The Temple of VTEC - Honda and Acura Enthusiasts Online Forums > Honda Soltec Begins Sales of New Residential-use Solar Cell Module >

danielgr wrote:
owequitit wrote:
CanTex wrote:
gofast182 wrote:
owequitit wrote:
Honda44 wrote:

CanTex wrote:
And then there's the coal-powered Volt. Likely to be charged overnight when the winds are calm and there's no sun. This is a good way to goad a greenie - inform them where the Volt's power comes from.

This argument is a bit disingenuous in my opinion. Why exactly is a Volt (hear the argument for full electrics as well) attributed the emissions upstream of the vehicle? Last time I checked, the emission factors of the Honda Accord I am driving did not factor in the emissions of the Kenworth delivering the gasoline, or the hydrocracker, or the super tanker delivering the crude so why is an alternative technology saddled with the emissions loop and conventional cars are not?

It is not as disingenuous as you are portraying. The emmissions of that Kenworth etc are figured into the CO2 figures.

While they ultimately will be also figured into the powerplant emmissions to charge the Volt, there is a disconnect to how they are being advertised.

The Volt is being advertised as reducing the emmissions, when the Accord is not necessarily being billed as such. The other problem is that while the Kenworth does produce waste, the powerplants produce more.

But again, the problem is in the PERCEPTION that the Volt is not making as much waste because it plugs into the grid, when the reality is that it is, it just isn't being created at the car's tailpipe.

Yes and no. I mean you're right in the sense that perception is different for the Volt but the reality is you're either running off of the 'coal' grid or let's not forget about its petrol-burning ICE. Either way it's consuming fossil fuel and is responsible for some level of emissions; more than the EPA numbers will have you believe.

Good healthy discussions here. Can't remember where I saw it, maybe here, that ZEV vehicles are really DEVs. Something like Displaced Emissions, as in, not zero emissions but the emissions were generated somewhere else.

If we're having trouble putting in the infrastructure to transmit electricity from the far-away wind farms now, think of the infrastructure requirements for electric car recharging, and other tasks like late-at-night clothes drying etc. (Think smart meters and daytime cost penalties). I can see more coal plants, unfortunately, until "they" can get their heads out of, well, you know, and build more nuclear capacity.

That is a good way to look at it.

1) The Volt has an ICE which wills still produce CO2 emmissions every time it runs. Although it is a smaller engine running at a fairly constant load, it will still emit CO2 at a rate consistent with its displacement and load, i.e. like a small power ICE car.

2) Powerplants might produce electricity more efficiently on a total scale, but they achieve that by producing huge amounts of power. They are not able to rapidly change output in relation to demand, which means they have to ramp up over several hours, and then ramp down over several hours, but the output must ALWAYS be greater than the demand. So when you start looking at the efficiency losses associated with revving a bunch of powerplants up, and then back down, repeatedly, and look at the production curve in relation to the demand curves, we are going to waste a shit ton of electricity, which means we are going to be producing literally megatons of CO2 that we didn't need to. The ICE may be less efficient on a per unit basis, but frankly, it is only producing what it needs to, which the ability to change with instant demand changes. Assuming that the power plants will be more efficient, assumes that they output at a rate exactly as demand, but they don't.

It is a fundamental misunderstanding about how the system works that leads people to believe such claims of "more efficiency per unit," etc. When used as intended yes, when considering huge changes in demand, etc. the picture is far less rosey.

Without a power infrastructure that produces clean energy (Nuclear, solar, wind or hydroelectric), it doesn't make any more sense to plug cars in than it does to just put gas in the tank. We are burning heavier fuels, in larger quantities with less flexibility otherwise. It just doesn't add up. Not to mention that in addition to the CO2, coal has all sorts of other emmissions (like particulates etc) that our current gas engines don't. Unfortunately, the only one of those listed alternative sources that is always reliable, and has the least environmental impact is the nuclear option, which US greenies don't want to talk about.

Also, to claim that the Kenworth isn't figured into the math is misleading. It is figured into our fuel usage figures (check the iea.doe.gov website) and is thus worked into our annual CO2 outputs.

So until the greenies get real about talking about feasible solutions, feasible courses of action, and technology that does more than make them PERCEIVE that they are doing something good, I am going to continue to adamantly agree to disagree. They are currently pushing an agenda that is just as senseless as the people they attack.
I'm sorry owequitit, and I won't argue long because unfortunately I don't have the time for it, but in short:

I don't know how shitty is the US electricity transport grid, or US powerplants are, but :
- your vision of a car's engine is completely idealistic, and your engine is rarely being used at its optimum efficiency point. Every time you change the load and every time you push the throttle a little bit more than the minimum you are losing efficiency. In the end, what you talk about is not its "peak efficiency", it's "the average one". Same thing goes for powerplants, and where I come from they are much better than any ICE engine for a very simple reason : "they made their business out of it".

- most cars like the Volt or any electric car will be charged at night, which actually will help the grid into generating more constant power, and if anything, could reduce the loses you were talking about. Again, if it's not the case, I sure hope price policies and governments do what it's needed for it to be that way, 'cause it's how it makes more sense.

- a car a Prius or any IMA use their ICE engine to charge the batteries, but they always do it near its optimum efficiency point, then get the electric motor to drive the car to avoid bad ICE regimes as much as possible. By doing so, those cars get way better fuel efficiency than regular ICE cars (it's far from being just about regen braking), so for sure they are emitting less CO2 (and you don't charge a Prius or an IMA). In a car like the Volt it will only get better, because it's always going to use the ICE at its best.

Now you may argue whether the gain is worth the price premium, you may argue if they really represent a solution for global transportation needs or simply a wealthy greenies gadget, but they do emit less CO2 any way you'd like to do an LCA in most developed countries around the world.

If that's not the case of the US (because of your electricity production), then you should not only consider upgrading your cars to more efficient ones (like the rest of developed countries do), you should also seriously consider upgrading your powerplants & grid to some newer and better designs (like the rest of the developed countries do).