Analysis: When do electric vehicles become cleaner than gasoline cars?

[GoCougs]

...it's easy to not care about the future I guess when you don't have to worry about the welfare of kids and grandkids...

Don't you have kids? Kids are by definition THE chief global warming crime. Other crimes IIRC you've committed are building a home, have more cars than drivers in the household and owning an gas hog SUV.

Again, you don't believe it, so why should I, esp. that your global warming crimes are literally 10x greater than mine?

[AutobahnSHO]

EVs work great(er) in cities and Europe than the US of A.

My parents in Wyoming drive 70miles to go shopping. There is only one McDonald's in their entire county. Gas cars are where it's out out west!

[FoMoJo]

If by pollution you mean light pollution you are probably right. Its harder to see things in the night sky mainly because of how many lights are on in the cities. Unless you are in a very smoggy city (LA for example) of course, but Toronto never struck me as particularly polluted.

I don't think that it's just light pollution.  No doubt that contributes, but even in the daylight there is a haziness.  The sky is blue in the daytime, but it's not the clear blue of the countryside.

The visible banks of pollution that I used to see as I drove over the top of the city to work are not as evident, it's more like a mist now.  Before, the top of the CN towner was always quite clear but below that, it was a dirty brown haze.  Now the top of the tower is still clear, but the city seems out of focus.  Not a filthy pollution, but pollution none the less.

[Morris Minor]

I don't think that it's just light pollution.  No doubt that contributes, but even in the daylight there is a haziness.  The sky is blue in the daytime, but it's not the clear blue of the countryside.

The visible banks of pollution that I used to see as I drove over the top of the city to work are not as evident, it's more like a mist now.  Before, the top of the CN towner was always quite clear but below that, it was a dirty brown haze.  Now the top of the tower is still clear, but the city seems out of focus.  Not a filthy pollution, but pollution none the less.

The upward-shining light bounces off the particulates in the air and increases the opacity that obscures the night sky. Obviously some of those particulates come from generating the electricity used for this upward-illumination. Pissing money away.

[r0tor]

Don't you have kids? Kids are by definition THE chief global warming crime. Other crimes IIRC you've committed are building a home, have more cars than drivers in the household and owning an gas hog SUV.

Again, you don't believe it, so why should I, esp. that your global warming crimes are literally 10x greater than mine?

So bitter

[FoMoJo]

The upward-shining light bounces off the particulates in the air and increases the opacity that obscures the night sky. Obviously some of those particulates come from generating the electricity used for this upward-illumination. Pissing money away.

The majority of our electricity is from nuclear power (2 large plants in the vicinity) and hydro (Niagara).  The rest is from wind and solar with a small percentage still from natural gas.  No coal anymore.  What lingers in the air is largely from vehicle exhaust, including airplanes.

[GoCougs]

So bitter

Your tenacity for auguring in is astonishing.

[Morris Minor]

Even in their current early iterations, EVs are quite compelling as second cars. Their convenience & hassle-free ease of ownership count for a lot - even for warmism apostates. You'd keep a gasser on hand for long journeys and petrolhead fun.

[CaminoRacer]

Even in their current early iterations, EVs are quite compelling as second cars. Their convenience & hassle-free ease of ownership count for a lot - even for warmism apostates. You'd keep a gasser on hand for long journeys and petrolhead fun.

My garage is all cars that are best as a second vehicle, then

EV, sports car, classic muscle car

[AutobahnSHO]

Even in their current early iterations, EVs are quite compelling as second cars. Their convenience & hassle-free ease of ownership count for a lot - even for warmism apostates. You'd keep a gasser on hand for long journeys and petrolhead fun.

This!

[MrH]

My garage is all cars that are best as a second vehicle, then

EV, sports car, classic muscle car

That's very true.  There are zero basic utility vehicles in your garage.  Admirable, but would drive me nuts to live with I think.

That's kind of where I'm at with EVs too. Great 2nd vehicle...but I'd rather have a sports car as my second car.  Maybe when the girlfriend has a CX-5, I would consider an EV.  The F150 Lightning, S2000, and a CX-5 is really useful 3 car combination.

[CaminoRacer]

That's very true.  There are zero basic utility vehicles in your garage.  Admirable, but would drive me nuts to live with I think.

That's kind of where I'm at with EVs too. Great 2nd vehicle...but I'd rather have a sports car as my second car.  Maybe when the girlfriend has a CX-5, I would consider an EV.  The F150 Lightning, S2000, and a CX-5 is really useful 3 car combination.

Utility is satisfied with either the Bolt or the El Camino with its truck bed.

Roadtrips are really the only time I'm missing a go-to vehicle. Any of the cars can do a trip, but the best car depends on the circumstances & destination.

[MrH]

You don't really have a large, quiet, person/stuff carrying vehicle.  Like a basic sedan or crossover

[MrH]

F150 Lightning prices are strange.  Amazing deal at the low end.  But the price climbs disproportionately with the trim levels.  It's a huge price increase for relatively small amount of options added.  And key things are left out of the lower end specs to try to incentivize you to move up.

[CaminoRacer]

You don't really have a large, quiet, person/stuff carrying vehicle.  Like a basic sedan or crossover

The Bolt is plenty big enough for people carrying, basically the same size as my Mazda6 that used to fill that role. That was one of the reasons we bought it instead of a 2nd gen Volt, since the Volt backseat has no headroom. The Bolt will fit 4 people comfortably and has a decent sized trunk area. It fit a 55" tv in the box with the seats down and I've seen someone get a 65" in there. It's a good size for a 2-3 person roadtrip, but would be a bit cramped for 4 people. I would just rent a car for that.

It's also nice and quiet for commuting. The suspension is a bit stiff and you sit close to the front axle, so you feel bumps more than in the Miata. That + the seats being too narrow and uncomfortable are my biggest complaints with the car. If I could get a brand new 1st gen Mazda6 with the Bolt drivetrain, that would be ideal to me. (and bluetooth + aux for the stereo)

[ChrisV]

Speaking of Bolts and road trips, my wife just made her second stop on her road trip from our house here to her brother's in Greenville, TN. Half hour to go from 20% to 85%. Next stop is at her brother's house. There's actually a DCFC not to far from his house, so she's going to top it off there to drive around with her brother for then next few days before driving home.

[NomisR]

The majority of our electricity is from nuclear power (2 large plants in the vicinity) and hydro (Niagara).  The rest is from wind and solar with a small percentage still from natural gas.  No coal anymore.  What lingers in the air is largely from vehicle exhaust, including airplanes.

In California, we're going in the wrong direction going all out in shutting down Nuclear power plants.. and putting all their eggs in the wind/solar which will have catastrophic consequences due to lack of a safety backup for this.  Peak hours previously was when the factory was operational 1-4 is now 4-9 due to the over reliance on solar.  Of course they're ignoring all the environmental damage from the wind and solar.  If they were to go all in on Nuclear, all of the water problems could easily be solved in the state but it makes too much sense.

https://calmatters.org/commentary/my-turn/2021/05/will-california-keep-the-lights-on-when-diablo-canyon-shuts-down/

[CaminoRacer]

In California, we're going in the wrong direction going all out in shutting down Nuclear power plants.. and putting all their eggs in the wind/solar which will have catastrophic consequences due to lack of a safety backup for this.  Peak hours previously was when the factory was operational 1-4 is now 4-9 due to the over reliance on solar.  Of course they're ignoring all the environmental damage from the wind and solar.  If they were to go all in on Nuclear, all of the water problems could easily be solved in the state but it makes too much sense.

https://calmatters.org/commentary/my-turn/2021/05/will-california-keep-the-lights-on-when-diablo-canyon-shuts-down/

Solar power in Utah is apparently cheaper than nuclear, but nuclear takes less land and can run 24/7 to pick up the slack from solar. I think a solar/wind/nuclear blend is the best option.

[r0tor]

1 nuclear meltdown costs as much as all renewables in the world combined... Ask Japan.

Nuclear plants were all designed around a life expectancy.  They are largely past that life expectancy.

[SJ_GTI]

Solar power in Utah is apparently cheaper than nuclear, but nuclear takes less land and can run 24/7 to pick up the slack from solar. I think a solar/wind/nuclear blend is the best option.

Such a shame that nuclear energy development stalled so much decades ago. The latest small modular nuclear reactor tech stuff seems interesting and seems like it could be an ideal way to go off fossil fuels, but folks (like r0tor) are so scared of it that it might never even get a chance.

[NomisR]

Solar power in Utah is apparently cheaper than nuclear, but nuclear takes less land and can run 24/7 to pick up the slack from solar. I think a solar/wind/nuclear blend is the best option.

I'm not so sure about the winds simply due to the damage it does to the wild life not to mention the waste generated from the turbines..

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turbine-blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills

1 nuclear meltdown costs as much as all renewables in the world combined... Ask Japan.

Nuclear plants were all designed around a life expectancy.  They are largely past that life expectancy.

It's 50 year old nuclear power plant that's built with an even older design that is no longer used and used an older design.  And the thing is, it took a 9.0 earthquake, but didn't do anything.. instead, the predictable tsunami ensued that resulted in the damage.  And the thing is, all of this would have been preventable...

https://carnegieendowment.org/2012/03/06/why-fukushima-was-preventable-pub-47361

[r0tor]

The simple fact is with nuclear plants is "shit eventually happens".  Nobody imagined a 45 foot wave taking out the plant - but it eventually happened.  Nobody imagined at TMI a triple redundant system failing all at once - but it did.

They work great 99.99999% of the time.  Unrecoverable though when something goes wrong.  The longer you operate them and extend the plant life the more likely something goes wrong.

You can't build a nuclear plant today.  They are 30-40x more costly than a similar sized natural gas plant and many multiple times more costly than renewables.  Overhauling one is no cheaper either. 

Take the $8 billion that a new nuclear plant costs, install 400,000 solar roof top systems with battery backup - and poof you have more carbon free energy capacity and it's a microgrid that reduces strain on existing infrastructure.

And better yet, shutdown the nukes asap and avoid an inevitable Fukushima like $80 billion clean up costs and install solar and install 4 million roof top solar systems with energy storage.

[CaminoRacer]

The simple fact is with nuclear plants is "shit eventually happens".  Nobody imagined a 45 foot wave taking out the plant - but it eventually happened.  Nobody imagined at TMI a triple redundant system failing all at once - but it did.

They work great 99.99999% of the time.  Unrecoverable though when something goes wrong.  The longer you operate them and extend the plant life the more likely something goes wrong.

You can't build a nuclear plant today.  They are 30-40x more costly than a similar sized natural gas plant and many multiple times more costly than renewables.  Overhauling one is no cheaper either. 

Take the $8 billion that a new nuclear plant costs, install 400,000 solar roof top systems with battery backup - and poof you have more carbon free energy capacity and it's a microgrid that reduces strain on existing infrastructure.

And better yet, shutdown the nukes asap and avoid a Fukushima like $80 billion clean up costs and install solar and install 4 million roof top solar systems with energy storage.

I recommend reading Bill Gates' new book about climate change. I'm about 70% of the way through it and he explains the reality & feasibility of all of this. Might not be a perfect book, but it puts things into perspective pretty well.

[FoMoJo]

In California, we're going in the wrong direction going all out in shutting down Nuclear power plants.. and putting all their eggs in the wind/solar which will have catastrophic consequences due to lack of a safety backup for this.  Peak hours previously was when the factory was operational 1-4 is now 4-9 due to the over reliance on solar.  Of course they're ignoring all the environmental damage from the wind and solar.  If they were to go all in on Nuclear, all of the water problems could easily be solved in the state but it makes too much sense.

https://calmatters.org/commentary/my-turn/2021/05/will-california-keep-the-lights-on-when-diablo-canyon-shuts-down/

As long as nuclear plants aren't built on fault lines or areas of flooding, and are properly maintained, they're pretty safe.  Fukushima had at least two strikes against it.  The design of Candu reactors are considered among the safest designs.

[GoCougs]

As long as nuclear plants aren't built on fault lines or areas of flooding, and are properly maintained, they're pretty safe.  Fukushima had at least two strikes against it.  The design of Candu reactors are considered among the safest designs.

Thing is, most anywhere on the on planet has multiple strikes - earthquakes, floods, volcanos, hurricanes, tornadoes, war, extreme temps, etc.

I'm gonna go with BFF r0tor here - it all works fine till it doesn't - just two accidents each literally jeopardized the entire planet and laid waste to millions of acres of inhabited land.

Even if global warming was a reality, I can't imagine the calculus that would show it worth the risk.

[NomisR]

Is it really that bad?  Especially if "Climate Change" is actually as bad as they claim..

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/03/11/it-sounds-crazy-but-fukushima-chernobyl-and-three-mile-island-show-why-nuclear-is-inherently-safe/?sh=284459741688

[r0tor]

Yes, an inhabitable area with a 12 mile radius for thousands of years is really that bad

[CaminoRacer]

Yes, an inhabitable area with a 12 mile radius for thousands of years is really that bad

You're ignoring the effects of fossil fuels and everything associated with them. How many lives have they taken and what's the environmental impact? Both are much higher than nuclear

[r0tor]

You're ignoring the effects of fossil fuels and everything associated with them. How many lives have they taken and what's the environmental impact? Both are much higher than nuclear

What does that have to do with  nuclear

[AutobahnSHO]

1 nuclear meltdown costs as much as all renewables in the world combined... Ask Japan.

Nuclear plants were all designed around a life expectancy.  They are largely past that life expectancy.

So build new ones.   

Technology has LEAPED FORWARD in the last 50 years.

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/next-gen-nuclear-plant-and-jobs-are-coming-wyoming