Are Electric Cars Really Green?
Discussion
So looking at the first two examples, they are... but only slightly.
What this doesn't take into account is the improvements in the grid supply. The more offshore windfarms and solar farms the less CO2 the leccy car puts out. Indeed even when they charge (eg. when demand is low and renewables are powering the grid) can change things.
So as the grid improves, so do electric cars, all the way to zero if you manage to remove Coal and Gas power stations. This can't be said for ICE. While you can clean them up a little, you'll never get them to zero.
So while they may only be slightly greener now (depending on which country you're in, what their balance of renewables are, and when you charge), they have the potential to be zero, along with a grid and government desire to make them so.
What this doesn't take into account is the improvements in the grid supply. The more offshore windfarms and solar farms the less CO2 the leccy car puts out. Indeed even when they charge (eg. when demand is low and renewables are powering the grid) can change things.
So as the grid improves, so do electric cars, all the way to zero if you manage to remove Coal and Gas power stations. This can't be said for ICE. While you can clean them up a little, you'll never get them to zero.
So while they may only be slightly greener now (depending on which country you're in, what their balance of renewables are, and when you charge), they have the potential to be zero, along with a grid and government desire to make them so.
phil4 said:
So looking at the first two examples, they are... but only slightly.
What this doesn't take into account is the improvements in the grid supply. The more offshore windfarms and solar farms the less CO2 the leccy car puts out. Indeed even when they charge (eg. when demand is low and renewables are powering the grid) can change things.
So as the grid improves, so do electric cars, all the way to zero if you manage to remove Coal and Gas power stations. This can't be said for ICE. While you can clean them up a little, you'll never get them to zero.
So while they may only be slightly greener now (depending on which country you're in, what their balance of renewables are, and when you charge), they have the potential to be zero, along with a grid and government desire to make them so.
I am fully onboard with the EV revolution. ICE cars can be carbon neutral though, carbon credits make it possible. So when you buy a V12 you also need to buy credits to offset the CO2.What this doesn't take into account is the improvements in the grid supply. The more offshore windfarms and solar farms the less CO2 the leccy car puts out. Indeed even when they charge (eg. when demand is low and renewables are powering the grid) can change things.
So as the grid improves, so do electric cars, all the way to zero if you manage to remove Coal and Gas power stations. This can't be said for ICE. While you can clean them up a little, you'll never get them to zero.
So while they may only be slightly greener now (depending on which country you're in, what their balance of renewables are, and when you charge), they have the potential to be zero, along with a grid and government desire to make them so.
phil4 said:
all the way to zero if you manage to remove Coal and Gas power stations. .
Why would the Gov set plans for 17 gas stations, if we are going to remove fossil fuels. Lets be realistic, dirty power will be powering electric cars for at least another 25-30 years.I think electric car owners live in cloud cuckoo land in regards to actual realities.
sid447 said:
I do hate people that just drop links without any kind of narrative on their own views (excluding the 5 word thread topic).The video you linked is 5 years old (8 Feb 2016)
Improvements are happening all the time.
Coal generated only 1.6% of the electricity mix in 2020, compared with almost 25% five years ago, when your article was based.
also,
In 2016 there were 4,232 uk charging points - as of September 2021 there are 44432 CONNECTORS, 25916 DEVICES at 16321 LOCATIONS.
Also, carbon offsets deeply misrepresent the true benefit.
buying a V12 and a load of offsets doesn't 'fix' or 'offset' anything.
the saplings they plant consume the square root of eff all CO2 for a dozens of years...... until the trees become established. It's greenwash at it's finest...
The answer to the OP is a simple yes, certainly in comparison to any ICE car.
another way of looking at it, show me a single litre of recycled petrol/diesel!
buying a V12 and a load of offsets doesn't 'fix' or 'offset' anything.
the saplings they plant consume the square root of eff all CO2 for a dozens of years...... until the trees become established. It's greenwash at it's finest...
The answer to the OP is a simple yes, certainly in comparison to any ICE car.
another way of looking at it, show me a single litre of recycled petrol/diesel!
Kawasicki said:
I am fully onboard with the EV revolution. ICE cars can be carbon neutral though, carbon credits make it possible. So when you buy a V12 you also need to buy credits to offset the CO2.
Carbon credits are a good idea right now... they're effectively a carbon tax.The issue comes longer term if you rely on them entirely. You've got to somehow remove CO2 from the atmosphere, and the more you rely on Carbon Credits the more you need to do that. Planting trees sort of works, and makes people feel good, but there are problems there too. Lets take an example, using hypothetical numbers:
I drive a car that puts out 50 tonnes or CO2 per year. I can plant a tree to offset that. Brilliant, but in the first year it'll only absorb 5 tonnes. But give it another 10 years it'll have absorbed the full 50 tonnes, so we actually need to plant 10 times as many trees in that example. That's fine, but that's a lot more trees.
And then the trees die or get cut down, and the CO2 is released again... trees don't always live forever. So then we've got more we need to plant to account for the ones that died/cut down, as well as the ones we're using to compensate. The problem mushrooms rapidly. Much better to keep using them in the early days, and for edge cases, but wouldn't be good to use them for everything all the time.
The Spruce Goose said:
Why would the Gov set plans for 17 gas stations, if we are going to remove fossil fuels. Lets be realistic, dirty power will be powering electric cars for at least another 25-30 years.
I think electric car owners live in cloud cuckoo land in regards to actual realities.
Not cloud cuckkoo land... hopeful is more the way. I can do things myself to make my car greener, slap some solar panels on my house for a start.I think electric car owners live in cloud cuckoo land in regards to actual realities.
Also, if you have a look here, you'll see plenty to suggest that we're improving our green mix of generation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_...
flashbang said:
2nd April 2015 - let's hope that has eased up a little with all the advances we've made?phil4 said:
Kawasicki said:
I am fully onboard with the EV revolution. ICE cars can be carbon neutral though, carbon credits make it possible. So when you buy a V12 you also need to buy credits to offset the CO2.
Carbon credits are a good idea right now... they're effectively a carbon tax.The issue comes longer term if you rely on them entirely. You've got to somehow remove CO2 from the atmosphere, and the more you rely on Carbon Credits the more you need to do that. Planting trees sort of works, and makes people feel good, but there are problems there too. Lets take an example, using hypothetical numbers:
I drive a car that puts out 50 tonnes or CO2 per year. I can plant a tree to offset that. Brilliant, but in the first year it'll only absorb 5 tonnes. But give it another 10 years it'll have absorbed the full 50 tonnes, so we actually need to plant 10 times as many trees in that example. That's fine, but that's a lot more trees.
And then the trees die or get cut down, and the CO2 is released again... trees don't always live forever. So then we've got more we need to plant to account for the ones that died/cut down, as well as the ones we're using to compensate. The problem mushrooms rapidly. Much better to keep using them in the early days, and for edge cases, but wouldn't be good to use them for everything all the time.
Who would turn down a beautiful wooden garage for their V12 powered machine?
Pixelpeep 135 said:
The video you linked is 5 years old (8 Feb 2016)
It is also the output of PragerUhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PragerU
It's a propaganda outlet.
Kawasicki said:
If you need to offset 50 tonnes, then plant 10 trees. It’s only money. The wood must be used in building, so the carbon stays locked away. Again, just a money problem.
Who would turn down a beautiful wooden garage for their V12 powered machine?
You're spot on it is only money, quite a lot of it actually. But that's my point. If you've got enough wonga, you'll be an outlier, and it's a perfect way to do it, so rock on. The majority who already grumble at fuel going up a few pence a litre, aren't going to like a massive tree tax adding each year to drive the ecobox.Who would turn down a beautiful wooden garage for their V12 powered machine?
So as I said, keep Carbon Credit for the rare cases.
Those sort of dog whistle articles also completely discount the horrific petrochemical supply chains. Ignoring the fact that around 20% of all crude is burnt (indirectly, obvs) moving that same crude around the world in tankers and pushing it through pipelines, before looking at the electricity used to refine it into something usable.
"Petroleum refineries use slightly over 3 x ~015 Btu of energy per year, a figure which represents about 4% of annual U. S. energy consumption and about 15% of annual industrial energy consumption."
All to wastefully use up a resource that took millions of years to create in less than 200 years, knackering the environment into the process...
why not just chuck that same electricity directly into the car???
"Petroleum refineries use slightly over 3 x ~015 Btu of energy per year, a figure which represents about 4% of annual U. S. energy consumption and about 15% of annual industrial energy consumption."
All to wastefully use up a resource that took millions of years to create in less than 200 years, knackering the environment into the process...
why not just chuck that same electricity directly into the car???
phil4 said:
Kawasicki said:
If you need to offset 50 tonnes, then plant 10 trees. It’s only money. The wood must be used in building, so the carbon stays locked away. Again, just a money problem.
Who would turn down a beautiful wooden garage for their V12 powered machine?
You're spot on it is only money, quite a lot of it actually. But that's my point. If you've got enough wonga, you'll be an outlier, and it's a perfect way to do it, so rock on. The majority who already grumble at fuel going up a few pence a litre, aren't going to like a massive tree tax adding each year to drive the ecobox.Who would turn down a beautiful wooden garage for their V12 powered machine?
So as I said, keep Carbon Credit for the rare cases.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff