It’s easy to say that EV’s are cleaner than any petrol or diesel car, but what if we take into account everything that’s required for electricity to be made and reach the car?
Only about 30% of electric energy even reaches the car from the plant to the car’s battery once transformer stations, wires and everything else is taken into account, while everything else is lost through mainly heat, which doesn’t magically dissapear, but gets sent to the atmosphere.
In an ideal world all plants would also be fully renewable, but in reality they aren’t, so more power equalls more coal or more dams built on rivers.
So if we take into account all these things, are EV’s really cleaner than modern Euro 6+ petrol engines? Not to mention the extreme amount of water needed for lithium mining and it’s effect on the environment, as well as the fact that old toxic car batteries will have to go somewhere and can’t be fully recycled.
That 30% may be including thermodynamic efficiency and is close if one considers a situation where the EV is powered exclusively by coal, which the average thermodynamic efficiency in the US for a coal power plant is about 40%, then add in other losses transmission/battery storage, and 30% seems in the ballpark for this situation. With that said the average ICE is about 11% thermodynamically efficient in on road use. So even if the EV is powered by coal it’s still much better.
In 2020 at EU level, renewable energy sources accounted for 39 % of the electricity and overtook for the first time fossil fuels (36 %) as the main power source. In addition, 25 % of the electricity came from nuclear power plants. Among renewable sources, the highest share of electricity came from wind turbines (14 %), hydropower plants (13 %), biofuels (6 %) and solar power (5 %).
The counter I’ve heard to this is due to the increased demand of electricity, much of that will need to be made up by coal, as that is where our power reserves are, especially base loads which coal typically is used for. Like I said above EV’s are still better then ICE even if exclusively powered by coal, but it may not be totally fair to use the US power grid mix but look at what is the affect of the additional load of EV’s.
Except that each year there is an increase in renewables. It seems to be pacing or even out-pacing the EV fleet expansion. So it isn’t really a solid argument and seems to be based on “How would we supply power for the EV fleet of 10 years from now, today?”
We are also moving more towards heat pumps (over combustion appliances) and I believe A/C usage is still increasing. I don’t know where the balancing point is between buildout of our renewables and the general trend towards greater use of electricity is. But renewables have a limit to how many we can deploy to meet our needs unless we can get a way to store mass amounts of power. But then again mass adoption of EV’s are ways of storing mass amounts of power.
30% is low, but there are a lot of losses in any electrical energy system:
loses converting source energy to electrical power.
transmission line losses
Conversion losses in transformers
Charging losses
Battery storage losses
Conversion losses transferring electrical energy to motive power.
However, there are also losses in the fossil fuel system, such as transportation and energy used to extract fossil fuels. Also, there are huge heat losses with an internal combustion engine.
In the end, I have no doubt that electric cars are much more efficient when you look at the complete energy cycle of both IC cars and electric.
This sort of “long tailpipe” discussion is all well and good, but almost always ignores the long tailpipe of gasoline itself.
Gasoline takes in the ballpark of 7 kWh to refine. That’s before it even gets to you. A typical EV can drive close to 30 miles on that. So even ignoring the emissions from the gasoline itself, an EV is doing almost almost as well as a typical mid-size vehicle.
If the gasoline is refined on the same energy grid (and it often is), then saving a gallon of gas frees up that 7 kWh for EV use. The net effect on the plants may well be close to zero. There are still questions of whether the power is in the right place, but that’s mostly about the transmission lines, which don’t themselves pollute.
If you’re just genuinely curious about this stuff, it’s no big deal. But if you’re seeing these questions pop up on your social media feeds, it’s almost certainly astroturfed FUD from automakers and oil companies, and you should keep a highly skeptical eye on the sources. The misinformation they pump out isn’t just misleading, but filled without outright lies. For instance, I wonder where the 30% figure you cited came from. It’s not remotely true.
You mean thanks to Ukraine, which shelled civilians in Donetsk, Lugansk and Gorlovka for almost eight years straight causing Russia to finally end it’s eight year toleration of it’s ethnic people and many of it’s direct dual citizens being killed by Kiev for those eight years, during which “pacifists” that watch cnn were quiet and pretended they didn’t see anything.
The war didn’t start in february 2022, it started in the winter of 2013/14 when the American official state department representatives such as Victoria Nuland decided to come to a anti-government demonstration in Kiev, you know, the same as how Russian and Chinese officials come to anti-government demonstrations in Mexico and Canada…oh yeah, they don’t.
While you do have a valid point, the topic here is electricity production and EVs. There is a lot more about the history of that region that could be brought up, but let’s not go there or we are going to end up way off in the weeds.
Feel free to discuss it elsewhere, though. There are plenty of other Ukraine related threads.
In this thread, let’s focus on things directly related to electricity production and EVs, please.
It’s also worth noting that electric vehicles, or battery-charging in general, is especially well-suited to energy generated from wind. If you look only at cost per power or per energy, wind is already very close to or better than most fossil fuel plants. The catch, which is why we aren’t already using wind for everything, is the stability: Overall, wind will produce so-and-so many joules per day, but it’s not controllable (or sometimes even predictable) when that’ll be: Sometimes it’s blowing hard, and sometimes it’s calm. But averaged out over the 12 hours or so that an electric vehicle will probably be plugged in for, it’s very reliable, and you’re back to just looking at the very good cost-per-power and cost-per-energy numbers.
Some power could be stored in batteries, though there are losses there.
Also, would wind energy provide ENOUGH power to meet the demands, as EV usage increases? The use of wind turbines is a huge topic, and would be a digression from this specific thread, but it is fascinating to me. It’s clean (once the turbines are manufactured and installed), “free” (ditto; and I’m discounting the required maintenance, which I know is nontrivial), and of course some places are better suited than others. Still, the time we drove through that enormous, seemingly-neverending wind farm in Indiana a few years back, it was a cool experience.
A similar question on use of solar arrays, though those seem to take up more space than a turbine. I don’t know about the ratio of power generated per square mile, but a solar array pretty much takes up all the ground it occupies, while the turbine is this big thing on a stalk - and you could theoretically have buildings or crops on the ground. Same issue with suitability (though weirdly, the place I’ve seen the most solar arrays is Vermont!) and capacity.
I do fantasize about some day having a house with enough land that I could have a small wind turbine and/or solar panels to handle most of the electricity needs, with an EV or PHEV for getting around town.