Hacker News Reader

Comment by Kequc | Hacker News Reader

I don't like that they're touting no emissions. Electricity has to be generated and in the US that's mainly coal. Hybrid vehicles are closer to having it right where running the car charges it and you can get by burning significantly less fuel. Strictly electrical has not been shown to be an energy saver or a flag bearer of emissions reduction. In many cases so far it has been a cause of more pollution than modern engines using oil.

View on HN

> Electricity has to be generated and in the US that's mainly coal.

Huh? Coal is only 30% of the USA’s energy production, natural gas is higher at 34%.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=electrici...

The other points in your post are equally dubious, do you have sources?

Wikipedia lists energy consumption being 70% coal, I'm not sure why the large discrepancy there. I got my information about electrical engines from a website trying to talk up how great it was that we were moving away from oil based engines, but even there they admitted that until more power generation is switched over to renewable that emissions are higher with electric cars. Which makes perfect sense and is not dubious, the fewer times you need to convert energy the less energy wasted. Electricity does not store well, additionally.

> Wikipedia lists energy consumption being 70% coal, I'm not sure why the large discrepancy there.

Link?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#Ge...

Yeah that'd be the link it's the first image on the page.

The image/graph you're referencing illustrates "United States total primary energy consumption by fuel in 2015". Total, not electric.

You were discussing production of electricity, which is shown in the table I linked on that page to be 32%.

Wait, how does that make sense?

What kind of energy if not electrical is coal being used to produce?

Blast furnaces, heating, other chemical processes.

Coal isn't used for heating much in the US, if at all. It is sometimes used for metal production, especially on the east coast, but oddly, not on the west, where hydro is used.

I think the Wikipedia image (at the top of the page [1]) is simply wrong. If you follow the link to the source, [2, page 43], you get 396.3/2280.6 = 17.4% for coal in the US, "Primary energy: Consumption by fuel."

[1] 1https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States

[2] https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/energy-economics/stati...

I looked at the citation, someone put the wrong numbers in the pie chart: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_in_the_Uni...

Are you suggesting natural gas generation is “Green”?

No, I’m only suggesting that natural gas isn’t coal.

From an air quality perspective, at least, natural gas is much better than coal. But it is far from carbon neutral.

An airplane powered by fuel cannot be zero emissions. If you don't make any changes to a 737, it will continue to emit the same amount of CO2 etc. until the end of time, regardless of what happens in the rest of the energy sector.

This vehicle can be zero emissions today, if the power required is generated by wind/solar/hydro/etc. Sure, with today's grid's it won't necessarily be ZE, but it can be, and as time progresses and grids get updated with more and more renewable energy, it's effective emissions will continue to go down, with no changes needing to be made to the vehicle itself.

That's important.

Fortunately, the US isn't the only country on the planet. We could, for instance, get inspiration from those countries that heavily invest in renewable energy.

Most countries are not much better sadly, see https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=map&solar=false&remote=... for EU

Then you'll be happy to hear that they're trialling it in New Zealand first, which according to your map is at about 91% renewables for both islands.

Well, they are testing it in New Zealand, which this map shows to be doing extremely well in that regard.

You're talking like renewable energy isn't taking over everything.

Let's build everything together because if we assume electric cars will never work because energy sources suck right now, our planet is definitely going to be worse off.

Is there a good source for electric vehicles causing more pollution than modern engines? I haven't seen anything to that effect.

Here's an article that suggests that, in the US, gas cars would need better that 55mpg to have lower emmissions than EVs powered by the grid. In France, because of their different grid generation systems, you'd have to have a car running at 524mpg.

https://phys.org/news/2017-11-emissions-worldwidegas-battery...

Look up the "long tailpipe" argument. I can never tell whether people using it are genuinely in favor of more effective tactics for reducing carbon emissions, or instead are just trolling EV fans.

From Wikipedia,

> Renewable electricity in New Zealand is primarily from hydropower. In 2015, 81% of the electricity generated in New Zealand came from renewable sources. In September 2007, former Prime Minister Helen Clark announced a national target of 90 percent renewable electricity by 2025, with wind energy to make up much of that increase.

They said this was starting in NZ, which is quite different than the US in terms of energy sources.

Yes, New Zealand had 40% renewable energy in 2016, which is 4th in the OECD in terms of energy share [0]. They are also an island, thus they have an incentive to generate their own energy and store it in battery-powered vehicles, rather than importing fossil fuels from afar.

[0]: http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/sectors-industries/ene...

Coal is 30.1% of US electricity generation and dropping fast which is a long way from 1/2. We do use 31.7% natural gas, but that's still only adds up to 61.8%. On top of that the thermal efficiency is vastly better than cars.

My ears went up at that too, but it's very marketable and it is a good thing. Moving the emissions away from the end user and up the energy supply chain is a good thing. It simplifies the problem.

There are other countries besides US. They are testing in New Zealand which has a goal of zero emissions quite soon.

Also, if you think in 10-20-year perspective, US is on that way too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com