Cleaner Cars from Cradle to Grave

[hybridbear]

This analysis by UCS seems to be the best answer yet to critics who accuse EVs of being dirtier than ICE cars. It examines the complete lifecycle, from manufacturing to recycling, including the emissions from fuel extraction for both EVs & gas cars.
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/life-cycle-ev-emissions

They also have a good YouTube video: https://youtu.be/K9m9WDxmSN8

 

[triangles]

Isn't the UCS the same as the IPCC group that was caught faking data with the climategate scandal? If so then they have about as much credibility as a facebook meme. Not having done any of the calculations or research myself, I do suspect they are correct but I don't have much faith in their numbers.

 

[hybridbear]

Isn't the UCS the same as the IPCC group that was caught faking data with the climategate scandal? If so then they have about as much credibility as a facebook meme. Not having done any of the calculations or research myself, I do suspect they are correct but I don't have much faith in their numbers.

I am not familiar with this scandal. Do you have a good link that talks about what the issue was?

 

[nallgaier]

Isn't the UCS the same as the IPCC group that was caught faking data with the climategate scandal? If so then they have about as much credibility as a facebook meme. Not having done any of the calculations or research myself, I do suspect they are correct but I don't have much faith in their numbers.

Absolutely not the same group. The group you are thinking of was the CRU (Climate Research Unit) from the University of East Anglia. The UCS (Union of Concerned Scientists) is a highly respected group scientists, engineers, policy experts, etc. originating out of MIT over 40 years ago, with a general focus of sustainability and human security.

Regardless, some large number of committees investigated the events surrounding "Climategate" and found that the whole ordeal was basically horse****. Indeed, the UCS did release a statement attesting to that fact after the accusations were made against the CRU.

All of this information can be found online in many places... even the wikipedia page on the CRU email controversy covers most of the details.

 

[triangles]

I am not familiar with this scandal. Do you have a good link that talks about what the issue was?

You can use google searching for "climategate" or "IPCC email" There's a lot of misinformation so you'll have to weed thru a lot of BS. In a nut shell, the emails between some of the so called "scientists" with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were hacked. It was exposed that they either cherry-picked or simply made up data to support anthropogenic global warming.

I used to drink the Al Gore anthropogenic global warming Koolaid. It was years ago and I don't remember exactly what triggered me to actually look at the data behind the claims. I ended up spending more time that I thought I would researching all the data available on the subject. Eventually I came to my own conclusion that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere due to humans had at best no effect on global warming and at worst a negligible effect on global warming. It may even potentially have beneficial side effects for humans.

Don't get me wrong I'm all for less pollution and taking better care of our environment. I just see getting all bent out of shape over anthropogenic CO2 as silly as the salem witch trials.

For some reason I thought the UCS was the same group. Apparently from the posts above they are not. So I guess that makes their numbers more credible, at least in my eyes

 

[dmen]

I used to drink the Al Gore anthropogenic global warming Koolaid. It was years ago and I don't remember exactly what triggered me to actually look at the data behind the claims. I ended up spending more time that I thought I would researching all the data available on the subject. Eventually I came to my own conclusion that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere due to humans had at best no effect on global warming and at worst a negligible effect on global warming. It may even potentially have beneficial side effects for humans.

Don't get me wrong I'm all for less pollution and taking better care of our environment. I just see getting all bent out of shape over anthropogenic CO2 as silly as the salem witch trials.

.

Truly I don't mean to get into an argument but I just want to get in my two cents' worth.

Referring to climate change as "Al Gore koolaid" suggests all that data was reviewed 10-15 years ago. My understanding of the data then, as a non-scientist with a BA in biology, was very different than yours. A lot of data has come out since then, still overwhelmingly supporting the idea that human activity releasing co2 is resulting in warming of the planet and all the excitement that follows. I don't claim to have read every study out there. The few reports or studies I've seen that supposedly disprove global warming and/or the human connection have had obvious industry-connected bias.

Outside of carbon dioxide emissions, there isn't a lot of work out there comparing the polluting effects of BEV and ICE. From what I can find, any significant coal power in a utility's mix means your BEV could be resulting in more soot and nitrox, ie smog, than an ICE vehicle with a functioning emissions control system. (At least we're not as bad as VW diesels.) Nat gas is much better on the smog end than coal but is not smog-free.

 

[triangles]

Truly I don't mean to get into an argument but I just want to get in my two cents' worth.

I agree. I don't care to argue either and I'm not out to change anyone's mind. Also I don't want to hijack the topic of this thread. I guess I went off on the tangent because the so called global warming emissions (C02) are irrelevant. I care about the environmental damaged cause by the toxic pollution as a result of operating/manufacturing the cars. Now if you want to argue about CO2, we can start a new topic and then I can explain why all the global warming crazies are just plain wrong! :lol:

Back to the thread topic:

Outside of carbon dioxide emissions, there isn't a lot of work out there comparing the polluting effects of BEV and ICE. From what I can find, any significant coal power in a utility's mix means your BEV could be resulting in more soot and nitrox, ie smog, than an ICE vehicle with a functioning emissions control system. (At least we're not as bad as VW diesels.) Nat gas is much better on the smog end than coal but is not smog-free.

Man, Thinking about my response to this, I'm beginning to sound like the Devil's advocate here. I'm really not trying to defend coal. Coal power plants simply can't throttle up and down based on demand. There's a lot of waste because some of the generated electricity just doesn't get used. So you could argue that the coal emissions used to charge your EV would have been emitted whether or not you charged your car. This is especially true if you charge at off peak hours. To redeem myself a little here; What about all the radioactive garbage that goes up the coal stack and into the environment?

When claiming an ICE with a functioning emission system emits less, than the coal plant emissions to charge a BEV, often overlooked or deliberately omited is the emissions associated with refining petroleum into gasoline. I'm skeptical if it's true but I've read just the electricity involved in refining a gallon of gas will propel a BEV nearly as far as an ICE burning that gallon of gasoline. I supposed we can ignore the extraction and transportation cost of the petroleum since the coal would likely have a similar cost. As far as soot goes, I could believe that but what about the soot generated from the coal generated electricity used to refine that petroleum? Except maybe when it's -17F out, I think it's pretty hard to argue that an ICE emits less than a BEV even on 100% coal. Like you indicated there's very little research done in this area. It would be nice to see some hard science on this instead of just conjecture.

 

[hybridbear]

Outside of carbon dioxide emissions, there isn't a lot of work out there comparing the polluting effects of BEV and ICE. From what I can find, any significant coal power in a utility's mix means your BEV could be resulting in more soot and nitrox, ie smog, than an ICE vehicle with a functioning emissions control system. (At least we're not as bad as VW diesels.) Nat gas is much better on the smog end than coal but is not smog-free.

Man, Thinking about my response to this, I'm beginning to sound like the Devil's advocate here. I'm really not trying to defend coal. Coal power plants simply can't throttle up and down based on demand. There's a lot of waste because some of the generated electricity just doesn't get used. So you could argue that the coal emissions used to charge your EV would have been emitted whether or not you charged your car. This is especially true if you charge at off peak hours. To redeem myself a little here; What about all the radioactive garbage that goes up the coal stack and into the environment?

I agree. We charge at night. Our electric grid at night has the base load generation (coal/nuclear mostly) & wind. In MN, the wind blows strongest at night. Because nighttime demand is so low, the grid often has to do load shedding of the wind power & it is wasted. By charging our EV at night, we can take advantage of that wind power & help prevent the load shedding. The local grid operator, MISO, suggested at a recent local EV owners meeting at their facility that it would take thousands more EVs in MN charging at night to stop the wind load shedding. Thus, charging at night on our grid is truly emission free electricity, since it's just taking advantage of the wind power that would otherwise be wasted. Their stats were something like 300+ days per year load shedding happens of our wind power on our grid.

When claiming an ICE with a functioning emission system emits less, than the coal plant emissions to charge a BEV, often overlooked or deliberately omitted is the emissions associated with refining petroleum into gasoline. I'm skeptical if it's true but I've read just the electricity involved in refining a gallon of gas will propel a BEV nearly as far as an ICE burning that gallon of gasoline. I supposed we can ignore the extraction and transportation cost of the petroleum since the coal would likely have a similar cost. As far as soot goes, I could believe that but what about the soot generated from the coal generated electricity used to refine that petroleum? Except maybe when it's -17F out, I think it's pretty hard to argue that an ICE emits less than a BEV even on 100% coal. Like you indicated there's very little research done in this area. It would be nice to see some hard science on this instead of just conjecture.

The UCS study factors in this energy use to operate ICE vehicles. This is why I find this study to be so important. It answers all those questions scientifically. It factors in emissions from:

• vehicle manufacturing
• HVB manufacturing
• petroleum extraction/refining
• petroleum transportation to gas stations
• emissions from burning gasoline
• emissions from extracting coal/natural gas/etc for electricity generation
• emissions from transporting fossil fuels for electricity generation
• emissions from burning fossil fuels to generate electricity
• emissions from construction of non fossil fuel power plants (solar, hydro, wind, nuclear) - this is why solar shows up as the worst type of renewable energy, the CO2 impact of fabricating solar panels is much higher than the impact of building wind turbines or hydro facilities
• grid losses due to electricity transportation from power plant to homes
• vehicle recycling
• HVB recycling

It's the only study I'm aware of that is so complete.

 

[triangles]

hybridbear,
Wow I totally missed the article that has a link to download the whole report. I'll have to give that a read when I have time.

 

[hybridbear]

hybridbear,
Wow I totally missed the article that has a link to download the whole report. I'll have to give that a read when I have time.

I'm very interested to hear your thoughts once you have had the chance to read it.