's one:
https://i.imgur.com/wbHptnf.png
A very simple chart that speaks loudly. Among other things, it says that electric cars do not matter. At all.
What?
OK. In case it isn't obvious, I'll walk you through it.
The argument presented is that a full conversion of the US into electric-powered ground transportation is crucial in the fight against climate change. Some say this can actually start to roll back atmospheric CO2 concentration levels. This, of course, is preposterous.
Let's take it a million times further than just converting the US to electric power:
Let's completely erase the US from this planet. We go from 300 million people to zero. All buildings, factories, vehicles, power plants, trains, planes, etc. evaporate overnight. Gone. Beamed into space by Captain Kirk.
What effect would that have on global atmospheric CO2 concentration and climate change?
Well, the simple answer (refer to the chart) is the planet would see a reduction in annual contributions of 14%.
This is NOT a reduction in atmospheric CO2 concentration. This is a reduction in annual inputs, that's all.
Instead of 32 giga-tons of CO2 per year contributed by humanity we would contribute 28 GT.
Which, in turn, means nothing whatsoever would change.
Atmospheric CO2 would continue to accumulate and increase at about the same rate.
Therefore, electric cars do not matter at all. Their potential impact is dwarfed by comparison to the absolute elimination of an entire nation from the planet. It is, at best, a rounding error.
I know people won't like this. Well, rather than being offended, how about explaining how electric cars would do any better than eliminating the entire US from this planet?
Here, I'll help with a fill in the blank exercise (using current White House estimate on impact of full ground transport electrification to be 1 GT per year):
BTW, this also assumes all other nations will remain at their current emissions levels. That is unlikely. China and India are likely going up before they come down, if ever.
Comparing our ideas to reasonable baselines is of crucial importance. In this case we learn a very harsh reality.
Electric cars are great, yes. However, we really need to stop painting them as a "save the planet" technology. That's nothing less than laughable given the data.
Again, refute the data before being angered by an argument you do not like. After all, reality does not care about your emotions. Are you actually arguing that full-electrics will have a greater impact than erasing the US from the planet? If you can't do that, you really need to re-evaluate how you see this problem.
There are many reality-check baselines one can refer to in the case of the planetary-scale problem we are discussing. Here's one:
https://i.imgur.com/wbHptnf.png
A very simple chart that speaks loudly. Among other things, it says that electric cars do not matter. At all.
What?
OK. In case it isn't obvious, I'll walk you through it.
The argument presented is that a full conversion of the US into electric-powered ground transportation is crucial in the fight against climate change. Some say this can actually start to roll back atmospheric CO2 concentration levels. This, of course, is preposterous.
Let's take it a million times further than just converting the US to electric power:
Let's completely erase the US from this planet. We go from 300 million people to zero. All buildings, factories, vehicles, power plants, trains, planes, etc. evaporate overnight. Gone. Beamed into space by Captain Kirk.
What effect would that have on global atmospheric CO2 concentration and climate change?
Well, the simple answer (refer to the chart) is the planet would see a reduction in annual contributions of 14%.
This is NOT a reduction in atmospheric CO2 concentration. This is a reduction in annual inputs, that's all.
Instead of 32 giga-tons of CO2 per year contributed by humanity we would contribute 28 GT.
Which, in turn, means nothing whatsoever would change.
Atmospheric CO2 would continue to accumulate and increase at about the same rate.
Therefore, electric cars do not matter at all. Their potential impact is dwarfed by comparison to the absolute elimination of an entire nation from the planet. It is, at best, a rounding error.
I know people won't like this. Well, rather than being offended, how about explaining how electric cars would do any better than eliminating the entire US from this planet?
Here, I'll help with a fill in the blank exercise (using current White House estimate on impact of full ground transport electrification to be 1 GT per year):
Ten years from now if we change nothing:
32 GT * 10 = 320 GT more than we have today
If the US didn't exist at all:
28 GT * 10 = 280 GT more than we have today
Best case if we convert all cars in the US to electric power:
31 GT * 10 = 310 GT more than we have today
BTW, this also assumes all other nations will remain at their current emissions levels. That is unlikely. China and India are likely going up before they come down, if ever.
Comparing our ideas to reasonable baselines is of crucial importance. In this case we learn a very harsh reality.
Electric cars are great, yes. However, we really need to stop painting them as a "save the planet" technology. That's nothing less than laughable given the data.
Again, refute the data before being angered by an argument you do not like. After all, reality does not care about your emotions. Are you actually arguing that full-electrics will have a greater impact than erasing the US from the planet? If you can't do that, you really need to re-evaluate how you see this problem.
Yes, climate change is happening. The point is to reduce the CO2 input to reduce the amount of change and to reduce the curve. EVs, across the globe, are one mechanism to reduce the CO2 input to reduce the rate of change.
If you don’t think there is value in reducing CO2 in this are as well as other areas, then do you have any suggestions for reducing the impact of climate change, or should we all just have a big party and burn as much oil as we can?
If you don’t think there is value in reducing CO2 in this are as well as other areas, then do you have any suggestions for reducing the impact of climate change, or should we all just have a big party and burn as much oil as we can?
> Yes, climate change is happening.
It is. Nobody is proposing it is not.
Having the hubris to think we can actually control a planetary scale issue of this magnitude is the problem. We are wasting time, money and resources on nonsense.
> The point is to reduce the CO2 input to reduce the amount of change and to reduce the curve.
You cannot. This is wishful thinking.
Even if we convert ALL energy generation on the entire planet to the most optimal forms of renewable energy, not only will we not reverse atmospheric CO2 accumulation, it will continue to increase.
Among other things, keep in mind that we are going to add at least three billion people to this planet by the end of the century. That's the equivalent of two countries the size of China, ten equivalents of the US or about four clones of all of Europe.
This idea of reducing CO2 input at a global scale is a fantasy. The fact that we don't like this does not magically negate the raw math of matter.
Referring to the graph I posted in my prior comment:
https://i.imgur.com/wbHptnf.png
Adding the equivalent of ten times the population of the US or twice that of China means adding the equivalent in terms of annual atmospheric CO2 contributions.
If we go by US living standards, this would mean this additional population would contribute 47 giga-tons of CO2 per year.
If, instead, we take China's emissions, the added population would contribute about 20 giga-tons per year.
How are over three billion people going to live so that they contribute nothing whatsoever to the atmosphere? The answer is: They can't, that idea is a fantasy. Three billions additional people will have a significant and non-trivial impact on atmospheric CO2 contributions, no matter where and how they might live.
All of these discussions wave a magic wand to conclude a miracle occurs, we violate the laws of physics and everyone gets pink unicorns. As great as that might feel, it isn't reality. All of these so-called solutions ignore reality in a egregious way. They assume we turn on a magical vacuum cleaner (or some kind of a perpetual motion machine), no other variable changes and magic happens. Great. Yet, that's not how reality works.
> If you don’t think there is value in reducing CO2
I have never said that. Reducing CO2 emissions has value. We simply need to understand we cannot take it as far as reversing climate change or reducing atmospheric CO2 concentration.
That last part is one of the most important concepts to grasp. We know that, if humanity left the planet, a 100 ppm reduction in atmospheric CO2 requires about 100K years. Any solution short of us not existing on this planet is going to take longer or, more than likely, never result in a reduction at all.
> do you have any suggestions for reducing the impact of climate change, or should we all just have a big party and burn as much oil as we can?
There are no solutions. Thinking we can reverse climate change is as silly as thinking we can slow down the planet's rotation so we can have 48 hour days. The scale is massive beyond comprehension.
And then there's the question of impact. And it is a question. I don't have the answers any more than anyone else might. This is a very complex multivariate problem.
Here's one hypothetical. What if we have to, slowly, over a few centuries, move towards the poles? Why would that be a problem? Is it a silly question? I don't know.
Every time someone voices concern about CO2 concentration I suggest they go and buy a CO2 meter and measure concentration around where they live and work. It is eye opening. For example, here's a table in the office:
https://i.imgur.com/3jEru4d.png
Here it is on the grass, outside:
https://i.imgur.com/srjNIYE.png
In the car I got measurements in the 1100 to 1300 range.
If you do this, one of the revelations should be: We have been living in very high CO2 ppm environments for centuries and none of use have turned into blobs of meat-like jelly on the ground. Why are we being told we are going to cease to exist if we gain another 100 or 200 ppm? Is this fear-mongering or true scientifically supported facts? How do they explain people driving on the highway many hours per day, every day, in a 1100 to 1400 ppm environment and not dropping dead by the millions every day? Etc.
There are a lot of questions, the most fundamental of which being just how much of what we are being told is fantasy used for financial and political gain?
I don't have the answers. All I can do is point out a lack of alignment between the message and reality.
It is. Nobody is proposing it is not.
Having the hubris to think we can actually control a planetary scale issue of this magnitude is the problem. We are wasting time, money and resources on nonsense.
> The point is to reduce the CO2 input to reduce the amount of change and to reduce the curve.
You cannot. This is wishful thinking.
Even if we convert ALL energy generation on the entire planet to the most optimal forms of renewable energy, not only will we not reverse atmospheric CO2 accumulation, it will continue to increase.
Among other things, keep in mind that we are going to add at least three billion people to this planet by the end of the century. That's the equivalent of two countries the size of China, ten equivalents of the US or about four clones of all of Europe.
This idea of reducing CO2 input at a global scale is a fantasy. The fact that we don't like this does not magically negate the raw math of matter.
Referring to the graph I posted in my prior comment:
https://i.imgur.com/wbHptnf.png
Adding the equivalent of ten times the population of the US or twice that of China means adding the equivalent in terms of annual atmospheric CO2 contributions.
If we go by US living standards, this would mean this additional population would contribute 47 giga-tons of CO2 per year.
If, instead, we take China's emissions, the added population would contribute about 20 giga-tons per year.
How are over three billion people going to live so that they contribute nothing whatsoever to the atmosphere? The answer is: They can't, that idea is a fantasy. Three billions additional people will have a significant and non-trivial impact on atmospheric CO2 contributions, no matter where and how they might live.
All of these discussions wave a magic wand to conclude a miracle occurs, we violate the laws of physics and everyone gets pink unicorns. As great as that might feel, it isn't reality. All of these so-called solutions ignore reality in a egregious way. They assume we turn on a magical vacuum cleaner (or some kind of a perpetual motion machine), no other variable changes and magic happens. Great. Yet, that's not how reality works.
> If you don’t think there is value in reducing CO2
I have never said that. Reducing CO2 emissions has value. We simply need to understand we cannot take it as far as reversing climate change or reducing atmospheric CO2 concentration.
That last part is one of the most important concepts to grasp. We know that, if humanity left the planet, a 100 ppm reduction in atmospheric CO2 requires about 100K years. Any solution short of us not existing on this planet is going to take longer or, more than likely, never result in a reduction at all.
> do you have any suggestions for reducing the impact of climate change, or should we all just have a big party and burn as much oil as we can?
There are no solutions. Thinking we can reverse climate change is as silly as thinking we can slow down the planet's rotation so we can have 48 hour days. The scale is massive beyond comprehension.
And then there's the question of impact. And it is a question. I don't have the answers any more than anyone else might. This is a very complex multivariate problem.
Here's one hypothetical. What if we have to, slowly, over a few centuries, move towards the poles? Why would that be a problem? Is it a silly question? I don't know.
Every time someone voices concern about CO2 concentration I suggest they go and buy a CO2 meter and measure concentration around where they live and work. It is eye opening. For example, here's a table in the office:
https://i.imgur.com/3jEru4d.png
Here it is on the grass, outside:
https://i.imgur.com/srjNIYE.png
In the car I got measurements in the 1100 to 1300 range.
If you do this, one of the revelations should be: We have been living in very high CO2 ppm environments for centuries and none of use have turned into blobs of meat-like jelly on the ground. Why are we being told we are going to cease to exist if we gain another 100 or 200 ppm? Is this fear-mongering or true scientifically supported facts? How do they explain people driving on the highway many hours per day, every day, in a 1100 to 1400 ppm environment and not dropping dead by the millions every day? Etc.
There are a lot of questions, the most fundamental of which being just how much of what we are being told is fantasy used for financial and political gain?
I don't have the answers. All I can do is point out a lack of alignment between the message and reality.
Here's an absolutely wild idea that you don't seem to be aware of at all:
There are cars in places other than the US.
Mind blowing, isn't it? What will they think of next.
There are cars in places other than the US.
Mind blowing, isn't it? What will they think of next.
> Here's an absolutely wild idea that you don't seem to be aware of at
> Mind blowing, isn't it?
You excel at using insults in place of any form of logical argument. This has happened in other discussions. The bad news is reality does not care.
Have a great day.
You excel at using insults in place of any form of logical argument. This has happened in other discussions. The bad news is reality does not care.
Have a great day.
If you are going to go pretending to be unaware of the majority of road emissions, be prepared to have that pointed out. It's not a mystery that a quarter of a seventh is smaller than a seventh, it's basic arithmetic.
If I see a bad faith argument worthy of contempt and ridicule where someone is trying to pass of "a big number is made of many small numbers added together" as some kind of fatalistic reason that the small numbers shouldn't be addressed, I'll call it out as such.
Road transport world wide is around 11% of emissions. Eliminating it will eliminate 11% of emissions.
Building heat and electricity is another 17%. Insulating, electrifying the heat (or using sunlight) and using low carbon sources for the electricity will eliminate 17%.
Steel smelting, ammonia and are another 5% at least. Hydrogen and electricity can replace fossil fuels here.
The technical problems for replacing all of these are solved simply by continuing to roll out existing solutions. That's over a third of the way there. Already figured out. Just have to keep doing that part by following the build out plan.
Comparing a subset of US emissions to US emissions as if it is profound is a ridiculous and transparent attempt at rhetoric and spreading doubt.
If I see a bad faith argument worthy of contempt and ridicule where someone is trying to pass of "a big number is made of many small numbers added together" as some kind of fatalistic reason that the small numbers shouldn't be addressed, I'll call it out as such.
Road transport world wide is around 11% of emissions. Eliminating it will eliminate 11% of emissions.
Building heat and electricity is another 17%. Insulating, electrifying the heat (or using sunlight) and using low carbon sources for the electricity will eliminate 17%.
Steel smelting, ammonia and are another 5% at least. Hydrogen and electricity can replace fossil fuels here.
The technical problems for replacing all of these are solved simply by continuing to roll out existing solutions. That's over a third of the way there. Already figured out. Just have to keep doing that part by following the build out plan.
Comparing a subset of US emissions to US emissions as if it is profound is a ridiculous and transparent attempt at rhetoric and spreading doubt.
> Road transport world wide is around 11% of emissions. Eliminating it will eliminate 11% of emissions.
No! It will not! Electric vehicles do not result in 0% emissions. Not even close.
Want to do the math on electrification? Go figure out the emissions produced by the entire process. The fact that you believe it is 0% says a lot about just how little you understand about, well, everything.
At a minimum, in order to fully electrify our ground transportation system we need to DOUBLE our power generation and transportation (the grid) system. Setting aside the fact that we can't build infrastructure worth a shit these days, a buildout of this magnitude isn't zero emissions at all.
For a sense of proportion, if all of it was nuclear, we would need somewhere in the order of 1200 brand new 1 GW nuclear power plants. If it was solar, we would need at least ten times that much and more batteries than anyone could imagine. Good luck with any of that. We would have to rape the earth for resources just to do this in one country, much less every nation on the planet. I don't even want to think about additional CO2 contributions to the atmosphere.
> Building heat and electricity is another 17%. Insulating, electrifying the heat (or using sunlight) and using low carbon sources for the electricity will eliminate 17%.
Once again, you don't know what you are saying. You are not going to go from 17% (assuming your figures are correct) to 0%. You are saying "and then a miracle occurs" and we are at 0%, completely ignoring what it takes to implement these changes and the reality that they are NOT carbon neutral at all, not even close. Not going to happen. In a fantasy, sure, in real life things don't work that way. My guess is you'd be lucky if you get a 2% to 3% savings, if that.
> That's over a third of the way there.
The part you don't seem to want to grasp is that reducing world-wide emissions by 33% does absolutely nothing. This, if it were possible, it is likely to take a century or more, if ever. World population will continue to increase, which, in turn, will produce more CO2 due to our activities.
Reducing it by 66%, does nothing. Atmospheric CO2 will continue to increase.
Even worse, reducing it by 100% --which is patently impossible-- will, again, do nothing at all. Why? If this were possible (again, it is not) this might take 500 to 1000 years. By that point in time the earth might have twenty to thirty billion people (if we don't kill ourselves first). This means our activities will produce massively more CO2 no matter what we do. Food production. Homes. Travel. Clothing. Producing household, commercial and industrial goods. Etc. All of it pumps CO2 into the atmosphere.
Even if we could get to 0% CO2, at that point it would take a hundred thousand years for a mere 100 ppm drop. Nature is the only power on this planet that can affect this change. And it takes nature a very long time.
This is were getting a sense of proportion is important. People are talking about reducing CO2 by a few percent when, if you really look at the larger picture, none of it is significant. And, as you get to the more extreme claims, it is nothing less than fantasy.
You are free to believe that math and physics don't matter. I am not going to say anything here to convince you. Don't know how old you are. I hope you live long enough to eventually understand that, at some point, reality matters. I think these realities are going to start hitting people in the face pretty hard in another decade or two. You'll wake up one day and realize everyone has been lying to you for financial or political gains. We will be no closer to solving anything. We will have wasted decades selling (and voting for) nonsense. We will realize we could have been discussing the truth and acting on it. The problem will be that we will have wasted resources (financial and natural) to such an extent that it might just be impossible to do anything intelligent by the time that realization sinks in.
The tragedy of that moment will be that the well-to-do will have the means to adapt and plan for the future. The poor will not. That's the greater long-term tragedy of the cult climate change has become. The people supporting the narratives, the masses, are the the ones who will suffer the most. Just like the people who supported a $15/hr minimum wage only to wake up one day to the reality that their $15/hr "raise" has now devalued down to $5/hr, if they have a job at all.
Reality has a way to assert itself regardless of what we want to believe or not. That is, oddly enough, reality.
No! It will not! Electric vehicles do not result in 0% emissions. Not even close.
Want to do the math on electrification? Go figure out the emissions produced by the entire process. The fact that you believe it is 0% says a lot about just how little you understand about, well, everything.
At a minimum, in order to fully electrify our ground transportation system we need to DOUBLE our power generation and transportation (the grid) system. Setting aside the fact that we can't build infrastructure worth a shit these days, a buildout of this magnitude isn't zero emissions at all.
For a sense of proportion, if all of it was nuclear, we would need somewhere in the order of 1200 brand new 1 GW nuclear power plants. If it was solar, we would need at least ten times that much and more batteries than anyone could imagine. Good luck with any of that. We would have to rape the earth for resources just to do this in one country, much less every nation on the planet. I don't even want to think about additional CO2 contributions to the atmosphere.
> Building heat and electricity is another 17%. Insulating, electrifying the heat (or using sunlight) and using low carbon sources for the electricity will eliminate 17%.
Once again, you don't know what you are saying. You are not going to go from 17% (assuming your figures are correct) to 0%. You are saying "and then a miracle occurs" and we are at 0%, completely ignoring what it takes to implement these changes and the reality that they are NOT carbon neutral at all, not even close. Not going to happen. In a fantasy, sure, in real life things don't work that way. My guess is you'd be lucky if you get a 2% to 3% savings, if that.
> That's over a third of the way there.
The part you don't seem to want to grasp is that reducing world-wide emissions by 33% does absolutely nothing. This, if it were possible, it is likely to take a century or more, if ever. World population will continue to increase, which, in turn, will produce more CO2 due to our activities.
Reducing it by 66%, does nothing. Atmospheric CO2 will continue to increase.
Even worse, reducing it by 100% --which is patently impossible-- will, again, do nothing at all. Why? If this were possible (again, it is not) this might take 500 to 1000 years. By that point in time the earth might have twenty to thirty billion people (if we don't kill ourselves first). This means our activities will produce massively more CO2 no matter what we do. Food production. Homes. Travel. Clothing. Producing household, commercial and industrial goods. Etc. All of it pumps CO2 into the atmosphere.
Even if we could get to 0% CO2, at that point it would take a hundred thousand years for a mere 100 ppm drop. Nature is the only power on this planet that can affect this change. And it takes nature a very long time.
This is were getting a sense of proportion is important. People are talking about reducing CO2 by a few percent when, if you really look at the larger picture, none of it is significant. And, as you get to the more extreme claims, it is nothing less than fantasy.
You are free to believe that math and physics don't matter. I am not going to say anything here to convince you. Don't know how old you are. I hope you live long enough to eventually understand that, at some point, reality matters. I think these realities are going to start hitting people in the face pretty hard in another decade or two. You'll wake up one day and realize everyone has been lying to you for financial or political gains. We will be no closer to solving anything. We will have wasted decades selling (and voting for) nonsense. We will realize we could have been discussing the truth and acting on it. The problem will be that we will have wasted resources (financial and natural) to such an extent that it might just be impossible to do anything intelligent by the time that realization sinks in.
The tragedy of that moment will be that the well-to-do will have the means to adapt and plan for the future. The poor will not. That's the greater long-term tragedy of the cult climate change has become. The people supporting the narratives, the masses, are the the ones who will suffer the most. Just like the people who supported a $15/hr minimum wage only to wake up one day to the reality that their $15/hr "raise" has now devalued down to $5/hr, if they have a job at all.
Reality has a way to assert itself regardless of what we want to believe or not. That is, oddly enough, reality.
> Want to do the math on electrification? Go figure out the emissions produced by the entire process. The fact that you believe it is 0% says a lot about just how little you understand about, well, everything.
Frozen world fallacy again. The 11% is the point of use stuff, embodied emissions come under industrial heat, or chemical, or electricity or or mining or shipping. What processes produce those emissions? How does a steel smelter produce emissions if it is running on solar electrolysed hydrogen? How does a mine produce emissions if it is electrified, and the nitrates are sequestered and the hydrocarbons it uses come from the air? Mining basalt hosted formations becomes carbon negative at about 120g/kg of host rock if you spread out the silicates after.
> My guess is you'd be lucky if you get a 2% to 3% savings, if that.
Good thing reality doesn't conform to the vague gut feelings of someone who is trying to spread FUD then.
> For a sense of proportion, if all of it was nuclear, we would need somewhere in the order of 1200 brand new 1 GW nuclear power plants. If it was solar, we would need at least ten times that much and more batteries than anyone could imagine. Good luck with any of that. We would have to rape the earth for resources just to do this in one country, much less every nation on the planet. I don't even want to think about additional CO2 contributions to the atmosphere.
You don't need 1.2TW to provide well under 300GW. And you certainly don't need to store energy in a battery to store it in a battery. Just plug most cars in most of the time and they become 3-day dispatchable load that massively drops the storage required for electrification. Some PHES or hydrogen is needed for seasonal storage, but this is a few dozen TWh.
The part of first generation of PV and wind will produce around 20g/kWh. The rest will use PV and wind to produce the Al, ste, and polysilicon. Same with nuclear. This drops it to 5 or so. Electrifying a few other steps makes it negligible.
And your claims of it taking centuries are incoherent. It will happen within 50 years simply because of resource depletion even with no intervention.
Frozen world fallacy again. The 11% is the point of use stuff, embodied emissions come under industrial heat, or chemical, or electricity or or mining or shipping. What processes produce those emissions? How does a steel smelter produce emissions if it is running on solar electrolysed hydrogen? How does a mine produce emissions if it is electrified, and the nitrates are sequestered and the hydrocarbons it uses come from the air? Mining basalt hosted formations becomes carbon negative at about 120g/kg of host rock if you spread out the silicates after.
> My guess is you'd be lucky if you get a 2% to 3% savings, if that.
Good thing reality doesn't conform to the vague gut feelings of someone who is trying to spread FUD then.
> For a sense of proportion, if all of it was nuclear, we would need somewhere in the order of 1200 brand new 1 GW nuclear power plants. If it was solar, we would need at least ten times that much and more batteries than anyone could imagine. Good luck with any of that. We would have to rape the earth for resources just to do this in one country, much less every nation on the planet. I don't even want to think about additional CO2 contributions to the atmosphere.
You don't need 1.2TW to provide well under 300GW. And you certainly don't need to store energy in a battery to store it in a battery. Just plug most cars in most of the time and they become 3-day dispatchable load that massively drops the storage required for electrification. Some PHES or hydrogen is needed for seasonal storage, but this is a few dozen TWh.
The part of first generation of PV and wind will produce around 20g/kWh. The rest will use PV and wind to produce the Al, ste, and polysilicon. Same with nuclear. This drops it to 5 or so. Electrifying a few other steps makes it negligible.
And your claims of it taking centuries are incoherent. It will happen within 50 years simply because of resource depletion even with no intervention.
> You don't need 1.2TW to provide well under 300GW. And you certainly don't need to store energy in a battery to store it in a battery. Just plug most cars in most of the time and they become 3-day dispatchable load that massively drops the storage required for electrification.
You continue to say thing that reveal you have never bothered to do the math at all. I have done this. I have written reasonably detailed simulations in order to understand just how much power full electrification of ground transport would require. My answer was in a range between 900 GW and 1400 GW. Years later Elon Musk confirmed this. His estimate is pretty much exactly in the middle of the range I predicted.
What he said is that electricity demand will more than double when we shift all transport to electric. The US currently has a capacity of 1.2 TW. A doubling, then, means we need an additional 1.2 TW of power generation and, most importantly, the ability to deliver that power (today, we cannot).
https://www.publicpower.org/system/files/documents/Americas_...
The 1.2 TW number comes from page 2 of the report linked above.
It is also important to understand how we generate power. Page 2:
Anyhow, you go ahead and believe what you believe.
Come back and check your notes against this discussion in ten years and see where your beliefs land you.
You continue to say thing that reveal you have never bothered to do the math at all. I have done this. I have written reasonably detailed simulations in order to understand just how much power full electrification of ground transport would require. My answer was in a range between 900 GW and 1400 GW. Years later Elon Musk confirmed this. His estimate is pretty much exactly in the middle of the range I predicted.
What he said is that electricity demand will more than double when we shift all transport to electric. The US currently has a capacity of 1.2 TW. A doubling, then, means we need an additional 1.2 TW of power generation and, most importantly, the ability to deliver that power (today, we cannot).
https://www.publicpower.org/system/files/documents/Americas_...
The 1.2 TW number comes from page 2 of the report linked above.
It is also important to understand how we generate power. Page 2:
Natural gas 43.9%
Coal 18.5%
Wind 10.7%
Hydro 8.1%
Solar 5.3%
Geothermal 0.3%
Anyhow, you go ahead and believe what you believe.
Come back and check your notes against this discussion in ten years and see where your beliefs land you.
The available work of all oil that the US uses is around 300GW on average once it is refined and run through an ICE. EV motors do significantly less work than a typical ICE because they are more aerodynamic and have regen.
With negligible chemical or hydro storage (or even fossil fuel backup at insignificant usage) for the 4 days a year where demand spikes, all you need to do is make it so most EVs are available to charge most of the time to spread the load.
This can be achieved either by an extension cord, or if that is really too difficult for you to imagine, by taking a few days worth of EV battery (about 10-30%) and separating it from the car (either at point of charge, at the owner's house or on grid) most of the time so it can be charged whenever. Exclusively fast charging and peaking with nuclear is the stupidest possible way of achieving this. Please do share your simulation so it can become apparent what other unfounded assumptions you've made.
You've also just attempted to move the goal posts with your "prediction". Peak capacity isn't generation. Markets shift, and much more than just transport will be electrified. There will be several net terawatts of renewables dedicated to US energy needs in the coming decades, but it has nothing to do with your logic.
Finally appealing to authority using an ambiguous and off handed comment of a serial liar whose quantified predictions are consistently wrong is evidence against your case, not for it.
With negligible chemical or hydro storage (or even fossil fuel backup at insignificant usage) for the 4 days a year where demand spikes, all you need to do is make it so most EVs are available to charge most of the time to spread the load.
This can be achieved either by an extension cord, or if that is really too difficult for you to imagine, by taking a few days worth of EV battery (about 10-30%) and separating it from the car (either at point of charge, at the owner's house or on grid) most of the time so it can be charged whenever. Exclusively fast charging and peaking with nuclear is the stupidest possible way of achieving this. Please do share your simulation so it can become apparent what other unfounded assumptions you've made.
You've also just attempted to move the goal posts with your "prediction". Peak capacity isn't generation. Markets shift, and much more than just transport will be electrified. There will be several net terawatts of renewables dedicated to US energy needs in the coming decades, but it has nothing to do with your logic.
Finally appealing to authority using an ambiguous and off handed comment of a serial liar whose quantified predictions are consistently wrong is evidence against your case, not for it.
They're including plugin hybrids which apparently saw a massive efficiency drop. I don't think we should consider these transitional technologies anymore now that battery vehicles have become "good enough" in most population centres. Even if you can't charge at home there is now a good network of chargers here in Toronto.
Quite a few non-plug-in hybrids are still being sold, and transitioning those to plug-in would be an improvement.
Non-plug in hybrids are becoming the norm, almost everyone is going to at least a 48v mild hybrid, which is a 10-15% improvement over a normal ICE. Something like a Prius, Insight or Ioniq get 50+mpg combined. If everybody switched from godawful crossovers to hybrid econoboxes (comparable utility and price), we'd see a 30% reduction in gas usage.
> But it should be clear now that EVs on their own are not a panacea to our transport-related climate problems, and the future will require many more people to walk, cycle, or take the bus to get to where they're going.
I think this claim is true (and a good thing) but it's not really supported by the evidence presented, which mostly says "the US needs less ICE cars".