[forgotpwtomain]

> environment as well

It's not going to do anything great for the environment and we've been over this on previous Tesla threads (years ago). Driving electric cars instead of hybrids in areas where the electricity is primarily derived from unclean sources is not better than hybrids for the environment.

[heygrady]

> Driving electric cars where the electricity is from unclean sources is not better than hybrids for the environment

Some of the widely reported research about the power generation and electric cars is flawed [1]. Electric vehicles and hybrids come out about even in the worst markets, like Missouri [2]. But nearly everywhere else, an electric vehicle is better for the environment. People don't always consider that the electric grid is moving away from coal [3], which means your electric car will get greener during the time you own it without you having to upgrade it.

[1] http://midwestenergynews.com/2016/04/20/minnesota-study-chal...

[2] http://blog.ucsusa.org/rachael-nealer/gasoline-vs-electric-g...

[3] http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2016/08/renewab...

[smilekzs]

Unclean power plants are still vastly more efficient than the most efficient internal combustion engines. That's why trains are electric wherever possible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_locomotive

[wott]

> Unclean power plants are still vastly more efficient than the most efficient internal combustion engines.

I don't think so.

> That's why trains are electric wherever possible.

1. Thing is, you don't have to refuel electric locomotives, so that saves time and logistics. Unless you plan to install a pantograph on the roof of your Tesla, you still have to refuel it.

2. Unlike cars, diesel locomotives do not use any kind of direct transmission anyway, they generate electricity from Diesel engines to power electric motors. Because unlike cars, they have to transmit huge power and torque to make the first wheels turns, and mechanical transmissions are not good for that, but electric engines are. So since they use electric engines anyway, why not power them from electrical energy instead of diesel? That's why locomotives are electrical wherever possible.

[Coincoin]

You don't think so? Is that your opinion or a fact?

Most calculations I've seen seem to conclude electric are more CO2 efficient per mile; from 2 to 9 times depending on which state is producing the power.

[bkanber]

> Unclean power plants are still vastly more efficient than the most efficient internal combustion engines.

I'm an automotive engineer specializing in hybrid vehicle powertrains. Published and everything.

As of two years ago the only country in the world where the power source makes an EV not worthwhile, well-to-wheel emissions-wise, was India. Every other country in the world has clean enough power production to make EV cars an environmental net positive.

And I believe India's power is getting much cleaner over the next few years, so it may not be the case much longer.

[toephu2]

Side topic: just curious what powers Caltrains's trains?

[knappe]

And everyone said that of the Prius too. And now we have fully electric cars. You have to start somewhere or you get nowhere.

[j6m8]

The important distinction is that this abstracts the "cleanliness" away from the individual. Replacing one coal plant with a wind plant, for instance, is far more easily done than waiting for all affected consumers to replace their cars.

[bkanber]

> Driving electric cars instead of hybrids in areas where the electricity is primarily derived from unclean sources is not better than hybrids for the environment.

As of two years ago the only country where that was the case was India. Right before that, South Africa and China both became clean enough for EVs to be an environmental net positive.

Power produced in the US is some of the cleanest in the world, and getting cleaner every day as coal plants are decommissioned. We are well above the environmental net benefit line.

> Driving electric cars instead of hybrids in areas where the electricity is primarily derived from unclean sources is not better than hybrids for the environment.

There are no longer significant areas where this is the case. Even most coal markets in the US are clean enough (not sure what will happen with new de-regulations). The US, on average, is by far clean enough.

Source: I'm a hybrid vehicle powertrain engineer

[kriro]

The entire clean energy argument depends on your classification of nuclear energy. Long term storage issues put it squarely in the unclean category for me so I'd argue that US energy is by and large pretty unclean. I'm also pricing in the expected value of meltdowns in my unclean rating. It's hard to quantify exactly but the black swan events have pretty catastrophic consequences for the environment. Since I've witnessed two very severe ones in my lifetime, one in what many people would call a technically very advanced country I don't think it's unreasonable. If you think that's tinfoilhat-crazy, fell free to talk to an insurance or reinsurance company about insuring nuclear plants fur a fon conversation.

[bkanber]

Nuclear power is only 20% of US energy production.

Nuclear waste is a political problem, not a scientific or engineering one. We're not allowed to recycle it the way we want. Blame President Carter.

Coal power puts more radiation into the atmosphere than nuclear does.

You have no idea how to "price" the cost of meltdowns into your "unclean" rating. TMI's incident did not have any effect on public safety.

I don't think it's tinfoil-hat-crazy, I just think it's uninformed.

[kriro]

Just to clarify. the two incidents I was referring to were Chernobyl and Fukushima (as they are INES 7). The Three Mile you mention was "only" INES 5. I'd argue it's still pretty bad but INES 7 is what I'd consider the black swan events.

[Qwertious]

>Driving electric cars instead of hybrids in areas where the electricity is primarily derived from unclean sources is not better than hybrids for the environment.

ICE cars are far less efficient than fossil-fuel power plants, due to the weight/size restraints of a car-engine form-factor. Given this, electric cars actually do emit less energy than cars that burn fossil fuels.

But frankly, you're looking at this the wrong way - most electric cars are at the start of their life, and have at least 10 years' worth of use, if not 20 or more. Given that renewables will inevitably become a major portion of the electricity grid within 10 years (and realistically, almost certainly within 5), they'll become more efficient in the future, and make renewables reduce even more CO2 emissions, since they're punting petrol away, too.

[m_mueller]

as you indicated - this depends on where you live - and if you're ready to just fix the problem yourself with solar power. Stating that it won't help is IMO misleading - Tesla is basically offering you all the missing tools to carry a high energy American lifestyle towards being carbon neutral. The footprint you missed in terms of consumed goods or at home, could be compensated by buying CO2 certificates.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16K4gNhy_AN8Eg4Ov3z7p...

[MattRix]

Not better in the short term, but still better in the long term, as it leads to greater adoption of electric cars, etc.

[colordrops]

What would you propose instead?

[karussell]

Instead of the battery the less toxic way would be hydrogen based engines.

[colordrops]

How would you make the hydrogen though? Does it suffer the same criticism as your original comment?