If energy generation for EVs uses fossil fuels, how are EVs more energy efficient and environmentally friendly? Doesn't converting energy from fossil fuels to electricity result in energy loss?
>>16529461bait
>>16529461the only real benefit is less air pollution in cities
>>16529461Currently they use fossil fuels. The goal is that in the future the electricity they use won’t be sourced from fossil fuels
>>16529461Automobile engines are terribly inefficient at converting gasoline into locomotion. Even a dirty coal plant does a better job of converting coal into electricity which is then used for locomotion in the EV. That's even after adjusting for transmission and conversion losses. ICE vehicles are simply have poor efficiency ratings.
>>16529461EV using fossil fuel just makes it a hybrid at worst case. EVs using nuclear/solar/wind/hydro/geo makes it clean and efficient
>Doesn't converting energy from fossil fuels to electricity result in energy loss?No, power plants+electric engines as a system are more energy efficient than combustion engines, even before factoring in green energy.The advantage of power plants is scale/engineering and the advantage of electric cars is they just waste less energy when going from fuel to motion.
>>16529461>how are EVs more energy efficient and environmentally friendly?Dont care, China just doesnt want to depend on arab oil
oil will never be phased out, electric cars are just a bargaining tactic towards OPEC and Russia. They cant raise the price too much because now we have alternatives, its good to have 50% of your vehicle fleet electric just in case
>>16529519>EVs using nuclear/solar/wind/hydro/geo makes it clean and efficientDisregarding all the elements of resource extraction, transport, refining, processing, manufacturing, and eventual recycling, or not recycling and stuck with metric fucktons of hazardous waste Solar is veryow efficiency overallWind power integration benefits are dubious at best
>>16529511No it doesn't. You have to count the mining of copper for wires, concrete used to make the power plant, concrete used to build power lines, timber harvesting for the power poles. Transformers are hard to build and have environmental impact. You have to pay power linemen to repair and install those lines which use trucks tools, and yes HELICOPTERS! Smart meters must be built to monitor and charge for power usage, more impact on environment. Now power charging stations must be installed, TONS of copper there. loads of concrete, some new fire suppression systems likely must be installed, new water pipe laid. Not to mention we MUST build additional power plants JUST for the ne EV usage. You are simply not correct and basic logic shows us this. EV's require a complex system to be built from the ground up that's highly resource intensive. This all for a inferior product most people don't really want. You have to use a reusable shopping bag 7000-11,000 times before it off sets the CO2 used to make it. Most reusable bags are used on average 10-100 times. Thus reusable bags ARE A NET NEGATIVE on the environment compared to single use plastic bags.
>>165297341. Gas pumps require power, not to mention a fuckton other infrastructure.2. EVs can charge off basic home circuitry which is already everywhere you would fucking put an EV.3. Replacing a metric fuckton of combustion engines with power plants isn't increasing power generation. It's centralizing it. With power plants that are more efficient and durable than gas/diesel engines.
>>16529461>If energy generation for EVs uses fossil fuelshave you ever heard of solar panels?
>>16529461Using hydrocarbon fuels is what makes EVs environmentally friendly. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere is good for nature, it makes plants healthier and faster growing. All life on Earth is carbon based. Life on this planet developed in an atmosphere that was 8% CO2 and now we're down to having practically no atmospheric CO2 at all. Atmospheric CO2 is absolutely mandatory for the survival of life on Earth, the more we add to the atmosphere the better off we all will be.
>>16529461>ICE ~ 20% efficiency >EV ~ 90% efficiency It simply uses less to do more.
>>16529519>clean and efficientyou forgot to include "relative to ICE" "relative to ICE" is the only way it can be seen as "clean"
>>16529511>I don't know the efficiency of a steam systemThat's nice. Please go review your thermodynamics.
>>16530114Are you retarded? Are you trying to imply that power plants are as inefficient as vehicle engines? Why don't you review your thermodynamics, look up the hot and cold temperatures for power plants and cars, and then apply Carnot's efficiency formula to each one? It should be very enlightening for you.
>>16529493Pretty much this. And if there is a single coal poweplant working, it's the conversion of burning coal to electricity, which is less than 30% should be calculated as a base for ev efficiency. If those ev didn't exist, we wouldn't need to run those coal power plants.
>>16530945>are you retarded?I am saying something that you apparently don't want to hear.There is mass involved in efficiency. There is also a rather fundamental limit to the efficiency of steam systems due to their components.You cannot compare gas to electric 1:1 because you are ignoring every other component of the supply chain.So. What's the efficiency of a steam plant again? Do you actually need me to tell you?Do we subtract or multiply efficiency losses?
>>16529473/thread
>>16529896This picture gave me cancer.
>>16531901>If those ev didn't exist, we wouldn't need to run those coal power plants.Counterpoint: More efficient forms of power plant exist, so we don't need to run those coal power plants anyway.You are arguing against coal, not against EVs. And good on you for that.
When did this shit board become endless bait threads
>>16531901>>16531917>>16532240Retard who failed physics and can't apply Carnot's efficiency formula. You should find a different board to post on.
>>16532325Around 2015
EVs are super dangerous, when the batteries catch fire the door automatically locks trapping the owner inside. EVs are like an IQ test, if you have an EV then you failed the test
>>16529461>If energy generation for EVs uses fossil fuels, how are EVs more energy efficient and environmentally friendly?Converting fossil fuels into electrical energy, that is then accessed on a universal grid, creates efficiency by creating more universal standards and delivery systems for energy consumption. Electrical energy for instance is infinitely less expensive, and safer, to transport and deliver to consumers than gasoline. There's also an argument to make that expanding what the electrical grid can do would be a carte blanche 'good' thing since our modern economy depends more and more on the growth and expansion of energy development. Granted, the whole idea is to *not* use fossil fuels to generate the energy, but if you had to it would still be better than burning them in the vehicle. If only for the sake of improving air-quality in dense urban locations. >>16529641>oil will never be phased outThat's right, oil *will* never be phased out. The entire automotive industry could be electric, or hydrogen, or perhaps even steam or nuclear, and the oil industry would still be necessary for fertilizers, plastic products, certain medicines, industrial and chemical fuels & lubricants, asphalt, and so forth. There's a million and two other uses and purposes for petroleum products that don't involve burning it - if anything, the longer we spend burning oil the less reserves we'll have in the future for it's other uses.There is no good reason, especially for anyone in the sciences, to be so emotionally attached and invested in insisting that oil remain the primary source of energy. It's just energy. There's other sources of energy.
https://illuminem.com/illuminemvoices/green-ferry-emits-more-co2-than-old-diesel-ship'Green' ferry emits more CO2 than old diesel shipScotland's new "green" ferry, MV Glen Sannox, emits more CO2 than the older diesel-powered ferry it replaces on the Arran route• The dual-fuel ferry’s use of liquified natural gas (LNG) was intended as a transitional green solution but has been criticized for methane emissions and inefficient fuel useLNG emits less CO2 than diesel, but methane slip—a release of unburnt methane—offsets much of the environmental benefits• The Glen Sannox’s larger size and heavier build require more fuel, leading to a 35% higher carbon footprint than its predecessor, MV Caledonian Isles
>>16534306It operates on LNG/marine gas oil. Fuck all about that shit's "green".
>>16529473It’s not bait, it’s entirely dependent on the head end generations LbsCO2/kW. There exists a break even point where it’s better to just burn gasoline or diesel.
>>16534391Sorry, lbsCO2/kWh
Gas powered cars are based because they emit CO2. CO2 is good for the environment.
>>16535669>CO2 is good for the environment.So shouldn't you be breathing car exhaust? You're part of the environment.
>>16535771Wind power is killing all the birds and the bats, hydropower drives migratory aquatic species to extinction. They aren't even slightly clean. Coal, gas & oil power on the other hand enriches the atmosphere with CO2 that make nature healthier and more productive than it has been in millions of years. All of those species that get destroyed by wind and hydro power benefit massively from coa,l gas and oil power
Coal plants have become far more efficient with co2 scrubbers and just by design. Their pollution is localized and easier to deal with. Also, power plants pay more in carbon emission credits to lower their emission footprint.If you can create a more single efficient power source rather than a million inefficient power sources you are better off.
>>16529461The only positive aspect of EVs is that they move pollution away from your local city to an industrial area in China.Period.
>>16529461It was never about efficiency and environmental friendliness to begin with. If they REALLY cared about that, they would be building these cars out of recyclable and environmental friendly materials.
>>16535972this, a truly green EV would be made of wood, glass or metal, without shitty plastics and polluting electronics.
>>16535672Let trees inhale it
modern fossil fired plants have high efficiency ratings than ICE's and can burn more common fuels (coal and natural gas vs petroleum). EV's also can be powered by nuclear or renewables depending on where and when it is charging
>>16535672you're an urbanite, you swim in car exhaust all day errrry day and have been doing so your entire life, if you didn't think that bathing in auto exhaust was good then why do you do it? why not move somewhere rural?do you think you're retarded for living in an urban atmosphere? if you presume you're retarded for that then why don't you presume your other opinions are equally retarded
>>16535672>So shouldn't you be breathing car exhaust?But i do, all the time. I also breathe the fumes from my gas stove. Its impossible not to
lol
>>16537412Urbanites shilling false environmental concern is incredibly common. Urbanites are social creatures so they're always massively concerned about their public image, everything they do is a lie or a pose. Thats why Musk knew it would be easy to trick millions of them into buying shitty electric cars for $100k a throw
>>16529734Gasoline and other fuels also require a massive amount of infrastructure to produce and deliver. Which perhaps you take for granted because we already have it
>>16537437>I also breathe the fumes from my gas stove. Its impossible not toHave you considered not owning a shit stove?Ask me how I know you don't have a pet bird?
>>16537412>you're an urbaniteI live in a county outside a moderately sized city.>you swim in car exhaust all day errrry dayOn the ass end of a dead end road.>if you didn't think that bathing in auto exhaust was good then why do you do it? why not move somewhere rural?I don't. And you should invest in better air filters for your home it sounds like.>do you think you're retarded for living in an urban atmosphere?Anyone that does so willingly is a fuckwit, yes.>if you presume you're retarded for that then why don't you presume your other opinions are equally retardedShut up, fuckwit.
