Plug-in cars are not necessarily greener than conventional cars

[captainslug]

Sealed-lead acid batteries are 99% recyclable.
NiMH is 90% recyclable.
Lithium variations batteries are entirely non-toxic and are 85% recyclable (and rising). Lithium is highly reactive, so it has to be recycled using cryogenic shredders.
The rest of the battery types are equally recyclable, but not many companies bother.

There's nothing particularly pollution-heavy about manufacturing or recycling batteries.

With modern coal power plants the ecological footprint is just as small as a hydroelectric plant. Coal is only a dirty power source if it is transported and processed lazily. Under current US standards well-maintained modern coal power plants produce a minuscule amount of localized pollution.

I've seen coal power plants in China and the bulk of the pollution is caused by the poorly handled transporting of the source coal. It's brought to the power plant in uncovered rail cars and trucks, so the loose soot is allowed to escape into the surrounding areas.


If you still doggedly refuse to believe that power plants are clean, then why is the smog in Los Angeles so bad, while there are no commonly known areas that have smog from power plants?

But, even if power plants produced an equivalent amount of pollution, that pollution could be moved away from densely populated areas where it isn't causing negative health effects.

[NachtRitter]

My utility company (Pacific Gas & Electric) claims 50% of my electric power is generated by renewable resources. Plus I can augment that at home with a renewable energy source of my choice. 100% of the fuel that my gasoline powered car uses is non-renewable, and I don't foresee that changing for the better in the car's lifetime. My common sense sez that despite the inefficiencies, all electric is the way to go.

[RobertSmalls]

To those who requested additional citation, check out the full report of the study I mentioned. It's available at ACS Publications - Cookie absent .

You should read the section on Battery Production to get an idea of the current state of battery energy densities. E.g. they used a figure of 250kg of Li-ion batteries for a PHEV with 90km (56mi) range. It would take a 2 gallon gas tank to deliver the same range.

That's with Li-ion. Tried-and-true NiMH have one third the energy density, so they'd require 750kg (!) of batteries, plus additional batteries that would be required to haul around all that extra weight and bulk.

I feel the above-cited work supports their conclusion: PHEV (and presumably EV) GHG benefits require lower-carbon electric generation. Alternatively, it would require battery or fuel-cell technology that currently looks like sci fi.

All-electric will be the way to go, but only after we've switched our electricity generation over to renewable sources. It's currently more than two thirds fossil fuelled, and your mom's electric minivan is going to run on whatever is offered by the grid. Hey, why not move a little farther out into the suburbs? Electricity is cheap, and we've got about 100 years of coal left in the ground.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hi,

The reason we need to talk about coal, is that we get a majority of our power from coal, here in the USA. It's just about the dirtiest way to make electricity.

[Coyote X]

There is what clean coal does for you. To get an idea of the scale of destruction. The rocks at the bottom of the valley that look sort of big are very large. Some of them are the size of a car. There is a rock truck on the top of the mountain that can't be seen at the resolution the picture is uploaded. It is one of those huge trucks that the sidewall of the tire is the height of a full size truck and it can't be seen in the picture it is so far away.

That valley used to be about a mile longer than it is now and I remember a huge rock on the top of the mountain that used to be back there that was called Indian rock. It had really old Indian carvings on it as well as random people carving their names on it. Earliest date I can remember seeing was 1820. The day the permit was granted they sent a dozer to the mountain and destroyed everything, all natural rock outcroppings that are supposedly protected as well as the historic stuff like Indian rock and indian/normal graveyards. They do things like this that way nobody bothers protesting the permit since everything is already destroyed.

So I figure the carbon, mercury, and radiation being dumped into the atmosphere is nothing compared to the land being destroyed locally here as well as the sludge ponds that they fill up and they always 'accidentally' spill when they are full. The fines are cheap(if they have to pay them) compared to the cost of proper disposal of the large volume of incredibly toxic waste in those sludge ponds.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by captainslug

Sealed-lead acid batteries are 99% recyclable.
NiMH is 90% recyclable.
Lithium variations batteries are entirely non-toxic and are 85% recyclable (and rising). Lithium is highly reactive, so it has to be recycled using cryogenic shredders.
The rest of the battery types are equally recyclable, but not many companies bother.

There's nothing particularly pollution-heavy about manufacturing or recycling batteries.

With modern coal power plants the ecological footprint is just as small as a hydroelectric plant. Coal is only a dirty power source if it is transported and processed lazily. Under current US standards well-maintained modern coal power plants produce a minuscule amount of localized pollution.

I've seen coal power plants in China and the bulk of the pollution is caused by the poorly handled transporting of the source coal. It's brought to the power plant in uncovered rail cars and trucks, so the loose soot is allowed to escape into the surrounding areas.


If you still doggedly refuse to believe that power plants are clean, then why is the smog in Los Angeles so bad, while there are no commonly known areas that have smog from power plants?

But, even if power plants produced an equivalent amount of pollution, that pollution could be moved away from densely populated areas where it isn't causing negative health effects.

captainslug,with respect to coal,I believe the contemporary theme is that without effective CO2 sequestration( of which the efficacy of such has not yet been demonstrated),the atmosphere simply cannot support the additional carbon load projected from coal oxidation.-------------- Global climate change is a fact.Man-made CO2 had been quantitatively associated with it,and the scientific community is convinced that without locking up CO2,we'd be putting a gun to our head if we continue to use coal as we do.--------------- The gentleman who was hired by the Republican Party to write the position paper casting doubt about the accuracy of science of anthropogenic CO2 emissions,and their link to climate change,has apologized for his propaganda-for hire,and now admits that global climate change is real and its affected by man made CO2,however remains proud of how powerful his propaganda was,and how effectively it delayed any action.None of this is good news for coal-producing states.-------------------- Power plants operate cleaner than ever,however its the CO2,not particulates,soot,or smoke thats at issue.------------------ With respect to Los Angeles,their pollution is photochemical,cooked from Nitrogen Oxidfes from their cars,and trapped in the L.A.Basin,and held there by inversion layers which hold the gases close to the ground.It has nothing to do with power plants.

[captainslug]

Perpetuating myths or misunderstandings about the efficacy or relative cleanliness of power generation options will only further delay adoption of Battery-Electric Vehicles.

You have to fess up to that now and weigh the risks and benefits of either shifting more transportation to being powered from the electrical grid, or leaving them as ICE drive trains that continue to produce pollution at higher levels than the grid would.

Originally Posted by aerohead

Global climate change is a fact.

No, no it's not. At least not in the causation chain that is commonly suggested. The temperature records do not in any way show a causation between industrialization, global CO2 emissions, and temperatures records.

Global Meteorological trends are also far too complex for any single factor to be penultimately decisive. The natural ecology of this planet produces infinitely more CO2 than we ever possibly could.
Global warming as caused by us is not "fact".

And you need to learn how to use paragraphs.

Originally Posted by aerohead

With respect to Los Angeles,their pollution is photochemical,cooked from Nitrogen Oxidfes from their cars,and trapped in the L.A.Basin,and held there by inversion layers which hold the gases close to the ground.It has nothing to do with power plants.

You kind of just proved my point for me.
The emissions of power plants are far less toxic than the emissions of ICE motor vehicles. And the relative efficiency between fuel consumed, emissions produced, and energy output is not even comparable.

No matter what kind of power plant you are talking about, ICE drive train vehicles produce more emissions per KWh. And you're arguing about one particular type of power plant that accounts for only half of the power produced. And even though it accounts for half, that's still a half that's cleaner than any internal combustion engine made today.

What is there to argument here? This is a step towards lowered emissions. More money put towards the production of electricity also means more money towards researching and building more efficient power plants.

Originally Posted by Coyote X

That valley used to be about a mile longer than it is now and I remember a huge rock on the top of the mountain that used to be back there that was called Indian rock.

I don't think we were talking about irresponsibly high-impact land-clearing, but localized effects of power plant emissions or coal transportation.

[cfg83]

captainslug -

Originally Posted by captainslug

...

I don't think we were talking about irresponsibly high-impact land-clearing, but localized effects of power plant emissions or coal transportation.

Hmmm, I wouldn't call it "high-impact land-clearing". I think Coyote X was referring to "strip mining". Also, that doesn't sound true to what you wrote earlier :

With modern coal power plants the ecological footprint is just as small as a hydroelectric plant. Coal is only a dirty power source if it is transported and processed lazily. Under current US standards well-maintained modern coal power plants produce a minuscule amount of localized pollution.

CarloSW2

[blueflame]

What about inground coal fires burning all around the globe....

Coal fires - Encyclopedia of Earth

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by captainslug

Perpetuating myths or misunderstandings about the efficacy or relative cleanliness of power generation options will only further delay adoption of Battery-Electric Vehicles.

You have to fess up to that now and weigh the risks and benefits of either shifting more transportation to being powered from the electrical grid, or leaving them as ICE drive trains that continue to produce pollution at higher levels than the grid would.

No, no it's not. At least not in the causation chain that is commonly suggested. The temperature records do not in any way show a causation between industrialization, global CO2 emissions, and temperatures records.

Global Meteorological trends are also far too complex for any single factor to be penultimately decisive. The natural ecology of this planet produces infinitely more CO2 than we ever possibly could.
Global warming as caused by us is not "fact".

And you need to learn how to use paragraphs.

You kind of just proved my point for me.
The emissions of power plants are far less toxic than the emissions of ICE motor vehicles. And the relative efficiency between fuel consumed, emissions produced, and energy output is not even comparable.

No matter what kind of power plant you are talking about, ICE drive train vehicles produce more emissions per KWh. And you're arguing about one particular type of power plant that accounts for only half of the power produced. And even though it accounts for half, that's still a half that's cleaner than any internal combustion engine made today.

What is there to argument here? This is a step towards lowered emissions. More money put towards the production of electricity also means more money towards researching and building more efficient power plants.

I don't think we were talking about irresponsibly high-impact land-clearing, but localized effects of power plant emissions or coal transportation.

captainslug,I think we need to clarify our vocabulary.With respect to CO2,"clean coal"remains an oxymoron.It is the carbon dioxide which is feared the most from coal-fired powerplants.Coal-gasification,or hydrogenation using I.G.Farbenindustrie Akteingesselschaft technology is also considered a dead end,as to water use,manpower,and cost barriers,as well as their CO2 implications.--------------- Their exists no myth with repect to Global climate change,and there is no climatologist or head of state who would today argue against its reality,and its association to anthropogenic CO2.It's your freedom to believe what you want,but I would offer that your current belief construct,is a fabrication of a journalistic prostitute,hired by the hydrocarbon lobby to fabricate this reality.-------------- The tip- off for this,is that this individual who fabricated the "myth" admitted to it on national television,has recanted,and says now that he firmly believes that what all the (tree-hugging,commie,pinko,faggot,environmentalists ) climatologists claimed is correct and bonafide by good science.-------- I personally harbor no ill will nor animosity towards coal-producing states nor the entire coal infrastructure.I do take personnally any threat to where I live for the sake of greed,avarice,and venality of a minority of drug users who'd plunder the entire planet for the sake of a buck.------------- I'll be happy to subsidize R&D of clean coal technology with my tax dollars and I hope they can make it all work.It would surely buy the planet some time,while we figure out if we're pro-life,or pro-a-few-people's -life,or pro-no-life,or whatever's honest.It's about the carbon dioxide.