Greenest / Cleanest cars (life analysis)

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

As I thought, their weighting scale is messed up, giving undue weight to NOx, which eventually winds up as soil nitrates - IOW fertilizer.

NOx dissolves in precipitation (mist and rain) as nitric acid. What mechanism transforms this nitric acid into fertilizer?

[Hersbird]

There are a bunch of studies from around the world just like this one.
Climate Change, Acid Rain Could Be Good For Forests -- ScienceDaily

[NeilBlanchard]

So, have you heard how starfish (aka sea stars) are dissolving?

Scientists Investigate Outbreak Of Sea Star Wasting Syndrome : NPR

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

NOx dissolves in precipitation (mist and rain) as nitric acid. What mechanism transforms this nitric acid into fertilizer?

Reaction with soil chemicals to produce nitrates. It's basically the same way in which NOx created by lightning is converted to nitrates. And unless you happen to be a legume hosting a bunch of nitrogen-fixing bacteria, that's where the nitrogen needed for growth ultimately comes from. (Yes, that's over-simplified, 'cause a lot of the available nitrogen gets recycled in animal droppings &c.)

As for ocean acidification, that's almost entirely caused by increased atmospheric CO2, which dissolves in seawater to produce carbonic acid: Ocean acidification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

So, it seems like a good reason to justify an EGR delete in a Diesel engine...

[backpacker3]

I'm not quite sure I understand how the rating system works here. All the hybrids are rated as the cleanest cars out there but in order to build those hybrids you have to employ mining methods that are terrible for the environment to get many of the things you need for the battery packs. Plus once a hybrid ends up in a junkyard the battery is usually unusable.

There was just a thread on here showing what kind of mpg you need to get to be just as efficient as a fully electric car due to the amount of emissions produced by power plants in the area and in some places it was as low as the mid 30s. It seems to me that an efficient gas car, perhaps even a pzev model, that can be completely recycled when it dies would be much more Eco friendly.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by backpacker3

All the hybrids are rated as the cleanest cars out there but in order to build those hybrids you have to employ mining methods that are terrible for the environment to get many of the things you need for the battery packs.

Not so. The mining methods used for battery materials are no worse (and no better) that the methods used to mine the iron &c that goes into standard cars. In fact, you could probably make a good first guess at the environmental impact of manufacturing any vehicle just by weighing it.

Plus once a hybrid ends up in a junkyard the battery is usually unusable.

Again, just plain wrong.

There was just a thread on here showing what kind of mpg you need to get to be just as efficient as a fully electric car due to the amount of emissions produced by power plants in the area and in some places it was as low as the mid 30s.

True, IF you always charge your car from the grid, and if you regard the particular generation mix in your area as something set in stone. But if you e.g. installed solar panels to do most of your car charging (and supply power for home use), you'd have radically different answer. Indeed, a survey of California EV owners (reported here: Electric Cars Vs. Solar Panels: Which One's The Gateway Drug? ) found that 39% had a PV system, and and additional 17% were seriously considering installing one.

[Hersbird]

What about the manufacturing of the solar panels? Plus irregardless of where exactly the power for an EV comes from, it needs to be considered as taking from the average of where electricity comes from. Sort of if it wasn't used by the car it could have been used elsewhere. So it is accurate to say electric cars are really powered by coal, and if everybody had one it would be even worse.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

What about the manufacturing of the solar panels?

What about it?

Plus irregardless of where exactly the power for an EV comes from, it needs to be considered as taking from the average of where electricity comes from. Sort of if it wasn't used by the car it could have been used elsewhere.

Why? If I am installing solar panels simply to charge my EV (which would be the case, since with a power bill that runs about $40/month it wouldn't be economical otherwise), then that's solar generation that wouldn't exist if I didn't get the EV, so it wouldn't be used elsewhere.

So it is accurate to say electric cars are really powered by coal, and if everybody had one it would be even worse.

Nope, or at least only if your state or country is stupid enough to produce the added generation by burning more coal. Even in that case, it would still be somewhat better, since the coal mine->powerplant->grid->car path is more efficient than the oil well->refinery->gas station->IC engine path. If you care to do a little searching (this is old news) you can find more detailed computations, but the bottom line seems to be that a completely coal-powered EV is about equivalent to a Prius.

Now consider two facts. First, there is no place in the country that gets all its electricity from coal. The national average is about 40% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_po..._Type_crop.png ) and can be under 20% in the Northeast & West Coast.
Second, we know perfectly well how to generate as much electricity as we need without burning a single lump of coal - all that's needed is the wil to do so. But we can't really run all our gas engines on anything but gas.

[Hersbird]

So two posts above you agree to an EV being equivalent to mid 30mpg if changed from the standard 40% coal grid, then above you say it's like a Prius if 100% coal. So it gets better the more coal that is used? Still there is no way we can run an all electric or even say 30% electric fleet without radial changes to the whole grid and massive investments in new generating. Nuclear is the only thing that comes close to making sense and it ain't ever going to happen. Some of your information is sqewed science to try and achieve a certain goal or in a perfect world type idealism. Real science just is what it is. What ever happened to just pure science or evaluations without an agenda?
Don't get me wrong Jamesqf, I appreciate the info you provide, I'm not saying it's not true either. It's just there are studies to contradict so much of it. Then like with most things you have to assume the truth is somewhere in the middle. But then those with the agendas on both sides know this and kick up their game even more like we are in a negotiation with a Russian junk man. Sorry just venting.