35 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Even if electricity is produced exclusively from fossil fuels the amount of carbon emissions is significantly less than a gas powered vehicle. 

Yep, as I said. They are a good thing but don’t solve the problem. We agree. 

4 minutes ago, paco said:

Not sure how that counters the point about it still being cleaner.

It shifts the emissions from the car exhaust to the power generation plants' exhaust. The greenhouse gases are still be emitted.

As you increase the share of electric cars on the roads, yes, that transportation number will come down, but the electricity number will go up proportionally to power the increased number of electric cars.

 

Tell me you are doing this on purpose.

 

This is the same guy who tried to prove a point by showing how easy it was to buy an assault rifle and subsequently got denied because he had multiple convictions of DUI and domestic violence 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, BBE said:

0.85 lbs CO2 per kwH average for US

0.34 kwH per mile for Tesla model 3

0.29 lbs CO2 per mile (does not account for transmission losses 2015 reference says average is 6% loss so 0.31 lbs/mile?)

Average car emits 404g/mile (22mpg) assumption converts to 0.89 lbs/mile

 

So even a more efficient efficient (non-hybrid) car is about 33% more emissions.

 

You're excluding upstream CO2 emissions from gasoline production, which is 4.5-5lbs per gallon, while including the full upstream CO2 emissions for the electric vehicle.

If you use more renewable energy sources (wind, solar, etc) over time to generate power and build more fuel-efficient hybrids and electric cars, I fail to see how that could lead to higher emissions.  What am I missing?

44 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

If you use more renewable energy sources (wind, solar, etc) over time to generate power and build more fuel-efficient hybrids and electric cars, I fail to see how that could lead to higher emissions.  What am I missing?

And then….

….. when you have a large EV population, and have plugs virtually everywhere, you can turn the EVs into capacitors.  Then excess renewable electricity can be captured and used to power your home in the evening if you have a 2 way charger. Get a large population onboard and you reduce the need for non renewable sources at night. 
 

Just an idea. 

1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

You're excluding upstream CO2 emissions from gasoline production, which is 4.5-5lbs per gallon, while including the full upstream CO2 emissions for the electric vehicle.

The electrical power did not include upstream costs either.  I was supporting your point.

EV batteries will destroy the world. 

6 hours ago, The_Omega said:

It shifts the emissions from the car exhaust to the power generation plants' exhaust. The greenhouse gases are still be emitted.

As you increase the share of electric cars on the roads, yes, that transportation number will come down, but the electricity number will go up proportionally to power the increased number of electric cars.

Mitigation strategies (e.g. carbon capture, flaring, etc) are far more efficient when the emissions are centralized vs when they are distributed. 

To phrase it a different way, if you had to treat wastewater contamination of a large body of water, it's much easier to do it at a single centralized source of pollution vs thousands of smaller sources of pollution scattered around the body of water.

2 hours ago, 20dawk4life said:

EV batteries will destroy the world. 

No, they’ll just explode and kill you in a fiery inferno

14 hours ago, Dave Moss said:

If you use more renewable energy sources (wind, solar, etc) over time to generate power and build more fuel-efficient hybrids and electric cars, I fail to see how that could lead to higher emissions.  What am I missing?

 

Quote

 

The numerous casualties of bats at wind turbines (WT) have a negative impact on the populations of affected species and potentially far-reaching consequences for the biodiversity in rural areas. Until now, it could only be assumed that the death of bats had further consequences. Now, a team of scientists from the Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research (Leibniz-IZW) show in a paper in the scientific journal Conservation Science and Practice that natural food chains are interrupted, which can have far-reaching negative consequences for agriculture and forestry. The study demonstrates the extent to which the functional importance of bats for habitats has been underestimated so far.

The scientists at the Leibniz-IZW investigated the prey spectrum of the common noctule (Nyctalus noctula), a common bat species that frequently dies at wind turbines in Germany. By focusing on the insects consumed by the bats, they documented the extent to which their functional importance for habitats is lost.

Carolin Scholz and Christian Voigt from the Leibniz-IZW investigated which insects common noctules consumed shortly before they died at wind turbines. For this purpose, they analysed the stomach contents of 17 common noctules killed at wind turbines. Using PCR amplification and high-throughput sequencing, the scientists searched for the genetic barcodes of the insects consumed by the bats. These genetic barcodes provide information about the identity of the consumed species. "We found DNA barcodes of 46 insect species from nine orders, most of them beetles and moths," says Scholz, first author of the study. "The insect species could be assigned to a variety of different habitats, from farmland and grassland to forests and wetlands." Twenty per cent of the identified insect species are considered pests or a nuisance in agriculture and forestry, for example the chestnut weevil (Curculio elephas) or the chestnut fruit moth (Cydia splendana). The scientists conclude that the loss of bats disrupts existing food chains and could therefore lead to higher numbers of pests and nuisance species, which might be compensated for by chemical pest control. The free ecosystem service of pest reduction by bats is reduced by wind turbines and therefore an emerging problem for agriculture and forestry.

Energy production from wind power undisputedly contributes to reducing CO₂ emissions. Ultimately, the space required for this is large and the ecological side- effects for affected animal groups such as bats and insects are massive. Recently, it was decided to double the land area used for wind energy production in Germany, particularly on agricultural land and in forest monocultures. These ecosystems are already characterised by reduced biodiversity, as they have undergone several waves of intensification over the past centuries, farmland was cleared and cultivation methods towards an increase in harvest optimised. The WTs that are now being installed as part of the energy transition in Germany drive a new wave of intensification.

"We do not know the consequences of this current land use intensification for biodiversity and the resilience of these habitats. This is all the more regrettable because this transformation is currently being carried out on a grand scale in our landscapes," reports Voigt, Head of the Department of Evolutionary Ecology. "We still need to understand in much greater detail which effects the energy transition has on the biological diversity in these habitats. There is no question that the installed wind turbines contribute to the protection of the global climate and thus also to the conservation of biodiversity." On the other hand, it is well known that large numbers of bats die at wind turbines. "The loss of these individuals is often difficult for the populations to buffer, as the affected species have low reproduction rates. Unfortunately, not only do individuals disappear from the landscape, their interactions in complex food webs are also lost," says Scholz.

Counts demonstrate that more than ten bats per year die at each conventionally run wind turbine. This sums to a six-digit number of annual bat fatalities at the 30,000 wind turbines on the mainland in Germany. Newly installed turbines are temporarily shut down during periods of high bat activity to prevent the bats from colliding with the rotor blades. This reduces bat mortality to one or two individuals per year and WT. Tragically, old WTs are still operated without such shutdown rules, and they comprise 75 % of all WTs in Germany. "We have to reckon with more than 200,000 bats per year dying at WTs," says Voigt. "If we continue to tolerate this high number of victims at WTs, fewer and fewer insect pests will be consumed by bats," he concludes. As predators, bats play an important role in the natural regulation of insect populations. The loss of bats and their role in food chains makes ecosystems more vulnerable to disturbances, Voigt and Scholz speculate. More in-depth scientific work is needed to understand the food-web links and the consequences of their disruption more precisely. An important first step towards the conservation of bats and their functional role in their habitats must be a mandatory shutdown of wind turbines during periods of high bat activity, Voigt and Scholz demand. To this end, the approval practice for old wind turbines must be reconsidered. This is the only way to limit the negative consequences of the intensification of land use caused by the energy transition on our ecosystems to a minimum.

 

 

11 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

 

 

Yeah, they also cause cancer…

 

Wind power definitely isn’t perfect. I spent a lot of time reading about the problems with the turbines in Mars Hill, Maine when I lived up there.  Where conservatives lose me, though, is when they make dishonest arguments about the impacts of oil and coal, which both have a long track record of severe environmental consequences.

The bottom line is that there are no free lunches. Well, not until fission. 

3 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

The bottom line is that there are no free lunches. Well, not until fission. 

Well.... get on that, doc!

The latest thing upsetting groups over here is the increased focus on the mining of minerals in the north of Sweden where they are abundant. The mines have a large impact particularly on the indigenous population. The minerals are needed to drive the manufacturing of electric cars and other electronics. 

15 minutes ago, paco said:

Well.... get on that, doc!

Roger paco

25 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

The bottom line is that there are no free lunches. Well, not until fission. 

You mean fusion, Capt Science.

7 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Roger paco

  i'm like 90% sure paco's name is jason, not roger. 

5 minutes ago, mr_hunt said:

  i'm like 90% sure paco's name is jason, not roger. 

Paco is his first name

Pacoapolis is his last name

27 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Roger paco

(Lets pretend you are working for my current client)

 

Done yet?????

19 minutes ago, mr_hunt said:

  i'm like 90% sure paco's name is jason, not roger. 

Whatever you say, Carl

 

14 minutes ago, mikemack8 said:

Paco is his first name

Pacoapolis is his last name

This guy gets it  

2 minutes ago, paco said:

(Lets pretend you are working for my current client)

 

Done yet?????

Done! You can pick it up after dinner tonight.