Not if you’re going to use all those coal-fueled electrons to post nonsense that would lead one to conclude that the electricity used in California relies on coal plants east of the Mississippi.
From a strictly engineering viewpoint but wouldn’t it be easier to control emissions from 20 2 2MW coal fired plants than a million cars?
Don’t worry I switched to hydro for that post.
California only got rid of it’s coal by switching to natural gas, which is cleaner burning compared to coal, but still very dirty.
And the grid is interdependent enough that the reliability of your electrical supply does depend on the coal generated power coming from other states.
Yes, but only because it is easier to find the coal plants and shut them down.
As far as I understand it, the carbon capture technology is like Star Wars missile defense tech; it sounds good, but it is technically unfeasible, as far as being a widespread reliable solution.
Essentially none of the electric power near me is from coal. There’s a nuclear plant, a lot of hydro, and some gas that together provide most of the local electricity.
And no, we really aren’t that good at coping with our dwellings washing out to sea and our crops having inadequate water. I mean, as a species, sure. But locally, climate change is going to be extremely rough on a lot of people.
Yes, of course.
Yes, but I’ve looked into it enough to be pretty certain that the pollution indirectly generated by electric cars around here is less than the pollution generated by the same amount of power produced by gasoline-driven cars.
Judging by this report, in the dirtiest parts of the country, an electric car is responsible for GHG emissions a wee bit better than an efficient ICE car. In the cleanest parts of the country - such as all of California, the Northwest, New York, and New England, an EV emits substantially less GHG than the most efficient hybrids.
And in China, you’d do better to drive an efficient ICE car. Yes, that is consistent with what I have seen before.
Natural gas is not very dirty. It as good a fossil fuel as you can get. Combined Cycle Gas Turbine plants are not only much more thermodynamically efficient than any gasoline or diesel engine, but emit much less carbon dioxide per unit of input energy (methane has a high hydrogen fraction).
Of course, solar and wind are better. But for now, natural gas will be in the mix.
As far as non-carbon emissions go, the Volkswagen debacle demonstrates that we may be dramatically underestimating the harmful emissions that vehicles produce compared to fixed plants.
Most likely, the last coal plant to be built in the US already exists. Whereas a decade ago there were plans for something like 150 plants, today that number is something like 3, and even those are on hold and most likely not be completed. It’s a shame that so much coal generation already exists, but at this point, getting rid of it is just a waiting game.
Even so, as others have said, it’s simply not true that a coal-powered electric is worse than a gas-powered ICE car. Their high efficiency means that they do better in almost all situations (horrifically dirty Chinese coal plants notwithstanding).
For all that, and it is very good news,
I still firmly believe that Nuclear will be needed for large scale electric car adoption -
I just hope it comes sooner rather than later.
that’s just common sense. Have you heard one politician suggest it?
Both Obama and Romney offered limited support for nuclear power back when they were running.
I’d really like nuclear to be a larger component of the energy mix. But realistically, it’s not going to happen. It’s too prone to NIMBYism, too much of a target for environmentalist wackos, too easy to paint negatively whenever a disaster happens somewhere in the world, too dependent on large upfront capital investments, and so on.
Solar and wind combined are over 2/3 of new installed generation in 2015 (the rest was gas). I think the reasons are obvious. The price is becoming competitive, and the exposure in every other area is significantly less than coal or nuclear. Small plants are just as effective and so don’t require as much upfront investment. They also start working progressively, unlike the big single reactors of nuclear plants.
Singapore has mooted the idea of nuclear at some unspecified point in the future even though a single plant is likely to be more capacity than is currently needed and despite singapore being so small it can’t be built “isolated”
Even though it’s not currently on the agenda in the US - I would imagine that once other countries start using it more extensively, and the cost benefit gets more attractive - it will be inevitable at some point
I truly expect to see electric cars explode onto the scene when batteries are actually fast charging. We should have been building nuclear plants in earnest years ago. we’ll end up with a lot of peak-use generators to cover the cap when it happens.
:rolleyes: Anyway, what Musk is doing is trying to accelerate development, thus hastening that day. That’s hardly irrational.
That part of Musk’s sales pitch was kind of scary. (Oh, you’ve been banned! I’m sorry you’re banned.)
Bio-accumulating? Is there methyl mercury in coal?
Also, you’re tens of thousand years old? Do you remember PIE?
I wouldn’t expect any new nuclear power plants to be built in the USA, basically ever. It takes an insane amount of upfront investment for a plant that has a necessarily quite limited lifespan. Micro-solar is going to be the major focus of growth for a while, due to its ability to grow progressively. Eventually, solar is likely to be the main component for much of the USA’s power generation, with some hydro and wind.
It’s readily methylated once it reaches an aquatic environment. That’s how most acute poisonings occurred last century.
Musk has literally done nothing of note on these cars.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have achieved peak goofy assertion.
A lot of the argument seems to be around fast charging. Remember the Model Ξ won’t be here for 2 more years. What will the state of batteries/charging be then?