re: Study - Electric Cars Produce More Pollution Than Fossil Fuel-Burning Cars

Still don't see where they got 60%, though I did a rapid read of the paper so may have missed it. It's pointing to ways to improve efficiency to get the output that Japan and Germany has, but even then it's not 60%. Their coal plants are at 38% compared to 31-33% for the US. The best reported current US efficiency is a natural gas plant, at 53%, and it's a combined cycle.

The rest of it talks about reducing emissions, and everything they are proposing reduces efficiency, some as much as 15%.

I'm looking for something that points to loss via transmission. I'll post if I can find anything.

I just think with current technology, reduction of carbon emmissions by a total EV fleet is negligible. Yeah, it's cheaper on the back end for travel ($12 vs $50+), but the cars are more expensive on the front end.

Found this: LINK

Says 6-8% lost in transmission. Also, it mentions 60% efficiency is combined cycle coal and natural gas, but no facts to back it up. So, maybe there are some with 60%. Wonder how many are out there though.

This is where the figure came from. It looks like the 60% figure comes from using the LHV metric instead of HHV.

quote:

---

Natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) power plant efficiency estimates range from 6,333 – 6,800 btu/kWh (50-54% efficient HHV, see box at right) at full load.

---

quote:

---

It is important to define the efficiency terms higher heating value (HHV) and lower heating value (LHV). HHV assumes H2O is in liquid state and contains the energy of vaporization. LHV assumes gas state for all combustion products. The efficiencies of coal-fired power systems are most often reported in HHV in the U.S., much of the rest of the world uses LHV. Tthe efficiencies of natural gas-fired power systems are most often reported in LHV.

---

quote:

---

So using the ratio: 23875/21500 = 1.11 you can convert the HHV to an LHV. So the the range of 50- 54% translates to 56 – 60% LHV.

---

Regarding the loss via transmission, I'm unaware if these studies factor that in. I'm not an expert by any means in this field. You certainly seem to work in the industry.

Regardless, power plants are much more efficient than a car engine, and they'll continue to become more efficient they become less reliant on coal. The map I posted earlier already shows how big of a difference the "cleanliness" of an EVs extended tailpipe is in a region powered by nuclear or natural gas compared to coal. But even in the areas powered by coal, the equivalent MPG metric is as good or better than the very best car running on gas.

quote:

---

federal regulations in place for disposal of lithium-ion batteries

---

Yet, but the government is pretty good about adding regulations in hindsight unless it effects their pocket books (the pocket books of those who bankroll their offshore accounts or "charities"). Lithium is toxic, is it better than lead or nickel?! Maybe, but we have yet to see the long-term effects of lithium waste.

Lithium will be hazardous to produce. China is the big player and will not relinquish their control lightly. Everyone owes China money and backroom deals will keep China as the big player with lithium. Tesla's plan to synthesize the process looks great to investors and gets government permits, and makes tesla, electric, and hybrid car owners pat themselves on the back, but he knows China won't let it fly as do others.

I am not saying that alternative fuels are not the future, but to act like they are such a vast improvement compared to fossil fuel vehicles is absurd. It very well maybe ONE DAY, but it's a step forward not a leap forward as those counting money would have you to believe.

I was always told the absolute best were right around 50% efficient. That is using all available technology and being cost efficient

Well that makes sense now, LHV. Though still, at 50% efficiency it's still better than a car engine.

I thought the loss via transmission would be more. Taking a max of 60% and 8% loss, it'll be knocked down to 55%' which is still great.

Nah, like you, I have minimal knowledge of the industry ( I'm medical). Just a lot of research when i was looking at buying an EV, to see if the cost was worth it. And also, because I was working with someone who was VERY pro-AGW, I wanted facts to counter his arguments. What I found was those facts went against my original thinking (I.e. I thought efficiency was just slightly better). That's when I started to look at buying an EV or at least hybrid. Ultimately, without incentives, there was no cost benefit to buying one.

An oil spill is an accident.

A mine is an intended result.