pjknibbs wrote: ↑Sat, 17. Aug 19, 05:19
Sorry, but that's absolute cobblers. For a start, if you look at the breakdown of how the US generates its electricity, coal accounts for only just over a quarter (source:
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3). You actually generate more than a third from nuclear and renewables.
Yes, I'm aware of that chart, it's the very same one I used to based my number on. I think I was pretty accurate since I was writing the value in fractional, or are you really call it's cobblers based on a few percentage points? Also please note that the number of coal is only this low because Obama basically spent 8 years trying to force choke it. We have no idea now that Trump released the hold, where it gonna be in a few years again is anyone guess.
Also look at this:
https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CO#tabs-4
From the same website, you can look at where the power from my state (Colorado) come from. Just to quote the specific message if the graph wasn't clear enough:
Over half of Colorado's electricity comes from coal-fired power plants,. And just to note, this not because we're a bunch of reckless environmental denial, Colorado is a Blue leaning state and we had make big gain in term of renewable energy. In fact, I'm fairly sure we have some of the most stringent air quality laws in the US. But that chart is "reality".
Also another reality check here, don't let that number about Green energy gain make you feel too good. Although it's certainly a reason for me to be proud of, quite a few of that contributed through "stat padding". When the 30% law went to effect, utility companies didn't know how to comply with it. So they come up with the idea of throwing out rebate/supplement to residents to install solar panel on our rooftop just so they can meet the state regulation, in another word: a few of that percentage point wasn't really infrastructure.
Secondly, power stations can be run at the point where they are most efficient at turning heat energy into useful work quite easily, whereas internal combustion engines usually have a fairly narrow rev range at which they're most efficient and it's practically impossible to keep them running in that sweet spot at all times, so overall efficiency of the ICE in a car will be lower.
Thirdly, power stations being large stationary structures means it's possible to build a lot of scrubbing technology into them in order to clean up the exhaust that simply isn't possible on a small, mobile thing like a car.
Your second point depends on a lot of variables: such as how old is the power plants, what type of coal it is burning, and what is the efficiency of the cars in question. To give you an idea, here is the list of the current coal fired plants in Colorado:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... n_Colorado
Notice how old those Coal plants are? Also notice despite contributing half of the state power, they represent the smallest head count?
Now let's talk about car efficiency. I don't know much about the European market aside from Dieselgate, but in the US the term "fuel efficient cars" translated into "stay away from American car and get an Asian made". Now most people even outside of the US probably know about how Detroit went belly up during the last recession, but most also general contribute it to simply the economy down turn, the real reason is deeper than that. For years American company only chased after big but fuel efficiency car while pretty much ignore investment into the fuel economy market, the Asian manufacture pretty much dominated this section. When the recession happened, people tied their budget including the fuel budget so naturally they looked at other option, the American companies tried to switch their model only to realize they were about a couple "decades" behind in term of making a fuel efficient car. Naturally, they couldn't compete and collapsed while companies like Honda, Toyota, Kia, Nissan thrived. I don't know what kind of presence they have in the European market, I would suggest not to underestimate the gasoline efficient car in the US, especially when they also comply with a stricter standard here. When European spent the last few decade jerking off to Diesel and the American embracing power, Asian had been invested all that time in creating fuel efficiency cars. When I moved from a Chevrolet sedan to a Hyundai SUV, I end up using far less fuel.
Your third point is more like ... wishful thinking. Sure, if we're talking about SOA coal power plants running on 'clean' coal in relative to bad car. But if you want to extrapolation the point, then here is a case study for you: going back to the Colorado chart, it wasn't that bad (50% on coal) until recently. You know what made it like that now?
Demand
After becoming the first state legalized pot, we received explosive population growth, so much that in one year we actually topped the US in term of how fast we grow (overtook Chicago). And guess who made the come back to meet that demand? Coal! My argument wasn't simply my own opinion, you can search for several researches for the cleanness of electric car when taking the macro elements of the economy into account. I'll give you the summary in the below quote, but look it up if you want the detail:
Assuming you get your wish, and everyone switch to hybrid/electric car, then what? The demand for energy will skyrocket, and where will the extra energy will come from to meet such demand?
Simply put, it won't come from Clean energy, not even nuclear power can possible meet it, and there is only one possible answer: fossil fuel. Which means it will just be a zero sum game. As always, it helps not to look at a problem in a limited view. I stand by what I say, no matter you think it "absolute cobblers" or not. Although being an American, I don't know much about that term.