-
Hi Guest!
You can help ensure that British Car Forum (BCF) continues to provide a great place to engage in the British car hobby! If you find BCF a beneficial community, please consider supporting our efforts with a subscription.
There are some perks with a member upgrade!**Upgrade Now**
(PS: Subscribers don't see this gawd-aweful banner
Hey - did you know if you click on the title of a thread it will take you to the first unread post since you last visited that thread?
but were afraid to ask: 
STOP!! Never post your email address in open forums. Bots can "harvest" your email! If you must share your email use a Private Message or use the 
smilie in place of the real @
Pretty Please - add it to our Events forum(s) and add to the calendar! >> 
The Great Delusion
- Thread starter PAUL161
- Start date
Share this page
mikephillips
Yoda
Online
True. I made mention to someone that zero emissions was currently more accurately elsewhere emissions since most electricity is still carbon emitting generated. Maybe someday that'll change, but not yet.
Offline
It totally depends on the source of the electricity. I saw a report that in Poland EVs cause more pollution that IC cars because almost all electricity there is generated using coal. In some other European countries EVs cause less because electricity is generated using significant amounts of nuclear, hydro or wind.
mikephillips
Yoda
Online
True, some use more some use less carbon fueled power. I'm just thinking there are few who actually are carbon free. I had someone try to sell me wind power through my usual provider. Told me I would be 100% carbon free as they would "add" it to what the power company sent. So I said that technically it would be a mix of old and new, not me getting the 100% wind by the time it arrived at my meter. I have nothing against clean power, but do want the descriptions to be technically accurate
Offline
1. The benefit of electric powered stuff (bikes, ranges, etc.) is that as generation of electricity becomes less carbon intense, all electric devices become less carbon intense. (Eg replacing the black-spewing plant in the picture with nuclear.) Hydrocarbon-powered devices have the same initial efficiency for their lifespans. (I’m not advocating - I recently installed a gas range - but I understand the potential upside to electric.)
2. As mikephillips mentioned, utility companies that sell “green” electricity are using this to make profits. Our town proudly says we use 100% renewable. The reality is, electricity generation in our state is about 25% renewable. Electrons are electrons, and the ones coming out of my outlet are not necessarily the same ones made by a solar panel in the night. So as long as less than 25% off consumers agree to pay the premium for renewables, the utility companies don’t change a thing - but pocket the up-charge.
2. As mikephillips mentioned, utility companies that sell “green” electricity are using this to make profits. Our town proudly says we use 100% renewable. The reality is, electricity generation in our state is about 25% renewable. Electrons are electrons, and the ones coming out of my outlet are not necessarily the same ones made by a solar panel in the night. So as long as less than 25% off consumers agree to pay the premium for renewables, the utility companies don’t change a thing - but pocket the up-charge.
It is really way more complicated.
An internal combustion engine gets at best about 35% efficiency. probably less.
generating electric has a huge variation in efficiency modern combined cycle gas (gas turbine + steam turbine to use "waste" heat) can get over 65% (and this is how most new large gas generating plants work)
A simple gas turbine would only get about 35% efficiency (mostly "peakers" small turbines used for peak usage times)
and Coal is about 35%
But we need to know some much more... what time of the day are you charging at? if it is at low usage hours, and a coal plant is running at less than full capacity it probably will not take additional coal power to charge your car - you simply can't shut down a coal fired generating plant - so charging your car actually increases the spot efficiency. - Same with a combined cycle gas system.
On the other hand if your charging causes the simple gas turbine to turn on "peaker stations" used for "peak usage" you effectively reduce overall system efficiency.
Since our overall electrical system is a mixture of these different generating types you get an efficiency somewhere between all these numbers -- but in almost EVERY case still better than an internal combustion engine -even when including charging /battery efficiency.
As for hydrogen... creating hydrogen by electrolysis is extremely energy intensive. Most hydrogen is generated from natural gas so this is not a carbon friendly alternative (but there is work being done on generating cleaner hydrogen) the next big problem is storing the stuff that is as bad or worse than current batteries.
And finally if that guy takes his electric bike and uses it instead of his car.... it really doesn't matter the energy usage of a 30 kg bike vs a 1000+kg car is always going to be much lower for the bike.
An internal combustion engine gets at best about 35% efficiency. probably less.
generating electric has a huge variation in efficiency modern combined cycle gas (gas turbine + steam turbine to use "waste" heat) can get over 65% (and this is how most new large gas generating plants work)
A simple gas turbine would only get about 35% efficiency (mostly "peakers" small turbines used for peak usage times)
and Coal is about 35%
But we need to know some much more... what time of the day are you charging at? if it is at low usage hours, and a coal plant is running at less than full capacity it probably will not take additional coal power to charge your car - you simply can't shut down a coal fired generating plant - so charging your car actually increases the spot efficiency. - Same with a combined cycle gas system.
On the other hand if your charging causes the simple gas turbine to turn on "peaker stations" used for "peak usage" you effectively reduce overall system efficiency.
Since our overall electrical system is a mixture of these different generating types you get an efficiency somewhere between all these numbers -- but in almost EVERY case still better than an internal combustion engine -even when including charging /battery efficiency.
As for hydrogen... creating hydrogen by electrolysis is extremely energy intensive. Most hydrogen is generated from natural gas so this is not a carbon friendly alternative (but there is work being done on generating cleaner hydrogen) the next big problem is storing the stuff that is as bad or worse than current batteries.
And finally if that guy takes his electric bike and uses it instead of his car.... it really doesn't matter the energy usage of a 30 kg bike vs a 1000+kg car is always going to be much lower for the bike.
Offline
IF people would use it...
mikephillips
Yoda
Online
The trick is to identify the right spots. NYC with expensive and not enough parking, some of the east coast commuter rail, other places like that. Small towns, long distances, not so much. Will never be 100% the most efficient in terms of energy use and pollution, but it can become better.
YakkoWarner
Jedi Warrior
Offline
I think the key to getting people onto public tranportation is offering an alternative to using your own vehicle that actually improves your trip. Where I live we have a bus system that is fairly comprehensive in getting from point A to point B, but don't expect to get there anytime soon. Even on a Saturday with minimal traffic it took 2.5 hours to get to a downtown destination by bus, whereas driving would have taken 30-45 minutes. We have a single rail line that runs a pretty weird route because it shares the right-of-way with a freight line - it is very effective if you want to get somewhere that is along its route, but otherwise you then have to depend on the busses to get you anywhere else. On top of that they only run the rail line on very limited hours - so even if you can use the rail to get to work - if you end up having to stay 10-15 minutes late at the office now you have a multi-hour slog on the bus or a 100 dollar cab ride home. Its a hard sell to get anyone to take public transit with this kind of system.
Alternatively, my sister lives in a city where the busses have either dedicated lanes and in large areas dedicated 2-lane roads that are bus-only (they used a lot of abandoned railway right-of-way which also has the advantage of getting the busses completely away from public roads and intersections since the old railways had overpass/underpass structures). That system works very well, and allows the bus to maintain great punctuality as well as in many cases being faster than driving or taking a taxi/rideshare. And people are happy to use it as a result.
Cities with public transit that is insulated from the congestion of the surface streets tend to have good ridership on their systems, places that try to run the transit on the same roads that are already clogged with traffic usually have poor ridership because there is no advantage to the transit, and often a tremendous time penalty as well.
Offline
Good call on the "If people would use it."
Check out many European cities, with trains running every hour, connecting with tramways in cities, interurbans between towns, and excellent bus lines. You don't need a car! My favorite, which I've used many many times:
Check out many European cities, with trains running every hour, connecting with tramways in cities, interurbans between towns, and excellent bus lines. You don't need a car! My favorite, which I've used many many times: