Electric / hybrid vehicles - Just a thought?

Question

OK, you are toodling around without nasty heat & fumes eminating, which perhaps makes you feel better within yourelf.
BUT. They energy has to come from somewhere, and generally it is from electricity power sations to re-charge your batteries.
The emmision of carbons and thermal energy is still there, and if you take into account energy losses between the generator and your batteries, the whole notion gets worse.
Any further comments ?

Answer 1

The answer to this question lies in the relative efficiencies of gas versus electric cars - a more efficient vehicle, even using the same fuel, will go further on less energy - thereby making less pollution.
*
Gas engines are notoriously inefficient. Running at peak efficency, a gas engine turns about 25% of gasoline's energy into torque. But not all that power gets to the road, because your engine spends time idling and braking. Also, the engine's efficiency drops when not operating at its peak horsepower rating. After all this, you are lucky to get 10% of the fuel's energy to the road.
*
Also there are inefficiencies in the refining of gasoline (which takes large amounts of electricity!), the transportation of gasoline (by truck to your local gas station), and even some evaporation of the gasoline itself, directly into the atmosphere, over time.
*
By contrast, an electric motor is over 90% efficient, and has an extremely wide powerband so nearly all of its energy gets to the road. The battery storage system in electric cars is about 88% efficient. And the power grid is 95% efficient in getting the energy from the powerplant to your car (much more efficient than sending fuel by truck!) Plus, fuel, including coal, burns far more efficiently in a big powerplant than it ever could in a little car.
*
Plus, electric cars don't idle. No energy is used at stoplights. And electric cars recapture braking energy, too, using regenerative braking.
*
So even when the powerplant burns dirty fuel, the amount of pollution is much, much less than a gas car would create. And this picture is improving all the time, as clean energy sources are added to the grid.
*
Electric cars also don't create used motor oil and coolant, both environmental hazards. EV batteries are a slight concern, but the EPA doesn't consider Li-Ion batteries an environmental hazard (this is the latest type of EV battery, which will be used in most future EVs.) All types of EV batteries are recyclable.
*
But you don't have to be green to appreciate electric vehicles. A typical driver who spends between $150 - 200 on gasoline would only spend $10-20 in electricity for the same mileage. You'd better believe the oil companies are threatened by this. They know that gas prices will have to drop if EVs ever catch on.
*
See, you don't even have to drive one. You'll benefit, too.
*

Answer 2

I charge some batteries from solar power. The charge generated is usually sufficient for a slow charge of a battery.

I could generate some electricity from the river which has much potential energy converting to kinetic energy.

The wind keeps blowing strongly at the top of hills.

The sea has much kinetic energy in the way the moon makes the waves billow.

I agree that nuclear and carbon emissions are damaging. They are also finite, whereas solar power, wind power, and water power are infinite. Why we are focusing on finite resources when we have infinite sources of power created by the sun and the moon are ridiculous to me.

We have such a short term view. If we were totally focused on the future of the human race we would see absolutely no value in oil. It is a finite resource, for which the technology will have to develop to replace our dependence on it.

I sometimes wonder if the reason for the slow development of these infinite resources is protectionism from the energy market. People cannot do it themselves because the government aids and encourages the monopoly of energy control. There are insufficient small scale energy systems, because the government does not want people to become self sufficient. If people become self sufficient, government will become redundant!

Answer 3

Yes you are right, however, as a proportion of our electricity is produced without harmful emission, hydro, wind, nuclear, it is slightly better to use electricity than burning fossil fuel direct - not a lot, but it is a step in the right direction. If a vehicle can use regenerative braking, that will also help.
fossil fuel powerstations tend to dissipate the pollution higher in the atmosphere, thus you are also helping to reduce the low level and doubly dangerous fug trapped in the city streets

Answer 4

Hybrid cars make the wealthy people and the tree huggers feel better about polluting the planet. The only real advantage with today's technology is that you are polluting somewhere that you don't see it..... at the local power plant.
We do in fact have plenty of available power sources, such as hydro, solar, wind, and nuclear, but no one seems to want a nuclear power plant or wind farm in their area. Solar is very expensive for the return. On top of that, environmentalists have all but ended hydro in this country.

Answer 5

No, you are correct. If a hybrid vehicle gets 45 mpg and a diesel vehicle gets 45 mpg, they are both creating the same quantity of exhaust and using the same natural resources.

The big benefit for all-electric cars is that it is easier to scrub the huge quantities of emissions at a few electric generation plants than it is to scrub the emissions of millions of cars.

Answer 6

l agree with your comments completely.
A petrol engine is at best 30% efficient at turning fuel into kinetic energy,majority of rest lost through cooling system/exhaust,proportions 20%/50%.If a heat pump system in form of a turbine connected to generator to charge battery then engines could be tuned more for economy rather than performance lowering emissions but utilising great torque generated from additional electric power.Also more utilisation of regenerative braking systems to charge battery rather than conventional friction braking.

Answer 7

You are right.It doesen't matter what form of vehicle you have if it only gives (say) 40 per gallon.The same amount of fuel is burned.
CO2 output is same.Also how much extra energy is consumed building a hybrid with its additional motor and control gear?I think many green arguments ,whilst politically very correct fall down on final analysis.

If manufacturers improved internal combustion engines by improved engine managementsystems tailored to economy rather than performancewe could see a reduction of emissions.

Answer 8

I'll note that the currently-available production hybrid gasoline/electric hybrids are not grid-chargeable. They're source of electricity comes from either excess energy produced by the gasoline engine or from recaptured kinetic energy through regenerative braking.

Someone commented about a 40MPG diesel vs. a 40MPG hybrid. If all you are looking at is CO2 output, then yes, their emissions are the same. However, there are more emissions than just CO2, such as particulate matter (PM), CO (carbon monoxide), NOx (compounds of nitrogen), just to name a few. Until the US fully moves to low-sulfur diesel fuel, and the advanced diesels (with their emissions-scrubbing equipment) begin to sell in the US, diesels typically have far worse emissions than a gasoline car. Even among identical gasoline cars, one can have cleaner emissions than the other (for example, the CA-emission PZEV Toyota Camry or BMW 325i or Subaru Legacy) compared to their normal counterparts). For a ranking of the cleanest emission vehicles, ranked by emissions and fuel economy, sorted into size/class categories, see: http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicle

There was also a question about hybrid vehicle production. Here's the 2004 Toyota Prius Green Report (life cycle assessment):
http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/k_forum/tenji/pdf/pgr_e.pdf
(you'll need to download the Japanese fonts for your PDF reader in order to read it, but the entire document is written in English.)

Over the lifespan of the Prius, when compared to a comparable mid-sized gasoline vehicle, the Prius comes out ahead in the life cycle assessment (LCA) for airborne emissions for CO2, NOx, SOx, HC, but actually does worse for PM (thanks to the material and vehicle production stages). Lifespan is given as 10 years use/100,000km. The CO2 break-even point for the 2004 Prius compared to this unnamed gasoline vehicle is given at 20,000km. (more CO2 is emitted during Prius production, but the Prius makes up for it over it's driven lifetime.)

The lead-acid (Pb-A) 12v accessory batteries in hybrids tend to be smaller than those found in every traditional gasoline vehicle. Recycling programs are in place for traditional lead-acid batteries.

All the hybrids on the market use NiMH (Nickel-Metal Hydride) batteries, which contain no heavy metals (so they're not hazardous waste, like the Pb-A batteries), and are easily recycled.


Depending on the source for electricity in your area, a BEV (Battery-Electric Vehicle) may or may not put out more greenhouse gas emissions than a 55MPG HEV (Hybrid-Electric Vehicle). Mainly, if the primary source for electricity in your area is coal, your 55MPG HEV is cleaner than a BEV running on coal-powered electricity. However, if your electricity source is natural gas, the BEV is usually cleaner than the HEV (depending on the method used for natural gas->electricity conversion), and it gets even better for the BEV if you are using a hydroelectric or other renewable electric source. In comparisons with a generic 17MPG SUV, an average 26MPG vehicle, and a high-efficiency 38MPG vehicle, the 38MPG vehicle still will beat the coal-powered BEV, but isn't as clean as the HEV (and gas and renewables powered BEVs are much better than the 38MPG vehicle).

see: "Battery-Powered Electric and Hybrid Electric Vehicle Projects to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Resource Guide for Project Development," July 2002
http://www.netl.doe.gov/products/ccps/pubs/resguide.pdf
http://www.eere.energy.gov/cleancities/international/pdfs/hev_ev_ghgreductions.pdf
mainly section 4.3

You can view summary statistics about Electricity generation in the US (and in regions of the US) here:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html

(and that's besides the arguements that it's easier to manage emissions from a handful of electric plants, as opposed to millions of independently-owned cars... typically, electric charging rates are still cheaper than petroleum rates, too.)

But, there's more emissions than just greenhouse gas emissions, so there's probably more to look into there...

The California Air Resources board states "EVs reduce pollutants by more than 90 percent when compared to the cleanest conventional gasoline-powered vehicles (even when factoring in the emissions from power plants generating the electricity to the charge the vehicle)."
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/factsheets/evsummary.pdf

Answer 9

Yeah....Americans should use their own resouces for fueling our vehicles. Use what we have in the USA and stop going to other countries for it!!! Hybrid cars are a stupid idea.

Answer 10

While your synopsis is correct, I don't believe there is any way to be 100% environmentally friendly.