|
|
| Emissions Emissions and emissions reduction related discussion. |
Welcome to the CleanMPG forums.
Some posts may describe situations which may in some cases be unsafe or illegal in some jurisdictions. Please use common sense and consult your local laws to make sure you do not hurt yourself or others or break any laws. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view discussions, articles and access our other features. By joining our community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact support.
|
Read and weep
 |

10-24-2009, 01:17 AM
|
 |
Hydrogen Nut
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2007
Vehicles: 2008 Smart ForTwo Pure
Location: California
Posts: 51
|
|
|
Read and weep
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL REPORT CASTS DOUBT ON DECISION TO PRODUCE ELECTRIC CARS IN ABSENCE OF RENEWABLE ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE
"...When the damages attributable to the other parts of the lifecycle were included, especially the emissions from the feedstock and the fuel (emissions from electricity production), the aggregate damages for the grid-dependent and all-electric vehicles become comparable to, or somewhat higher than, those from gasoline." -- page 146
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/on...RecordID=12794
|

10-24-2009, 08:25 AM
|
 |
Astronomer and birder
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Vehicles: 2002 Nissan Sentra M6, 2006 Hyundai Elantra A4, 2006 Scion XB M5
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 823
|
|
|
Re: Read and weep
TANSTAAFL. That's disappointing information, but not much of a surprise.
__________________
Darrell

37.9 mpg avg over 11,450 miles

45.6 mpg avg over 10,950 miles
|

10-24-2009, 08:58 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Vehicles: 2007 Honda Fit Sport Auto
Location: Fort Lauderdale
Posts: 406
|
|
|
Re: Read and weep
"...When the damages attributable to the other parts of the lifecycle were included, especially the emissions from the feedstock and the fuel (emissions from electricity production), the aggregate damages for the grid-dependent and all-electric vehicles become comparable to, or somewhat higher than, those from gasoline."
Yes, but the emissions can then be controlled at ONE point of souce. Clean up the plant and the entire auto stream is cleaned up overnight.
__________________

|

10-24-2009, 03:24 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Vehicles: Honda Insight 1 MT
Location: Fulltime traveler
Posts: 595
|
|
|
Re: Read and weep
Quote:
Originally Posted by southerncannuck
"
Yes, but the emissions can then be controlled at ONE point of souce. Clean up the plant and the entire auto stream is cleaned up overnight.
|
Though this sounds good in theory, I'm not sure that that improvement is all that great either. Cars are already pretty clean, except for the vast amounts of CO2 emissions. Since "original" generation of the electricity for BEV cars also generates vast amounts of CO2, just where does the emissions improvement lie, particularly if transmission and generation inefficiencies are considered? Carbon sequestration could change that equation, but that doesn't seem to be in the near or mid term cards.
To me, the advantage for us as Americans in BEV's is that we can use more American energy as the "original" source. But, it's JMO.
|

10-24-2009, 11:44 PM
|
 |
Livin' in the FAS lane!!
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2007
Vehicles: '02 Insight 5spd MT, '02 Elantra 5spd MT
Location: Coon Rapids, MN
Posts: 12,525
|
|
|
Re: Read and weep
Jim, have you checked out how much electricity is used just to refine oil into gasoline and diesel?
__________________
- Sean
|  | <-- She got to drive an EV before I did!!  |
I'm a slow driver with a FASed car!
New? Start here!
|

10-25-2009, 12:15 AM
|
|
Veteran
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Vehicles: 03 Ranger(mostly), 07 Aveo(sometimes), 96 Taurus(occasionally), 01 saturn SL1 (rarely)
Location: NW IL
Posts: 1,769
|
|
|
Re: Read and weep
Some of the spin about this press release makes it sound like they are comparing apples to orangutans. Consider the two following quotes from the official press release to help think about some nuances:
"Both for 2005 and 2030, vehicles using gasoline made from oil extracted from tar sands and those using diesel derived from the Fischer-Tropsch process -- which converts coal, methane, or biomass to liquid fuel -- had the highest life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions. "
"The life-cycle damages of wind power, which produces just over 1 percent of U.S. electricity but has large growth potential, are small compared with those from coal and natural gas."
The easiest comparison to make is of average cost of a gallon of gas to the cost of an equivalent unit of electric power this seems to be getting the press spin. A more relevant comparison would be the total costs "on the margin" of the gasoline displaced by electrification versus the total cost of the electric power production for the electric vehicles. The quotes above from the press release point in the direction of the comparison.
My impression is that oil from tar sands and shales are likely to be the source of gasoline at the margin of change--because they are the most expensive to extract they would be the oil that would be left in the ground as a result of reduced gasoline prices/demand . In the electric market you would expect new sources of electricity to fuel fleets of electric vehicles to be less coal based. Natural gas, wind and nuclear seem poised to increase market share in energy production. I think that a better way to read the article is that we need to consider how we source our electricity before we proceed with large scale conversion to electric vehicles. This strikes me as a blinding glimpse of the obvious (BGO).
I haven't examined the article's arithmetic (don't feel like coughing up $50 for a BGO), but congressionally commissioned reports tend towards the political safety of the status quo. I am curious where the original post's quote came from--I didn't see it in the linked press release. If the quote came from the original article, more context would be useful to determine its relevance.
__________________
Last edited by ILAveo : 10-25-2009 at 12:17 AM.
Reason: typo
|

10-25-2009, 07:38 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Vehicles: Honda Insight 1 MT
Location: Fulltime traveler
Posts: 595
|
|
|
Re: Read and weep
Quote:
Originally Posted by Right Lane Cruiser
Jim, have you checked out how much electricity is used just to refine oil into gasoline and diesel?
|
No, I have not checked that out in any definitive way. Certainly there must be costs to the refining and transportation of gasoline and diesel.
It's just that I tend to be suspicious of folks with agendas, and we here certainly have an electric car agenda  It isn't necessarily a bad thing, but nontheless it does tend to make one suspicious. There are certainly inefficiencies and hidden comsumption is both ways of powering vehicles. It would be interesting to see a comparison of the front to back total emissions and FE of the two approaches. I have not seen such a comparison. But, I know one for sure, it makes no sense to say that the FE of a hybride electric car such as the Volt is 250 MPG. That sort of arguement sets me off right away 
|

10-25-2009, 11:47 AM
|
 |
Veteran
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Vehicles: 2001 VW Golf TDI
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Posts: 1,047
|
|
|
Re: Read and weep
There are many ways known today to generate electricity with very few emissions. I do not know any low-emission ways to burn gasoline.
__________________
Regards,
Mike S.
|

10-27-2009, 11:00 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 193
|
|
|
Re: Read and weep
Generate the electricity onboard the vehicles using nanotechnology fuel cells that run from fat. In addition to being emission free, it would increase the MPG of other cars* and reduce the battery requirements. Fat is about 7 times as energy dense as hydrogen by volume and America already figured out how to generate fat at an increasing rate.
* Obesity contributes to 3 days of fuel usage every year.
__________________
If America were to eliminate obesity, we would save as much fuel as if every American were to stop driving for three days every year.
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|