I guess my point was missed. There are numerous sources of electric energy being explored that do not produce undesirable emissions. The world’s population will continue to need to get around somehow, and I see EVs as being the only mode of mobility that has the potential to substantially reduce pollution and to back away from the use of nonrenewable fossil fuels. At least for cars. Trucks are a whole 'nother thread.
There are lots of valid reasons that electric powered vehicles are a good thing but this topic was only about comparing pollution of gasoline powered verses coal powered. Still agree that is different topic than comparing outputs of CO2 or green house gas.
Coal--------- Hg (mercury)and sulfur?
Gasoline----- Hg (mercury)and sulfur?
Compare emissions from them for me?
I like that idea and am not laughing, because I feel all “good” solutions should be localized, instead of being hung on a grid at the pricing dictates of a power plant elsewhere (it ruined Caleeefornia and got Arnold elected). We should strive for local independence as much as possible and use the “out source” only as a back up.
And if it works in Tempe, it lowers the energy cost for everyone…god bless’m.
jt is right; the gas produced at the well head is usually far away from the point of need, and oil producing countries are often not able to build an economical grid system. Where the flares are very large, they collect it and can justify a pipeline. In Nigeria there is a lpan to capture the flare gas and collect it to send it in a pipeline to the coast, and then liquify it and expert it.
The local needs at the gas well draw off enough for their needs, which is very little of the total.In Saudi Arabia there is now an active gas gathering system which captures and ulitlzes the larger sources of flaring.
My city uses methane gas from landfills to generate electricity; it is not cheap, but a good environmental effort.
No, it means 80% of the electrical energy that gets to the motor is converted to mechanical work.
There is another stage of loss in the motor controller. Just how do you think you will control the motor speed?
Yet another loss in converting chemical energy in the battery back to electrical.
And from electrical to chemical when charging the battery. Have never seen a 90% efficient battery which someone proclaimed early in this thread and not been challenged to produce.
And losses from the charger (regulator) that governs charging the battery. Again, it would be hard to be 90% efficient here.
There are losses from the power station to your charging station.
Of course, all these details are merely, “Inconvenient Truths” to the EV Faithful. If one only has 4 stages of 90% efficiency the net output is 0.9^4 = 65.6%.
That is a lot of coal!
How much petroleum would that be instead?
So in LA, 12 million vehicles getting 19 mpg (hope you don’t have many pickups, SUVs) driving 60 miles a day.
12,000,000 X 60 = 720,000,000 miles /19= 37,894,737 gallons or 1,804,511 barrel(21 gallons of gasoline per barrel of 42 gallon)
So 1,804,511 barrels of oil or 100,000 tons of coal
Either way is a lot of energy. Most of the oil was imported. All of the coal and the money would come from the US.
Your link to the flaring at Goggle earth does not work.
Maybe someone should build one of these alternative energy electric cars and measure how many KW hours of AC grid energy it takes to drive per mile and compare that to a simular ICE gasoline per mile and you will not have to do anything theoretical.
Naked
X verses Y
I understand some reluctance to accept the EV as a true solution to pollution problems given that coal and other combustibles are use to generate the electricity, but I get around it by thinking of an EV as a true “flex” fuel vehicle given their are so many other potential electric generation sources.
I fixed the link, you’ll need to copy and paste it (without the ’ ).