Republican introduces new bill to end the $7,500 federal tax credit for electric cars

[progree]

21. On externalities - any "science" article that applies to the U.S., instead of China?

Last edited Sat Oct 13, 2018, 07:07 AM - Edit history (4)

(ON EDIT 1255am ET Saturday: I just noticed I somehow triple-posted it. Here is the exact same thing but single-posted, sorry. Holy Cow, I have NO idea how I didn't notice.)

Well, I don't get my science from articles in Forbes, nor do I credit the idea of ignoring...
external costs, what people pay in health costs from internal costs, the highly subsidized procedure where people are allowed to dump the waste they create at no expense to themselves. I have no use for "economic analyses" that ignore external costs, ... and I was very pleased to learn that in my son's requisite curriculum in his (materials science) engineering programs, external costs were calculated.

I looked at the UCS study too, I didn't rely on the Forbes contributor's take on it.

What I wrote included primary fuel conversion efficiency and greenhouse gasses as well as economics, but admittedly didn't include the other pollutants. There we are comparing the mini-pollution control equipment on a mobile polluting source (gasoline IC cars) with that of what's on power plants -- some modern and some not. Some coal-fired, some not.

I'd bet on the efficiency of the pollution control equipment on new power plants in developed countries over that of what's being put on new cars, given the economy of scale and that it doesn't have to be part of a moving vehicle. Except maybe coal-fired plants.

... A study a few years back found that in China, which has 100 electric vehicles, the death rate per mile from pollution was higher for electric cars than it was for electric cars in that country. (This is not true for electric scooters, as opposed to cars. Scooters make up the bulk of electric vehicles in China.)

Electric Vehicles in China: Emissions and Health Impacts (Cherry et al Environ. Sci. Technol., 2012, 46 (4), pp 2018–2024.

I'm well aware of the 2012 China paper. Keep in mind that their pollution standards for both gasoline-powered cars and power plants, especially before 2012, were much more lax than in more developed countries. They were focused on getting hundreds of millions of people out of deep poverty, now they are giving a lot more attention to the pollution/environment. Their electricity generation has a much higher proportion of coal than the U.S.

How about in the U.S.? How do gasoline IC cars compare to electric cars in pollution, when the whole production system from extracting the primary fuel from the ground onward to the tail pipe or power plant is considered? Is there a "scientific" rebuttal to the UCS study? Or another "scientific" study?

Pollution reduction was always part of my job at NSP (Xcel Energy), at least in the generation planning and system operations phases. Mitigating externalities was taught in Northwestern University and Ohio State engineering programs too even back in my day (1970's).

Concern over the environment became a big thing in the 1960's and 1970's, it's hardly something that started with your son's generation.

This gives me hope that the younger generation, who are going to have to clean up all this consumer shit we keep generating

We'll see how well they do resisting the pressures of bottom-line-quarterly-results capitalism and politics. I too hope they are better than us older generations, because they will have to be. But I haven't noticed much difference so far. They are as likely to be driving a SUV or monster pickup truck (when they reach the point when they can afford them) and turning on the air conditioner when it's 1 degree above perfect as we are.

Note that despite all of the self-delusion going on about the "death of coal" it was for the entire 21st century the fastest growing source of energy on the planet, growing by 60 exajoules from 2000 to 2016.

True, but as far as for electric generation, it has leveled off since 2014, both globally and in China. Citing a source you have cited yourself: https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-coal-power-plants

A discussion we have had a number of times, the last time being https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142153274#post42 and https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142153274#post43 and https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142153274#post66


As for coal for all purposes, that's on the decline too:

Global coal demand dropped for a second year in a row in 2016, approaching the previous record for two-year declines set in the early 1990s. Global demand for coal fell by 1.9% in 2016 to 5 357 Mtce, as lower gas prices, a surge in renewables and energy efficiency improvements put a major dent on coal consumption. Demand for coal has now dropped by 4.2% since 2014, almost matching the fall of 1990-1992 which was the largest two-year decline recorded since the IEA started compiling statistics more than 40 years ago.

https://www.iea.org/coal2017/

but expected to pick up slightly over the next few years, both in the electric power generation sector, and overall:

... As a result of these contrasting trends, global coal demand reaches 5 530 Mtce in 2022, which is only marginally higher than current levels, meaning that coal use all but stagnates for around a decade. Although coal-fired power generation increases by 1.2% per year in the period 2016-22, its share of the power mix falls to just below 36% by 2022, the lowest level since IEA statistics began.

But anyway, I don't want us to leave the impression that coal burning is still growing by leaps and bounds, something that statements like the below do.

"despite all of the self-delusion going on about the "death of coal" it was for the entire 21st century the fastest growing source of energy on the planet, growing by 60 exajoules from 2000 to 2016."

(I realize global fossil fuel burning is still increasing, thanks to both oil and natural gas increasing more than coal's slight decline.)

Let's say, to be generous, that each process, after the power plant operates at 35%, and every other transformation, transmission at 90%, charging at 90%, reconversion to electricity at 90% and conversion to mechanical energy at 90% ... In any case, the product of the individual is 21.6%.

I get 35% * 90% * 90% * 90% * 90% = 23.0%

Still considerably better than gasoline internal combustion at 15% (1.53 X better) and a little better than diesel at 20%.

Note that these figures are somewhat generous; since we're well on the way to disturbing the climatic stability of this planet, these efficiency figures for the electrical components will be reduced by heat.

Heat is no friend of gasoline IC efficiency either..

And while the electric grid we have is the electric grid we have, as far as fossil fuel plants, it is evolving to one with considerably higher efficiency power plants. As older power plants are being retired, the average efficiency is improving, particularly with combined cycle that is 45% to 60%.

Google "MPGe" to see some comparisons of electric vehicles vs. gasoline counterparts.

If you make more electricity, as things stand, you're going to burn more fossil fuels

More fossil fuel than sticking with gasoline IC cars? I don't think so.

I read real science journals, not UCS (or Greenpeace) trash.

Fine. Let's see some "scientific" paper comparing greenhouse gasses and other pollutants, primary fuel usage, economics, whatever of IC cars to EVs. In the U.S. Not in 2012 era China.

I put "scientific" in quotes because as you well know, even in peer-reviewed journals, you will find papers putting a scientific veneer to whatever viewpoint the authors have. (It's called turd polishing). As you well know. Just like in the medical literature on prescription drugs and medical devices and so on.

Although my field is engineering rather than science, I have seen plenty of garbage in peer reviewed I.E.E.E. (Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers) journals, and even been pressured to write one myself (I resisted until I had time to find a job in another department.). Also I was pressured to write a positive review of a garbage paper (I didn't). Your son's generation is not the only one that cares about more than just dollars.

I've seen the corruption close up in the social "science" literature too.

To the extent we'd like to have these vehicles, I propose that carbon dioxide and/or water be subject to thermochemical cycles to split them, with CO being subject to the water gas reaction to give hydrogen, and that the necessary cooling steps involve one Brayton cycle ...

... Since this system can be designed to be carbon negative depending on the source of carbon and the requirement that all thermal energy be produced by nuclear heat at approximately 100C or higher, I believe it would be more efficient, infinitely cleaner, and far more sustainable than all this useless electric car trash we're always hearing about. .... It's a wonderfuel.

That sounds great, so when will it be for sale so that it can start to make a difference? When will we see the CO2 readings at Mauna Loa start to drop (or even slow down) from this wonderfuel? How long has this technology been in the lab?

In the meantime, with existing industrial-scale technology, as far as propelling cars with nuclear energy, what do you think of EV's on a grid like France where it's like 75% nuclear? Again, compared to gasoline-IC cars in France..

It's too bad by the way (and I take no joy in this), that even in a nuclear-powered country like France, they are having trouble building new ones. The Flamanville reactor #3 (1600 MW) is the first new reactor built on French soil in about 20 years - original target date 2012, is now slated for 2020, and is more than a factor of 3 over the original budget, and is now estimated at $7,970 / KW per a 7/25/18 Reuters article.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-edf-flamanville/edfs-flamanville-reactor-start-again-delayed-to-2020-idUSKBN1KF0VN

(Another article from 2009 has this interesting statistic: Although France gets over 3/4 of its electricity from nuclear, nuclear accounts for only 16% of final energy use. Which just goes to show that nuclear-ifying the electric power sector only solves a rather modest fraction of the carbon problem. Or to put it another way, nuclear-ifying the electric power sector globally is not going to stop the CO2 readings at Mauna Loa rising.).

Have a nice day tomorrow.

Thanks. Likewise