Coal powerplants creating electricity for BEVs might be worse than ICE cars burning oil. Not sure of the mix of power generated there, but china is a major coal extraction country.
The power generation mix is irrelevant. EVs emit less carbon even if they're powered with a 100% coal grid.
[https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/are-electric-vehicles-definitely-better-climate-gas-powered-cars](https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/are-electric-vehicles-definitely-better-climate-gas-powered-cars)
But in reality, coal is playing a reduced role in electricity generation most everywhere. This is largely being driven by economics, with a tail wind from climate policies. Natural gas gas power generation is a lot cheaper than coal in most places. Renewables are cheaper than coal and gas. often even when paired with battery storage.
Coal use in most western countries is falling fast. Even in China with their rapidly expanding economy, coal use has been flat since around 2015.
I'm in New England and here coal provided about .3% of power generation last year. Nuclear was 26%, Renewables and hydro were 19%, and gas was 52%.
[https://www.iso-ne.com/about/key-stats/resource-mix](https://www.iso-ne.com/about/key-stats/resource-mix)
Coal accounts for around 62% of power generation in China versus around 40% in the US. In both places, the percentage of coal in the generation mix is declining pretty rapidly as it gets replaced with cheaper alternatives. In the US the replacement has been mostly natural gas and wind and solar and in China the replacement has been hydro power, nuclear, wind and solar.
Of course not.
It will be like coal which is still used for steel making.
We just don’t burn it in our homes or cross oceans and continents with it anymore.
And if you’re a petrol head you’ll still be able to buy boutique fuel for your classic enthusiast car. While the majority of the population rides in their automated electric appliances not caring either way.
Oil is used beyond cars. Oil is used in making plastics which has increased worldwide. Oil is used for lubricants. Oil will still be used in the future, just not as much. FYI it will take years for ev or another form if motoring to actual take hold.
Not sure what you mean by near. This century? I doubt there will be many petrol fueled planes in 2100. By 2040? Of course not.
Both Airbus and Boeing are working on hydrogen passenger planes.
I’m interested to see what they come with, but hydrogen does not contain anywhere the energy content that Jet does. You’re talking H2 atoms vs like C6 - C16s, I can’t imagine the engine size and fuel tank size that would take to get equivalent outputs. But then again maybe it doesn’t need to be that much bigger, just design the engine differently? I don’t know I’m not a MechE.
Interested though.
It'll take yearss to replace oil in fuel. Airlines, cargo ships, etc.. will continue burning oil for years. Don't be gaslit into believing cars are the main users if oil. It's always easier to push the small guy into giving up what corporations will take years to give up. FYI Africa, South America, Russia, Middle East, etc.. will continue to burn oil.
Cars are the main users of oil.
Airplanes use a fraction of oil that cars do. Same goes for ships.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/307194/top-oil-consuming-sectors-worldwide/
Light passenger vehicles only account for 10% of oil consumption worldwide. The premise of just eliminating oil is just simplistic and lacks understanding on the adverse effect it will have on overall life standards and access to affordable energy. The real discussion should be about how to have access to affordable and reliable energy, while removing carbon emissions, this is a problem that has to be solved through engineering and not magic and wishes
Transportation in general is 25% of the total world energy consumption, 15% is heavy transportation (planes, maritime, etc.) and 10% is light passenger vehicles (cars and motorcycles).
Here is some good reading, https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/what-we-do/energy-supply/global-outlook/energy-demand
Looking at the facts is key to solve this or any problem, not just pick arbitrary data that fits one’s point of view. Whether it is climate change, poverty or cake baking.
yeah.
You said
> Light passenger vehicles only account for 10% of oil consumption worldwide.
This is not backed up by your source.
Facts are important, agreed.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s imperative that we tackle carbon emissions, we just need to focus on the overall problem in hand, not just a fresh coat of pain to a wobbly foundation
> we just need to focus on the overall problem in hand, not just a fresh coat of pain to a wobbly foundation
I thought "we" were already focusing on the overall problem at hand.
> The real discussion should be about how to have access to affordable and reliable energy, while removing carbon emissions, this is a problem that has to be solved through engineering and not magic and wishes
Good news! That discussion is already taking place, just not in this sub.
But which causes the most pollution?
Ships use the dirtiest kind of oil / fuel , and pollute disproportionately more than gasoline automobiles in most developed & even some developing countries.
Side note, in Eastern Europe many gasoline cars are converted to run on propane. Much cleaner than gasoline AND you can retrofit existing vehicles instead of spending time, resources & pollution developing/manufacturing/transporting new models
The source in your survey is the OECD which only represents 38 mostly developed countries, where access to cars is significantly higher than the rest of the world and excludes highly populated countries such as china, India, Indonesia, most of Latin America. The energy needs are and consumption is represented by ~200 countries, not 38
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58861#:~:text=Personal%20vehicles—cars%2C%20light%2D,the%20transportation%20sector%20in%202019.
> Personal vehicles—cars, light-duty trucks (including sport utility vehicles, crossover utility vehicles, minivans, and pickup trucks), and motorcycles—were responsible for 58 percent of emissions in the transportation sector in 2019.
The US accounts for only 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions compared with 30% for China.
In 2022, the US led global oil consumption with 19 million barrels daily, while China followed with 14 million barrels.
So oil consumption doesn't not equate to oil usage when measured against GHG.
Oil consumption of a specific oil-using sector/device.
Two cars using 100 liters of oil will cause the same amount of GHG emissions, while they can have wildly different smog emissions
However, this direct correlation falls apart once you start adding other fuels like coal. However, most ships and cars use oil based fuels
It's the efficiency that matters, an airliner with full (or near full) capacity can reach 100mpg per passenger seat. Personal transportation is inherently very inefficient in energy usage.
Not to mention the energy cost for production when accounted for use cycle. A personal vehicle is *typically* used for at most ~2 hours a day for a busy commute, then is parked for the remainder of the day. An airliner is flown for at least 60-80% of a full day, a much higher utilization rate.
Opinion time, considering the prospect of energy independency from the state, renewable energy like solar can push EVs in underdeveloped areas. Micro-grids with EVs as battery buffer might be beneficial to areas with poor infrastructure to fuel deliveries.
Cars use plenty. Replacing all gas cars will make a significant dent and it's the one use case we have completely figured out. Why not focusing on it? Unnecessary negativity and constant line moving don't get anything done.
Replacing all cars will take decades you or I will not see that happen. Distillate fuel oil, hydrocarbon gas liquids, jet fuel are the other users of oil. FYI cars all use rubber tires made from modtly petroleum. When the tires wears were does all that tire dust go? I don't see piles of rubber on the road? I doesn't just disappear into thin air? You breath it in because it's everywhere, that's a bigger issue.
> Replacing all cars will take decades
Well duh. Thats why people who want to get rid of ICE cars are in favor of early bans. Even if you'd ban new car sales in 2025 you will still have ICE cars on the road in 2045.
> . When the tires wears were does all that tire dust go? I don't see piles of rubber on the road? I doesn't just disappear into thin air? You breath it in because it's everywhere, that's a bigger issue.
I think the upcoming EU car emission regulations include tire dust.
The global power grid can not support an entire electric vehicle fleet. There isn't enough power generated. Focus on the grid before you invite government enforced blackouts.
You can't build shit. A nuclear plant takes about a decade to bring online. Natural gas is 3-5 years. THEY are not breaking ground on new plants. In fact, they're closing power plants. The government has no plans and no infrastructure in place to support the electric fleet. You'll drive a hybrid, and you'll like it.
> The government has no plans and no infrastructure in place to support the electric fleet
The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) has something like $30 BILLION for electrical-grid related grants and loans.
There aren’t enough minerals with current/foreseeable technology to replace ICE vehicles with all EV. Especially when you consider all the other renewable projects.
the idea of a 1:1 swap from ICE cars to EV cars is stupid for this reason. transitioning towards public transit as a societal default is also going to be necessary
Looking at usage data [EIA](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=41&t=6#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20of%20the%20approximately,and%208%25%20was%20jet%20fuel.) 44% was used to finished motor gasoline.
Other data shows China + USA collectively consume 33% of all oil production.
I don’t think it’s a joke to suggest the two biggest consumers can put a dent in global demand if they choose to.
Before using oil as plastic, crude oil must be distilled first, and you get a lot of things like gasoline, diesel and naphtha. Naphtha is used to produce plastic, what about gasoline and diesel then, if you don’t want to use them as fuel, throw them away?
Yes. Many years of poor regulations about pollution means that many European cities have pretty terrible air quality, compared to the rest of the developed world.
> Oil is used beyond cars. Oil is used in making plastics which has increased worldwide
And Cows are used beyond Meat. But will it be worth to raise a cow just for its hide?
Yes to drive (significantly more efficiency in harnessing energy). Acquiring/sourcing materials and manufacturing hits hard as a lot of this sourcing/production is done in areas/countries with significantly less environmental/safety regulations.
Now, if you have an EV on the road for 9yrs+ its definitely a lower carbon footprint compared to an ICE cars, but less than 8yrs is a wash with it favoring ICE with lesser years (with fossil fuel/renewable mix/nuclear for power). Believe I read somewhere the average age of cars on the road is 10-12yrs and that people tend to keep cars 6 yrs or less.
So.... depending on the market/location and how your power is sourced can tell a different story.
> if you have an EV on the road for 9yrs+ its definitely a lower carbon footprint compared to an ICE cars, but less than 8yrs is a wash with it favoring ICE with lesser years
Considering that the actual breakeven point on EVs' carbon footprint vs gas vehicles is [less than two years](https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2022-09/driving-cleaner-report.pdf), the full picture pretty overwhelmingly favours EVs.
The 2yr (17month) data is based on a 95% renewables power source. In the US, renewables in power generation account for 25% of the grid. It also does not factor in the greater potentials of vehicle totaling with insurance as demonstrated by higher rates.
The visual chart here breaks it down nicely over 16yrs and 240,000km.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/life-cycle-emissions-evs-vs-combustion-engine-vehicles/
> The 2yr (17month) data is based on a 95% renewables power source
No, it's not. It's based on the aggregate state of the US electrical grid. Why do you feel the need to fabricate flaws against the research?
Why do you feel the need talk down somebody immediately? It certainly doesn't make you appear smarter.
Regarding your point. I personally don't get that whole paper. I don't know if that is how you americans EVs cleanliness by going around into converting it into theoretical mpg, but to me it seems unnecessarily confusing and obscuring vs converting it into emissions in g/Km or g/mile. And this whole paper seems to be obscurign more than it want's you to understand how that graph came about.
And apparently you didn't either or you wouldn't parrot the 2 year stuff mindlessly.
So heres a specific example:
We know EVs are more emission friendly on the drive but come with the so called EV bag, the surplus of emission the Battery fabrication process needs.
[According to this](https://www.sae.org/news/2023/04/ev-battery-decarbonization-mckinsey) it takes 100Kg of co2 to produce 1 Kw of battery.
Now let's compare the Tesla 3 performance vs. an M3 (realistic crossshopping or segement imo).
Assuming the car production has an equal footprint, the tesla comes with a 79kw battery - it has a bag of 7900 Kg(sry ima metric boy).
Your source, page 21.
Oahu produces 941g of emission per Kwh.
The Tesla requires 16,8Kw/100Km -> 16,8*941 /100 = 158g/km in Oahu
The M3 produces 227g/km. Their difference is 227-158 = 69g/km
7900Kg are 7900000g divided by we conclude it would take 114492Km(71k Miles) until that bag is depleted and they are break even - 7 1/2 years according to the average german anual driving distance of 15k Km.
Now that was the worst case ofc. In New York Upstate(137g) it would be 38725 Km or 2.5years.
MRO west(507g the ~avg) 55633 Km(3.7y).
And that is for performance vehicles vs EV, not econobox vs EV.
My Civic9(129g) in Berlin(340g) would take 77500km/5y to break even with a regular Model 3.
Obv EVs are more efficient in the long run, but 2 years is LaLa Land territory.
> Why do you feel the need talk down somebody immediately?
I only did so after they chose to outright make up demonstrably false reasons to ignore the evidence. When someone shows that they're so motivated to reach a specific conclusion that they have to invent reasons to ignore evidence to the contrary, there is no realistic prospect of changing their mind. All that's left to do is to prevent others from falling down the same rabbit hole they did.
>but to me it seems unnecessarily confusing and obscuring vs converting it into emissions in g/Km or g/mile
Aren't you doing the exact same thing in your post?
>Oahu produces 941g of emission per Kwh
And what percentage of the US' population live in Hawaii compared to the rest of the country? The two year figure is based on the US' grid in aggregate - of course there are variations in breakeven point, but on a population-weighted basis, the two year figure is correct.
>Obv EVs are more efficient in the long run, but 2 years is LaLa Land territory
Except it's not. Even Eurocentric lifecycle analyses like [Transport & Environment](https://www.transportenvironment.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/TEs-EV-life-cycle-analysis-LCA.pdf) find the breakeven point on CO2 emissions is one to two years.
>Take a look at the number of coal power plants in China
China is the biggest solar generating country in the world, considering they also make MOST of it. Also China plants more trees than the entire world combined as part of their "retaking the desert" initiatives.
Let's ask a better question, how much does the average European/American EVs is generated by coal? I see Germany is still struggling with grid power with their nuclear reactors.
> Also China plants more trees than the entire world combined as part of their "retaking the desert" initiatives.
Says who? Chinese? Yeah on paper they do. In reality they paint rocks with green paint.
Even if you account for the contribution of coal to the energy EVs use in China, electric cars [still have a lower carbon footprint there](https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Global-LCA-passenger-cars-jul2021_0.pdf).
Yeah, if you're getting the energy to charge an EV from coal power plants with no adequate emissions controls, the net emissions per mile will be worse than those from an efficient gas hybrid.
I wonder how much something like a Hummer EV running off coal powerplants would emit...
Their net air pollution is not getting better. Coal is nasty and they don't use the same emission technology as the US (which even that doesn't help too much, but it does limit potential smog)
Also they just move pollution from every cars exhaust to the smoke stacks of coal fire power plants. Electric Cars aren’t better (maybe even worse) for the environment if you power them with non renewable electricity.
“Unlike in the US and Europe, climate concerns are typically nowhere on Chinese buyers’ radar, says Li Long, who founded one of the province’s first used EV dealerships, Electric Rabbit, in 2021. There’s no equivalent to Sierra Club types or famous early adopters like actor and environmental activist Leonardo DiCaprio, who helped popularize hybrids in the 2000s and is now frequently photographed in luxury electric models.”
This is such a weird angle. To paraphrase a former leader: I don’t care whether it’s a black or a white cat, just that it catches mice.
Clearly Leo DIDNT popularize hybrids, given that hybrids have never cracked 10% of sales. Chinas blown way the hell through that imo BECAUSE the root argument was economics and not NGO culture stuff
One of the reasons china is pushing electric so hard is because they were too far behind on ICE. EV everyone is at a more level starting point. With the high amount of government investment in developing the technology, infrastructure and policy they’re sprinting ahead.
That's not a good news for Russia, isn't it ? Think about how Russia so relying China, China is very important for them.
Russia sold most oil in China to make up their lost in Western countries sanctions.
Lol what? Wasn’t there a study a while back that revealed for every Tesla made around 60 barrels of oil were used only in the making of the plastics for the interior? If you account the rest of the materials, only the raw materials, electric cars are -100barrels in debt even before you drive them 1 mile.
Electric cars are cool, but the age of oil is nowhere near close to extinction.
I’d say it’s true for all cars, the biggest difference would probably be the amount/various minerals used in the batteries. Mining, refining etc but in the long run the EV comes out ahead.
It makes sense in China. Their oil reserves aren’t that large compared to oil producing nations (7th globally) and especially per capita. They have to import a lot more oil, especially as the number of cars increases. Compared to the US, which produces nearly 6x the amount of oil daily and has 1/4 the population.
The article says the "transport" sector accounts for 50% of their oil usage. Last I checked, China has a lot of container ships... no doubt this is a large portion of that figure.
145 Comments
GeneralCommand4459@reddit
Simoxs7@reddit
magellanNH@reddit
TheMostElusiveMan@reddit
magellanNH@reddit
TheMostElusiveMan@reddit
icytongue88@reddit
Famous-Reputation188@reddit
TheMostElusiveMan@reddit
DiBalls@reddit
Dave_The_Slushy@reddit
United_Airlines@reddit
Dave_The_Slushy@reddit
United_Airlines@reddit
BM7-D7-GM7-Bb7-EbM7@reddit
United_Airlines@reddit
BM7-D7-GM7-Bb7-EbM7@reddit
Famous-Reputation188@reddit
BM7-D7-GM7-Bb7-EbM7@reddit
Jgusdaddy@reddit
DiBalls@reddit
gumol@reddit
w0nderbrad@reddit
ZannX@reddit
fisichellaisnothim@reddit
Amcaarg@reddit
gumol@reddit
Amcaarg@reddit
gumol@reddit
Amcaarg@reddit
gumol@reddit
Total-Phone-8721@reddit
gumol@reddit
WarDEagle@reddit
Amcaarg@reddit
gumol@reddit
Amcaarg@reddit
snoo-suit@reddit
snoo-suit@reddit
goaelephant@reddit
gumol@reddit
Amcaarg@reddit
DiBalls@reddit
gumol@reddit
DiBalls@reddit
gumol@reddit
DiBalls@reddit
gumol@reddit
nguyenm@reddit
luckymethod@reddit
DiBalls@reddit
bfire123@reddit
upsetbusrider@reddit
gumol@reddit
upsetbusrider@reddit
Kupfakura@reddit
Rude_Thought_9988@reddit
upsetbusrider@reddit
Rude_Thought_9988@reddit
upsetbusrider@reddit
Rude_Thought_9988@reddit
gumol@reddit
gumol@reddit
YellowCBR@reddit
upsetbusrider@reddit
gumol@reddit
AKblazer45@reddit
raccoonsinspace@reddit
Rude_Thought_9988@reddit
gumol@reddit
Bensemus@reddit
poopoomergency4@reddit
GoHuskies1984@reddit
DiBalls@reddit
gumol@reddit
DiBalls@reddit
SolidSignificance7@reddit
bliip368@reddit
xmmdrive@reddit
GMFPs_sweat_towel@reddit
m0o@reddit
snoo-suit@reddit
bfire123@reddit
Famous-Reputation188@reddit
Bacon003@reddit
DiBalls@reddit
Famous-Reputation188@reddit
gumol@reddit
Famous-Reputation188@reddit
Lost-cost-fallacy@reddit
RacerM53@reddit
uselessartist@reddit
mgobla@reddit
Senent@reddit
APadartis@reddit
disembodied_voice@reddit
APadartis@reddit
disembodied_voice@reddit
banelingsbanelings@reddit
disembodied_voice@reddit
Famous-Reputation188@reddit
Senent@reddit
kimi_rules@reddit
sarcasmyousausage@reddit
Famous-Reputation188@reddit
disembodied_voice@reddit
Joatboy@reddit
AwesomeBantha@reddit
Bruceperson@reddit
delebojr@reddit
Famous-Reputation188@reddit
delebojr@reddit
Simoxs7@reddit
stav_and_nick@reddit
daredaki-sama@reddit
m0o@reddit
Dramaticreacherdbfj@reddit
LiGuangMing1981@reddit
Dramaticreacherdbfj@reddit
Famous-Reputation188@reddit
Dramaticreacherdbfj@reddit
pankan76@reddit
Simon676@reddit
snoo-suit@reddit
homiegeet@reddit
Famous-Reputation188@reddit
V8-Turbo-Hybrid@reddit
AKblazer45@reddit
goaelephant@reddit
kobrons@reddit
fisichellaisnothim@reddit
pascualama@reddit
gumol@reddit
Rude_Thought_9988@reddit
Simon676@reddit
AKblazer45@reddit
Simon676@reddit
FlyPenFly@reddit
Gu27@reddit
ChuckoRuckus@reddit
Bagelbau5@reddit
TheAbdominal_Snowman@reddit
gumol@reddit
topcat5@reddit
College_Prestige@reddit (OP)