Greenest / Cleanest cars (life analysis)

[sheepdog 44]

Here's the link to the relevant thread:
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...cle-28951.html

As you can see solar is the least environmental of the renewable energy sources (all calculated wells to wheels). However it is still ridiculously better by 9-16X than all fossil fuels. There is no case where manufacturing solar panels isn't better for the environment than continuing to operate coal and natural gas power plants. Natural gas is a large a part of the grid as coal btw.



This is the map of what mpg you would need to have to have the same emissions in your area as an EV charging from the public grid. In some places it's equal to driving a Prius, in the plains states it's worse than a Prius, but on the coasts an EV is the cleanest by a great margin.


Hybrids are among the cleanest because of the mpg they get. A battery as a one time source of "emissions or pollution," is no where near the benefit from the carbon saved in better mpg over a cars lifetime. Also batteries can also be recycled as Ben Nelson has recently done. And high efficiency cars typically drive hundreds of thousands of miles.

The only reason EV's don't run away with the "greenest cars life-cycle" analysis, is because the Grid isn't as clean in certain parts of America. One thing you should consider, is if your driving a small compact car from the 90's, and are hypermiling it past 50mpg, then your car IS at the top of the greenest cars list regardless of what make or model it is.

[theaveng]

You cannot compare 2006 scores to 2014 scores, because the equations have been changed & updated many times. For example Civic CNG used to be #2 greenest car in 2011 and now it's #10. The car didn't change..... just the pollution equation.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

That says there's something screwy about their analysis. Automatic transmission costs more to manufacture & maintain, gets worse mpg, and (going by accounts here & Insight Central) needs more maintenance, but still gets a higher score?

The automatic insight doesn't have lean-burn, so it produces much much less NOx than the manual insight.

Put another way: The auto is SULEV and the manual is ULEV. So the cleaner emissions automatic get a higher score.

[Hersbird]

What are "global warming emissions" if global warming doesn't even exist by the models some people are selling? You see what I'm talking about? Just because you see nice charts on the internet doesn't mean the "science" behind them isn't tweaked to produce a certain outcome. The obvious thing that immediately stands out is it appears these charts are only talking about air pollution. So just getting back to the catalytic converter thing, all the heavy metal pollution slowing being deposited alongside the roads and highways means nothing nor do the massive toxic mines in Russia. So what do these studies leave out to try and move an agenda? Maybe not much, but obfuscate or obscure ANYTHING and it ceases to be science.

[sheepdog 44]

This is the source for the article which is more in depth. Its from the "union of concerned scientists," and doesn't have a positive or negative EV bias. It's not published by nut jobs with no back ground in global warming who are among the 0.5% of "scientists" who don't believe in global warming. I stand by it because i've read the entire report, and cross referenced many of the important facts from other sources. It's as real as science gets.
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documen...ons-report.pdf

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by 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.

Now where did I agree to that? I simply let your mpg number go unchallenged, because 1) I was addressing a different question; and 2) mpg/mpg-equivalent is not a good way to measure relative efficiencies, because you could easily be comparing for instance the large Tesla S to a 1st gen Insight. But if you look instead at the efficiency of the whole chain, from coal or oil in the ground to watts/hp applied to wheels, even coal comes out ahead, from everything I can find. (Of which the posts above seem fairly representative.)

Of course if those electric watts are used to power an Escalade EV, it'll use much more energy per mile than an Insight, Metro, CRX or whatever, but again, that's an entirely different issue.

So it gets better the more coal that is used?

Yes, a 100% coal-powered electric fleet would be marginally better, or at least not much worse, than an equivalent 100% petroleum-powered fleet.

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.

Have I said otherwise? But 1) that investment replaces money now spent on obtaining petroleum, and dealing with the consequences thereof, and 2) Investments tend to make money. As for example getting an EV motivates me to install PV, I save on both gas and my electric bill.

[quote]Nuclear is the only thing that comes close to making sense and it ain't ever going to happen.[quote]

Says who?

Real science just is what it is. What ever happened to just pure science or evaluations without an agenda?

That's what I've been attempting to give here. Honestly, it seems to me as though you're the one with an agenda :-)

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by theaveng

The automatic insight doesn't have lean-burn, so it produces much much less NOx than the manual insight.

Put another way: The auto is SULEV and the manual is ULEV. So the cleaner emissions automatic get a higher score.

Yes, as we discussed a page or two back, their equations (and IMHO the EPA tests) are skewed, giving too high a weight to NOx emissions. That's probably a historic legacy, from back when urban smog was thought to be the only problem.

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Now where did I agree to that? I simply let your mpg number go unchallenged,

You quoted Backpacker33 who made the claim of mid 30's
Quote from backpacker:
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.

To which you replied:
"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."

That would seem to be saying based on current averages of 30-40% coal you are agreeing to mid 30mpg equivalent.

Then you set the bar at even 100% coal give Prius like efficiency which is better then mid 30s.

Then we get a chart from somebody else that goes 100 times further along with the 99.5% of scientists agree crap. Really 99.5%? I don't think you could get 99.5% of them to agree that we actually sent a man to the moon. If 99.5% agree then why did the leaders of the research find it so necessary to fudge the data and outright lie and cover up other data? How did they survey 100% of scientists and what exactly did they agree to?

Again don't get me wrong I don't agree with the other side either, I just hate science being fudged, dramatized in some areas and obfuscated in others depending on your end goals. In science there should be no end goal yet now each side has their own "scientists" . That is what I'm trying to say, if this was a big eskimo corporate board arguing why burning baby harp seals was the best I would be questioning their "science" also.

[Hersbird]

I think this article better says what I am trying to say but being a constant skeptic I also would question this guy as well LOL!
Unclean at Any Speed - IEEE Spectrum
Mentioned in that article is this study which does seem very good as far as no agenda actual science goes, it's just entirely to long to read when I just want to fishing today. There now you know my real agenda!
Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use

[niky]

A study can only model, not predict. Not if it doesn't have all the facts.

One sobering fact is that the problem-free lifespan of gasoline engines may be getting much, much shorter. We all know that zinc levels in modern oils is getting much, much lower. However, due to other environmental concerns and to reduce consumption, engines and bearings are becoming much, much less durable. It's not unfathomable that zinc will be completely phased out of motor oils within the next decade in the US, which, combined with the popularity of direct injection, ethanol and lightweight engine internals, sets up a situation where valvetrain and bearing wear become a serious problem. That kind of affects any life-cycle analysis going forward.

EVs and hybrids... we pretty much know where we're at in regards to the downsides, already.

-

As pointed out in the comments, he cited a study of Chinese EVs and electricity. China has very, very, VERY lax environmental standards. They have tightened up standards for cars, which is reflected in the study, and they are expected to tighten it up for power generation going forward. But even then, the study notes that in the issue at hand... fine particulates... EVs still fare better because they are emitted far from population centers and pose less of a health hazard.

He also cited a study that tries to predict environmental impact from cars based on fuel type. I note he mentioned that gasoline powered cars are less polluting. He's citing cars powered by tar sand gasoline.

Now, there's a problem with that. As noted in other threads, tar sand isn't going to last forever. In fact, newer and newer wells go over the "hump" more and more quickly. This means more energy and infrastructure development is needed to extract the fuel. Not to mention the damage to the road infrastructure in the area, which is an additional environmental cost. I'd like to read the paper to see if it takes escalating infrastructure costs for tar gas production into account. I'm pretty sure it doesn't.

This is not to say EVs are the be-all and end-all... I don't believe that for one second. They're too expensive and too heavy and the upfront cost is a major hurdle for anyone who isn't a first-world buyer with an upper middle-class budget.

Funnily enough, the Chinese study pointed out which direction we have to go... E-Bikes. Not necessarily E-Bikes per se, but lightweight, simple and cheap electric transportation for urban use. Low lifetime emissions, low cost, low pollution.

[sheepdog 44]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

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.

Yes, that thread was started by me that i linked to a few posts back. It's is based on the report i linked (the whole basis of that thread) that you discredit.

Originally Posted by sheepdog 44

Here's the link to the relevant thread:
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...cle-28951.html

Originally Posted by Hersbird

I think this article better says what I am trying to say but being a constant skeptic I also would question this guy as well LOL!
Unclean at Any Speed - IEEE Spectrum

"Unclean at any speed," is an opinion piece. It takes from many factual resources and comes to the conclusion that reducing fossil fuel use is the fastest and best short term answer to clean up the environment. That point has merit. The OPINION that solar panels and electric cars (key phrase: "in every instance") are detrimental to the environment compared to petroleum vehicles is false. There is no report that will say that because facts are facts and opinions are opinions.