Electricity hidden CO2?

[lys]

Given the anti-EVs crowd usual moto "CO2 hidden cost" of the electricity production, it's very informative the QUICC! EV web site:

http://www.quicc.eu/Well-to-Wheel_en

The "well to wheel" comparison, always counting energy production + ICE exhaust (when applicable):

An usual diesel van: 192 g/km
Popular Hybrid Passenger Car (I asume they mean Prius): 122 g/km
QUICC! EV (EU15 grid-mix *): 63 g/km
QUICC! EV (Solar energy): 12 – 24 g/km
QUICC! EV (Wind energy): 3 g/km

* EU Grid mix = the total average production of energy from all combined energy sources in the EU.

I needed this to show to some morons, always with the same "electricity is CO2 expensive" song.
I'm glad that 20 kms. from my home is the largest wind energy camp of my country, recently built.

[acdii]

In the EU where a large number of Nuclear power plants are in use, doesn't compare the same to the US where there are a large amount of coal fired power plants, and very few nuclear plants, after all, all us US snobs dont want no stinkin nuclear plants in our yards.

Compare apples to apples, what are the numbers from coal plants in the midwest and eastern seaboard? The west coast has Hydroelectric, so those don't count, lets see the numbers for coal fired area and how much CO2 is needed to charge the cars for 500 miles a week.

[richard schumacher]

In the US the average plug-in could reduce CO2 very little, because about half the US' power comes from coal, and as it happens the breakeven point is at about 50% fossil fuel sourced electricity. Every potential plugin buyer should discover how their electricity is generated before buying. With some providers it will actually do more harm than good.

[daniel]

Originally Posted by richard schumacher

In the US the average plug-in could reduce CO2 very little, because about half the US' power comes from coal, and as it happens the breakeven point is at about 50% fossil fuel sourced electricity. Every potential plugin buyer should discover how their electricity is generated before buying. With some providers it will actually do more harm than good.

I believe this is incorrect, due to the efficiency of scale. Coal-fired power plants are more efficient than the most efficient gasoline cars.

(FWIW here in WA, our electricity is mostly hydro, and in my neighborhood it's all hydro, with a little wind energy in the mix.)

[Zythryn]

In addition to Daniel's point, the whole new level of efficiency is reached when you move from an ICE (which is used in most all hybrids right now) and an electric motor.
You gain a lot of efficiency right there which gives you lower CO2 emissions even if you do use all coal.
As for midwest, much of MN power comes from natural gas. 20% of our electricity will be from wind/solar by 2025.

[fuzzy1]

... (FWIW here in WA, our electricity is mostly hydro, and in my neighborhood it's all hydro, with a little wind energy in the mix.)

While the great bulk of our PNW energy is hydro, I am presuming that nearly all of our non-carbon capacity is used somewhere. What we don't consume is not spilled or dumped, but sold to others, displacing carbon somewhere.

Likewise, most of the extra hydro we consume is made up as carbon burned by other utilities that won't find as much 'green' stuff to buy.

[cwerdna]

As an FYI, EIA - Electricity Data, Analysis, Surveys is a graph of the US electricity generation mix. How clean is the electricity I use? - Power Profiler | Clean Energy | US EPA lets you look up the generation mix for your area.

[DaveinOlyWA]

coal power plants despite their inefficiencies are greater than 10 times more efficient than the best car engine on the road today. in Western WA, we have too much population and therefore too much peak power demand to stay on hydro, so about 30% of our power (used during 16% of our day) is coal. we have 61% is hydro including 100% renewable during off peak times with around 9% wind and solar tossed in.

another note, there was a guy in Eastern WA who became only the 4th known private owner of a wind generator. now he claims that he could pay off his investment ($87,000!!) in just a few years. with changes to renewables, Obama is giving him $28,000, the state a few thousand more.

now, him being one of four, granted not quite a drop in the bucket, but this is what we need to encourage.

[jayman]

Despite all the disadvantages to coal power plants, keep in mind:

When used as Combined Heat and Power or "co-gen" their efficincies are 80-85%

With Federal oversight eg EPA emissions controls are installed and monitored, usually 24x7. With a car, you're lucky if it comes in once a year for a quick smog check, and only in places that require smog checks

While we have problems with Peak Loading, usually the grid interties are far below maximum capacity. Night is almost always the lowest demand, so a plug-in parked at home, charging from 2300-0500, would be ideal

It's difficult to reason with anti-EV people. Plenty of meth-mouth hillbillies still believe that the Prius is soley responsible for the "moonscape" around Sudbury

Hint for trolls now reading this post:

There is NO "moonscape" around Sudbury, that was cleaned up back in the 1980's, long before the Prius.

The vast majority of nickel production is for the steel industry, eg the automotive industry in the United States. The heavier a vehicle, the more nickel content. Chrome also requires nickel

Toyota purchases around 1% of INCO's Sudbury total output. No doubt a small fraction of that 1% is put into the NiMH batteries

[acdii]

Interesting information there regarding the Coal plants. Now for the next line of questions, if Coal can be used more efficiently, then why is obama wanting to eliminate coal altogether? What will happen when coal plants become too expensive to operate, and get shut down, what will be there to replace them? What is the draw to charge an average size car pack, and multiplied by 2 for every household, what kind of draw would be seen on the grid?