[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by All Darc

I imagined before that modern coal power plants have higher efficiency than combustion engine of average cars, and modern filters, releasing les CO2 and less soot particles than cars. But now... I don't know... Maybe there are modern ones and old crap ones that polutes a lot more. And a average of 45% of USA it's coal power plant based, and some states have lower index than this average.
Not sure if the health hazard commented in the video it's true, worse than the hazard of combustion engine cars even if the coal power plants are far from cities.

The problem is not the USA or Europe, it's the rapidly growing demand for electric power in China and India where coal is still pointed out as the most cost-effective option. Emission standards for stationary applications such as powerplants are often not so strict in those countries, even though they're now implementing stricter emission standards for cars that become nearly as tight as in some more developed countries.

Would hybrid cars, would have better?

Considering that some people claim that biofuels wouldn't be suitable to replace petroleum-based fuels and fossil natural gas entirely with present-day engine tech, and the fact that most of the alternate-fuel systems have been more widespread across mediocre engines instead of being focused on the more modern ones (some people still believe a turbocharged engine to be unsuitable to a natural gas conversion, for example), maybe the lower fuel consumption of a hybrid setup could become an interesting approach to safeguard a long-term viability of alternate fuels while decreasing the competition for arable land with food production (even though most biofuels could be made as a byproduct of food production or recovered from organic waste).

One solution would be small lightweight electric cars, two seater, and extra solar panels on roof of home to compensate the electricity demand. Small baterires for drive on city.

Why heavy cars ? Why not also ultra light electric assisted vehicles like this if the need it's just to drive on or two people to work or to school?

Do you really believe the average Joe would be easily convinced to take that approach? You know, especially here in a 3rd-world country where most people can't afford more than one car per household, it would be quite hard to justify having something too specialized even though it could be supplemented by a trailer (eventually fitted with its own hub-motors, batteries and solar panels to compensate the effects of the extra weight on the performance) when the need for extra load or passenger capacity arises. But anyway, I still believe tricycles (or eventually motorcycles with sidecars) might become more relevant as a way to decrease the energy consumption on light-duty transportation as long as they can effectively perform the same job of a small car or a coupé-utility.

I found a video (in portuguese) about modern coal power plant, and by using modern technics they can reduce 99,9% of ashes and soot, about 90% reduction of Sulfur dioxide, and 75% reduction of Nitrogen oxide. They are also more efficient, burning less coal per KW than old coal power plants.

I have visited a coal-powered plant in Capivari de Baixo-SC when I was on 4th grade. It used some low-quality coal with too many sulphur, thus unsuitable for steel production, but most of the heavy ash was directed to a cement factory nearby.