Diesel vs. Gasoline.....will the diesel engine outive you?

[RossWilliams]

Lets be clear. Your argument is that buying an electric vehicle that increases carbon emissions is a good idea in the long run because eventually we will be able to use electric vehicles to replace fossil fuel vehicles. Apparently, by buying and using an electric vehicle now, even though it increases the use of fossil fuels, it will support building the infrastructure that will eventually be used to support electric vehicles that don't require fossil fuels.

Given the current state of our electric grid, I don't think that is a credible argument. The only infrastructure keeping zero-carbon electric vehicles off the road is zero carbon electricity. Owning an electric car is not going to make that happen any faster. Instead, electric cars right now are far more likely to extend the life of existing fossil fuel electric plants and their emissions. The more electric cars there are the longer it will take to get to the point where they no longer are just inefficiently burning fossil fuels.

I don't think we should jump into that race. Whether personal vehicles always remain in their central role in our transportation system is a question for the future. But in immediate terms, buying and using an electric car is increasing carbon emissions compared to a similar gas/diesel vehicle, not to mention a hybrid. Of course, none of those are as much fun to drive.

Neither are non-sensical arguments about not working on EVs until they are end-to-end green.

End-to-end and in between there is nothing "green" about EV's other than the industry's marketing. If you buy an electric vehicle you are very likely increasing your carbon footprint now and for the foreseeable future.

[Boxster1971]

Originally Posted by RossWilliams

.... an electric vehicle that increases carbon emissions ....

.... End-to-end and in between there is nothing "green" about EV's other than the industry's marketing. If you buy an electric vehicle you are very likely increasing your carbon footprint now and for the foreseeable future.

Ross,
Could you cite at least one reliable, nonpartisan source that supports your statements?

I looked for some and found one OpEd piece that seemed to support your claims.
https://www.investors.com/politics/e...lobal-warming/

But on reading it closer and the referenced report from the University of Michigan, the conclusion was...

"The U of M researchers calculate that, given the energy mix in the U.S., the average plug-in produces as much CO2 as a conventional car that gets 55.4 miles per gallon."

and...

Worldwide, the researchers found, the CO2 emissions from electric cars are equal to a 51.5 mpg car.

Electric cars are certainly not "zero emissions", but they are generally cleaner than equivalent gas or diesel vehicles. However that is mute in this thread as out only choices for a B-van are gasoline or diesel engines.

Cheers,
- - Mike

[RossWilliams]

"The U of M researchers calculate that, given the energy mix in the U.S., the average plug-in produces as much CO2 as a conventional car that gets 55.4 miles per gallon."

The energy mix is irrelevant to this discussion isn't it? The question is what sources are providing the additional electricity needed for electric cars. In most cases that would be either oil, natural gas or coal. It would almost never be either solar or wind unless someone is charging directly off solar panels. Along with nuclear, those zero emission sources account for a little over 1/3 of the mix in the US. So all the emissions are in the other 2/3 that will provide the additional electricity.

But you are right, I probably exaggerated. Natural gas is not as bad as coal and that probably is the most common source for peaking plants that provide extra power when needed. If you assume someone else is going to use the coal power anyway, then there may be some benefit to using electricity but not as much as driving a hybrid or even a high mileage vehicle.

But my larger point stands. Adoption of electric vehicles immediate impact will be to extend the use of coal plants to meet that growing demand. Until we reach the end of coal, any additional demand for electricity is counter-productive.

[Boxster1971]

Originally Posted by RossWilliams

... But my larger point stands. Adoption of electric vehicles immediate impact will be to extend the use of coal plants to meet that growing demand. Until we reach the end of coal, any additional demand for electricity is counter-productive.

True - electric vehicle adaption will add to demand. But from this article in Fortune magazine, citing a 2017 report from the International Energy Agency (IEA), indicates that electric cars are not going to be the main source of increase electrical demand...

Electric Cars Will Have Minimal Impact on Global CO2 Levels | Fortune

Industrialization and rising living standards in the emerging world will require much bigger incremental amounts of electricity, to power industry and to provide air conditioning to offices and homes. Even the army of small, connected appliances, from smartphones to Internet routers to drones, will require twice as much electricity as EVs by 2040.

[GeorgeRa]

Originally Posted by RossWilliams

"The U of M researchers calculate that, given the energy mix in the U.S., the average plug-in produces as much CO2 as a conventional car that gets 55.4 miles per gallon."

The energy mix is irrelevant to this discussion isn't it? The question is what sources are providing the additional electricity needed for electric cars. In most cases that would be either oil, natural gas or coal. It would almost never be either solar or wind unless someone is charging directly off solar panels.

But you are right, I probably exaggerated. Natural gas is not as bad as coal and that probably is the most common source for peaking plants that provide extra power when needed. If you assume someone else is going to use the coal power anyway, then there may be some benefit to using electricity to replace the fuel for transportation.

But my larger point stands. Adoption of electric vehicles immediate impact will be to extend the use of coal plants to meet that growing demand. Until we reach the end of coal, any additional demand for electricity is counter-productive.

I am trying to get your point of extrapolating a “what if” scenario as a data point, it isn't for this thread.

Staying a few months every year in EU gives me a good exposure to benefits of public transportation but I don’t expect to see this level of public benefit any time soon in NA. Sure, we can extrapolate this as well.

I hosted a very close friend of mine from California recently, he drives electric cars for years, his latest one is a Tesla S. With great solar harvesting in Los Altos Hills his fuel bill for local driving is zero. Actually, he gets money back from PGE for the excess of energy he harvests.

This discussion is about gas or diesel vans, very far from public transportation, unless we go back to tents.

[RossWilliams]

Your friend would be putting even more solar power on the grid if he didn't drive an electric car. Which would mean PGE could burn less coal, oil or natural gas. So the effect of him driving that electric car is to increase emissions from PGE's electric production. That was the point of the cartoon that started this off-topic discussion.

Diesel or gas is mostly irrelevant, if you want to reduce emissions from your RV you should drive it less and if you really want to help the environment stay home and don't drive it at all. But life is full of trade offs.

[GeorgeRa]

A common reverse logic of starting with a thesis and do whatever to match it, enjoy camping.

[avanti]

Originally Posted by GeorgeRa

A common reverse logic of starting with a thesis and do whatever to match it, enjoy camping.

Yes, exactly. If you start with an sacrosanct conclusion and have no interest in data or logic, you will end up in bizarre places.

[RossWilliams]

Exactly right, that is how you have reached your conclusion. You have yet to make the case that using an electric vehicle is reducing carbon at all when compared to other available alternatives. But you can't make that case, because it isn't true. The anger at that cartoon is that it is displaying an inconvenient truth and I understand you can't really argue with people's emotions.

[GeorgeRa]

Originally Posted by RossWilliams

Exactly right, that is how you have reached your conclusion. You have yet to make the case that using an electric vehicle is reducing carbon at all when compared to other available alternatives. But you can't make that case, because it isn't true. The anger at that cartoon is that it is displaying an inconvenient truth and I understand you can't really argue with people's emotions.

I am not angry, that is the fact, but you can disagree, I wouldn’t be surprised.

[RossWilliams]

Self-delusion takes lots of forms.

[SteveJ]

Originally Posted by RossWilliams

Self-delusion takes lots of forms.

What a wonderful tidbit of knowledge this post shows. And what a contribution to the thread topic(s).

[rding]

I've only been a reader on this forum as i'm learning about vans and you all know more than me.I have however put thought in electric cars. When people talk about the pollution an electric car makes verses a gas.The power source is very diverse which increases flexibility my local area is 80% hydro electric.When you think about the pollution from a gallon of gas it doesn't start polluting when you put in the car it starts polluting when you take it out of the ground 15 tanker rail cars in the river 230,000 thousand gallons crude from a pipeline in the middle of an Iowa field etc. There is also no value given to the large amount of electricity used to make gas pumped and usually heated more than once takes a lot of energy to a delivered refined product. Which could go straight into an ev. It's easier to keep pollution control systems up and working on the amount of power plants out there than every single car.Electric cars have more electrical systems and not as many fluids much less likely to leave puddles like we see in all our parking lots.Just something to think about.

[avanti]

Rding,
Hear, hear!
(and welcome to the group!).
--Pete

[RossWilliams]

As of now, and into the near future, fossil fuels are almost always the power source for any additional demand, including any used by electric cars. If it suits you, you can believe in some abstract sense that x% of your power comes from solar, x% from hydro, etc.

Unfortunately the world isn't an abstraction and every time you charge your car somewhere a power source is ramping up to meet your demand. The source of that added power is almost always spewing carbon into the atmosphere. If you are comparing that electric car to an SUV or RV with mileage under 20 mpg, then you may come out ahead. But if you are comparing it to a 30 mpg+ vehicle you are likely coming out behind. And if you are comparing it to a 50 mpg hybrid, its not even close.

In the current marketplace, electric cars are greenwash. Their future depends on how we decide to reduce the amount of energy being used for transportation. If we try to sustain the current level of energy by substituting electricity for gas/diesel we are going to be burning coal for a very long time.

[avanti]

Originally Posted by RossWilliams

As of now, and into the near future, fossil fuels are almost always the power source for any additional demand, including any used by electric cars. If it suits you, you can believe in some abstract sense that x% of your power comes from solar, x% from hydro, etc.

Unfortunately the world isn't an abstraction and every time you charge your car somewhere a power source is ramping up to meet your demand. The source of that added power is almost always spewing carbon into the atmosphere. If you are comparing that electric car to an SUV or RV with mileage under 20 mpg, then you may come out ahead. But if you are comparing it to a 30 mpg+ vehicle you are likely coming out behind. And if you are comparing it to a 50 mpg hybrid, its not even close.

In the current marketplace, electric cars are greenwash. Their future depends on how we decide to reduce the amount of energy being used for transportation. If we try to sustain the current level of energy by substituting electricity for gas/diesel we are going to be burning coal for a very long time.

‘‘There is nothing so plain boring as the constant repetition of assertions that are not true.’’
--J.L. Austin

[DUTCH in Atlanta]

Originally Posted by avanti

‘‘There is nothing so plain boring as the constant repetition of assertions that are not true.’’
--J.L. Austin

Wow! Talk about self identification.

[GeorgeRa]

Originally Posted by avanti

‘‘There is nothing so plain boring as the constant repetition of assertions that are not true.’’
--J.L. Austin

But, this could be the strategy “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” - Joseph Goebbels.

[RossWilliams]

Originally Posted by avanti

‘‘There is nothing so plain boring as the constant repetition of assertions that are not true.’’
--J.L. Austin

Except repeated denials of the obvious.

[RossWilliams]

Originally Posted by GeorgeRa

But, this could be the strategy “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” - Joseph Goebbels.

That is most certainly the strategy of greenwashing. You claim something is clean and good for the environment often enough and people will believe it. It has clearly worked with electric cars for some people here.

And by all means, if you have a car that is leaving puddles of oil, junk it and buy a new car electric or not. But the oil burned to generate electricity is not any cleaner than a diesel. And coal is hardly cleaner either with the environmental impacts of mining and trail of coal dust left as it is transported. You can make the case that natural gas is cleaner but it has its environmental problems as well.

Its not that electric cars are terrible for the environment compared to a gas or diesel car. Its that in many cases using an electric car is the same or worse.