Air pollution rant

[BostLabs]

Except for the current infrastructure. America's grid isn't setup to suddenly go from what we are now to what you want. California, a while back, had rolling black outs. This is lessened today because they get power from their neighboring states. If they would stop closing their power plants they wouldn't have that issue. Of course having your own power plants in your own states makes a lot of sense. That isn't something I've seen from California in a while.

Solar, wind. And other alternate energy sources aren't up to speed yet. The only way you can get close to meeting current energy needs is to have a lot of them. And covering my home state (Arizona) with solar panels isn't the way forward.

BTW; OP, I trust you follow all traffic laws while riding your bike? Almost every cyclist I come across in my car, motorcycle or on foot thinks that those laws do not apply to them.

[lajoswinkler]

The portion of coal power in the US is currently around 37%, down from over 50% just a few years ago, and falling.

Please, do put a valid source on that, because from what I see, that's not correct.

I found this pie chart, derived from Energy Information Administration in USA.

The prognosis is not really promising.

Also, do not neglect the energy required to extract, transport, refine, transport and dispense that petroleum distillate: The US DOE estimates that it takes 7.5KWh of energy (PDF) just to obtain one gallon of gasoline before it even goes into your tank. A competently built electric car can drive as far on that energy alone as a normal car can on that same gallon of gasoline (~26mi).

Every energy source requires an energy input for starting (mining, making equipment), refining, transportation, maintenance, and finally disposal. Fossil fuels make no difference, so I don't really see what's the point of mentioning it as an argument. If anything, I can turn that argument against you, because to make an electric car, you need lots of energy for making its lightweight alloys and magnets for the electric motor inside and you have great power losses over high voltage wires leading from power plants (running mostly on fossil fuels in USA).

This doesn't even touch on the efficiency thing...

...or the urban air quality thing...

And power plants chugging out coal soot are much better? Because that's what will power your car, and those plants will have to work even harder to account for the loses during energy transformation into the chemical energy of your car's lithium battery which is by the way also energy intensive to produce and, as a battery, obviusly a pathetic energy storage system.

Mind that today all cars have catalysts and don't burn coal, but refined petroleum distillates without lead. Air quality in countries which enforce these measures is pretty high even where car traffic is decent.

...or that fact that electrified vehicles amplify the benefits of "greening the grid" making even incremental improvements more significant...

Or, to simplify this: "It is good because someone says it's good". That's a semantically null sentence.

...or the fact that even if an EV is charges entirely on coal power, it is no worst than a Prius in terms of total emissions (PDF)...

NHF, but that's downright crap and a disgusting lie. If you knew any physics you'd know why.

...or the fact that electricity - even coal power - is "American" power whereas a nontrivial portion of our petroleum is still imported (some from countries that don't particularly like us) to the tune of some $130 Billion dollars leaving our economy every year, and that offsetting petroleum use stabilizes our economy a bit by making surges in oil prices hurt just a little less.

That goes for most of the world. USA is dependant on oil wells on Arabic peninsula just as Ireland or Spain or Hungary is. It's also not a valid argument.

Electrifying transportation makes sense every way you slice it.

=Smidge=

Yeah, to people who don't know physics and hve no clue about the energy needs of a nation.

[Krosulhah]

Someone mentioned Transporting Gas as a liquid earlier, in ships, and i just have one point to make on this, (This is a bit off-topic) I was watching some documentary the other day and at some point in it they showed what would happen if a terrorist managed to put a bomb or something on it, First off the containers of the gas would break, the pressure falling and the Liquid turning back to gas and then expanding all over port/City it was going into, then Ignite and cause severe damage to said Port/City.

Now, im not saying that there are such things happening, i was just pointing out a possible danger with Natural gases.

(Quite an off topic point though, No angry responses against me please.)

[lajoswinkler]

Someone mentioned Transporting Gas as a liquid earlier, in ships, and i just have one point to make on this, (This is a bit off-topic) I was watching some documentary the other day and at some point in it they showed what would happen if a terrorist managed to put a bomb or something on it, First off the containers of the gas would break, the pressure falling and the Liquid turning back to gas and then expanding all over port/City it was going into, then Ignite and cause severe damage to said Port/City.

Now, im not saying that there are such things happening, i was just pointing out a possible danger with Natural gases.

(Quite an off topic point though, No angry responses against me please.)

The gas would ignite shortly, still in the port. There are lots of ignition sources there, so you'd get lots of localized fire and then essentially something like this

but a lot bigger.

Firefighters would just have to wait for it to burn out completely.

The greatest danger would be if such containers would be intact inside fire, or if a tank is breached and its fiery blaze is heating a neighbour tank. Google BLEVE, you'll see.

[Krosulhah]

You have a good point there, I watched the thing a few days ago, so i cant remember the exact thing, but yeah, it would end up like that, I'll see if i can find the thing i was watching so i can see how the simulation they had running ended up like the one i mentioned.

EDIT: Couldn't find it, anywho i made a possible point that was fairly offtopic, and i'm not gonna say anything more as most of this is way above my understanding.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Krosulhah

[Smidge204]

Please, do put a valid source on that, because from what I see, that's not correct.

My apologies. Here you go:

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3

Coal has largely been supplanted by Natural Gas. The "fracking boom" has caused the cost of natural gas to plummet, and with aging coal plants it's more economical to convert them to or replace them with natural gas plants. The rate at which this has been happening is quite alarming in some circles.

Every energy source requires an energy input for starting (mining, making equipment), refining, transportation, maintenance, and finally disposal. Fossil fuels make no difference, so I don't really see what's the point of mentioning it as an argument.

Because for fossil fuels, it's an ongoing expense that is a very significant portion of the energy you get to use at the end of it. If you're going to include things like cost of manufacturing windmills and solar panels, then please do include the cost of oil rigs, tanker ships, pipeline networks, refineries, fleets of trucks, storage depots, etc... since that would all be rightfully included in the total cost of utilizing that resource.

If anything, I can turn that argument against you, because to make an electric car, you need lots of energy for making its lightweight alloys and magnets for the electric motor inside and you have great power losses over high voltage wires leading from power plants (running mostly on fossil fuels in USA).

And power plants chugging out coal soot are much better?

Because that's what will power your car, and those plants will have to work even harder to account for the loses during energy transformation into the chemical energy of your car's lithium battery which is by the way also energy intensive to produce and, as a battery, obviusly a pathetic energy storage system.

You know how I know you didn't read the second PDF I linked to?

Mind that today all cars have catalysts and don't burn coal, but refined petroleum distillates without lead. Air quality in countries which enforce these measures is pretty high even where car traffic is decent.

Have you ever been outside? Ever? Are you seriously going to propose that modern cars cause zero pollution just because they have catalytic converters and burn unleaded fuel?

Or, to simplify this: "It is good because someone says it's good". That's a semantically null sentence.

Contrariwise, "It's bad because someone says it's bad" is just as vacuous. Oddly, only one of us seems to have actually done more than a Google image search in support of their position...

That goes for most of the world. USA is dependant on oil wells on Arabic peninsula just as Ireland or Spain or Hungary is. It's also not a valid argument.

You're correct - it's not a valid argument that USA is dependent on oil just as Ireland or Spain or Hungary. In fact it's wholly irrelevant what Ireland or Spain or Hungary are dependent on. What matters to the US economy is what the US is dependent on, and we can only improve our standing by decoupling ourselves as much as possible from the international oil market. Ireland, Spain, and Hungary can benefit in their own ways through their own actions.

Yeah, to people who don't know physics and hve no clue about the energy needs of a nation.

You're adorable. My master's thesis was on Stirling Cycle engines, and I'm a mechanical engineer by profession with ties to the private energy sector. What about you? I can only assume, given your confidence and assertiveness on the subject, that you are actually Steven Chu himself.

=Smidge=

[Seret]

You're adorable. My master's thesis was on Stirling Cycle engines, and I'm a mechanical engineer by profession with ties to the private energy sector. What about you? I can only assume, given your confidence and assertiveness on the subject, that you are actually Steven Chu himself.

And this, ladies and gentlemen is the forum equivalent of the bodyslam off the top rope. Can the unfortunate slamee come back from this? Watch this space...

[dr_jt]

Because for fossil fuels, it's an ongoing expense that is a very significant portion of the energy you get to use at the end of it. If you're going to include things like cost of manufacturing windmills and solar panels, then please do include the cost of oil rigs, tanker ships, pipeline networks, refineries, fleets of trucks, storage depots, etc... since that would all be rightfully included in the total cost of utilizing that resource.

The manufacturing of windmills and solar panels requires quite a bit of fossil fuel so you would have to include the cost oil rigs, tanker ships, pipeline networks, refineries, fleets of trucks and storage depots. The manufacturing of windmills and solar panels is also not very green. Disposal of batteries and components for all the green tech is also a problem.

[Smidge204]

The manufacturing of windmills and solar panels requires quite a bit of fossil fuel so you would have to include the cost oil rigs, tanker ships, pipeline networks, refineries, fleets of trucks and storage depots. The manufacturing of windmills and solar panels is also not very green. Disposal of batteries and components for all the green tech is also a problem.

Sure. One question is if these items offset (or could offset) enough petroleum use to make up for their own manufacturing costs within their useful lifetime. This cost is also a one-time investment - once you build the solar panel, it's good for 30+ years (most manufacturers warranty their panel's output for 30 years now!) At the end of life, they can be recycled almost entirely. Ditto with wind turbines.

As for disposal of batteries - it's called recycling. If you toss your batteries into the trash then you're the problem, not the batteries.

As for how green they are, if they are greener than what we have now then it's worth doing. There's an old joke about this...

The big problem is quantifying all the externalized damage something does. Should be include the health care costs associated with lifelong smog exposure and water contamination? Should be include the cost - material and human - of wars fought over resources? If so, how would we quantify these things? I don't know!

These are a interesting questions/aspects which I have no solid answer for. Bottom line is, I think we can do a lot better than the status quot, and I refuse to be paralyzed into doing nothing for lack of a perfect solution.

I think it's pretty clear, though, that the damage and cost of what we do now is staggeringly huge:

All that light is coming from North Dakota. You know what's in North Dakota? Nothing! That light is all from burning natural gas. The fracking boom has made methane so cheap it's not economically feasible to try to capture it, so they burn it as soon as it comes out of the ground. Thousands of flaming gas wells. We've literally set North Dakota on fire, and it's visible from space.

=Smidge=

[lajoswinkler]

My apologies. Here you go:

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3

Coal has largely been supplanted by Natural Gas. The "fracking boom" has caused the cost of natural gas to plummet, and with aging coal plants it's more economical to convert them to or replace them with natural gas plants. The rate at which this has been happening is quite alarming in some circles.

Ok, so it says: "About 68% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuel (coal, natural gas, and petroleum), with 37% attributed from coal."

Is the negative trend on coal an observable inevitability or a fluctuation? Somehow I don't think it will change fast, we'll see.

Because for fossil fuels, it's an ongoing expense that is a very significant portion of the energy you get to use at the end of it. If you're going to include things like cost of manufacturing windmills and solar panels, then please do include the cost of oil rigs, tanker ships, pipeline networks, refineries, fleets of trucks, storage depots, etc... since that would all be rightfully included in the total cost of utilizing that resource.

By all means, I agree everything should be included, and I'm quite sure the cost in money and energy is way higher for solar panels than for coal.

It's an energy intensive process, uses heavy metals, blah blah, we all know the story (I hope), and its energy density is ridiculous.

You know how I know you didn't read the second PDF I linked to?

No, but I wouldn't ask from anyone to read a report full of tables. I'd point out a think in the report, though. That would be decent to ask. I don't come here to analyze reports of anyone.

Have you ever been outside? Ever? Are you seriously going to propose that modern cars cause zero pollution just because they have catalytic converters and burn unleaded fuel?

Please cite where I said "zero pollution". I'm eager to find out.

Contrariwise, "It's bad because someone says it's bad" is just as vacuous. Oddly, only one of us seems to have actually done more than a Google image search in support of their position...

I haven't used Google, but Wikipedia, and looked for references which linked to EIA. Those diagrams are visual representations of EIA's data tables.

You're correct - it's not a valid argument that USA is dependent on oil just as Ireland or Spain or Hungary. In fact it's wholly irrelevant what Ireland or Spain or Hungary are dependent on. What matters to the US economy is what the US is dependent on, and we can only improve our standing by decoupling ourselves as much as possible from the international oil market. Ireland, Spain, and Hungary can benefit in their own ways through their own actions.

You're adorable. My master's thesis was on Stirling Cycle engines, and I'm a mechanical engineer by profession with ties to the private energy sector. What about you? I can only assume, given your confidence and assertiveness on the subject, that you are actually Steven Chu himself.

=Smidge=

You can claim whatever you want, I don't have to believe you and I certainly won't share my private information on a gaming forum.

I must admit that I find funny to see how many mechanical engineers and engineers in general fail to understand the science behind energetics. It's always an engineer, rarely a scientist. I guess that's because they're taught to think "how to?" and not "why is?".

It seems like I'm defending fossil fuel energy industry here, which I'm totally not. I'm just saying that it's a painfully obvious fact that if your country's main electricity sources are fossil fuels (68% in USA - your source), going all electrical on roads would produce more pollution simply because that's adding an extra energy transformation link. It's painfully simple and no greenwashed propaganda will convince me otherwise.

Once the country is powered by low carbon footprint source like nuclear (France), we can talk about electric cars. Until then, living in Fossilville and using electric cars made by high polluting industrial centers in China is a way to delude yourself you're making a difference.

BTW you don't have to sign your every post. This is a forum, there's your nickname above your avatar, all neatly packed in a post border.

This cost is also a one-time investment - once you build the solar panel, it's good for 30+ years (most manufacturers warranty their panel's output for 30 years now!)

Oh, keep dreaming. 30 years of sun, rain, wind, snow, sun rain, wind, snow. That is not going to happen.

And those lead batteries, they're awesome. Very green.

Edited November 1, 2013 by lajoswinkler

[Seret]

It seems like I'm defending fossil fuel energy industry here, which I'm totally not. I'm just saying that it's a painfully obvious fact that if your country's main electricity sources are fossil fuels (68% in USA - your source), going all electrical on roads would produce more pollution simply because that's adding an extra energy transformation link. It's painfully simple and no greenwashed propaganda will convince me otherwise.

Once the country is powered by low carbon footprint source like nuclear (France), we can talk about electric cars. Until then, living in Fossilville and using electric cars made by high polluting industrial centers in China is a way to delude yourself you're making a difference.

Prove it then, show us some numbers to support your point.

[Nuke]

i dont think the electric cars are as bad as you think they are. sure you need more power plants to burn fossil fuels, coal, etc. but those power plants are required by law to control their emissions and probibly can do so more efficiently than in a vehicle. an internal combustion engine can only get about 25% of the energy out of the gasoline. in a power plant you can better capture and utilize some of the 75% that turns to waste heat, something that would be difficult in a vehicle. removal of heavy equipment from vehicles (such as engines, radiators, exhaust systems, fuel itself and its tanks), which also reduces the structural needs of the vehicle, as a result of both you get a much lighter vehicle which means less energy to get the same performance.

safety kinda becomes an issue because a heavy car is a safe car. but as more vehicles reduce their overall weight things will normalize once again. heavy vehicles can be reduced in number as well, trucks can be replaced by high speed rail in high traffic zones to help reduce fatalities from collisions between heavy and light vehicles (thats ignoring the fact that heavy vehicles are usually driven by professional drivers and so are trained to be safer, at least in theory).

then you have all those areas where there are nuclear plants, hydro, solar, wind, etc, which can recharge cars just fine. we get much of our power from hydro, so electric cars are very popular here. people say they pay less in electricity than they would at the pump. it also sets up our infrastructure for a transition to nuclear and when the time is right, fusion power plants.

i have a feeling that electric cars overall would be more efficient and even more cost effective and friendlier to the environment that what we are using now. even using currently established power plants. battery tech is currently the issue, we need an environmentally friendly battery of similar performance and weight to lithium ion that doesn't explode when not treated right.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Nuke

[Smidge204]

Is the negative trend on coal an observable inevitability or a fluctuation? Somehow I don't think it will change fast, we'll see.

It's dropped ~10% in 3 years. Those coal plants are gone for good - decommissioned or converted. They're not coming back.

and I'm quite sure the cost in money and energy is way higher for solar panels than for coal.

In terms of $/megawatt-hour over the lifespan of the equipment, you're right. The levelized cost of coal is half that of solar. Unfortunately for your "electric cars are powered by coal" argument, coal power is four times more expensive than natural gas.

It's an energy intensive process, uses heavy metals, blah blah, we all know the story (I hope), and its energy density is ridiculous.

Also true. Ironically most of the energy use in PV construction is in the form of electricity... if only there was a way to obtain electricity in an environmentally responsible fashion...

As for heavy metals... it was you who argued against coal for reasons including heavy metal emissions. You think you'd be happy that coal use is on the decline.

However, PV production is still vastly cleaner than coal power.

No, but I wouldn't ask from anyone to read a report full of tables. I'd point out a think in the report, though. That would be decent to ask. I don't come here to analyze reports of anyone.

So you admit that you have not reviewed the references I provided, deciding that reading is much harder than making a fool of yourself. That's your choice, I suppose.

I haven't used Google, but Wikipedia, and looked for references which linked to EIA. Those diagrams are visual representations of EIA's data tables.

Just as lazy, just as wrong. If you tried a little harder and searched for yourself instead of relying on someone else's Wikipedia contribution, you would have found the most recent data and realized you were wrong. You didn't even bother to read the Wikipedia page, because if you did you would have found your way to the references section which lead you to the EIA site that has up-to-date data.

The basic principle of research is you have to put in a little effort to track information back to the actual source, or as close as you can reasonably get. Repeat after me: "Wikipedia is not a primary source."

I must admit that I find funny to see how many mechanical engineers and engineers in general fail to understand the science behind energetics. It's always an engineer, rarely a scientist. I guess that's because they're taught to think "how to?" and not "why is?".

So are you implying that you're a scientist? You're certainly not an engineer, because it seems you're also not very well informed about how engineering works. Or how science works. I must admit that I find funny to see how many random people on internet feel they know more than everyone else even after being shown that their premises and assertions are wrong.

It seems like I'm defending fossil fuel energy industry here, which I'm totally not. I'm just saying that it's a painfully obvious fact that if your country's main electricity sources are fossil fuels (68% in USA - your source), going all electrical on roads would produce more pollution simply because that's adding an extra energy transformation link. It's painfully simple and no greenwashed propaganda will convince me otherwise.

There's a lot going on in this short excerpt. First and foremost, you've transformed your original argument from "coal power" to "fossil fuels" - but all your objections so far have been specifically about coal. Now that I've demonstrated that coal is not as significant as you originally asserted, and becoming more irrelevant every year, you've tried to alter your argument to include ALL fossil fuels.

If you want to include natural gas, you're going to have to abandon all your stated arguments about emissions because they no longer apply.

The second thing you're trying to do here is a little bit of well poisoning; "greenwashed propaganda" eh? I'm glad you straight-up admitted that you are not interested in facts or honest discussion. Now I can stop wasting my time with you.

Until then, living in Fossilville and using electric cars made by high polluting industrial centers in China is a way to delude yourself you're making a difference.

So you STILL haven't read that report I linked to? How many times are you going do this to yourself?

Also, most parts for EVs sold in the US are made in the US, Japan (Panasonic) and South Korea (LG Chem). Not China.

BTW you don't have to sign your every post. This is a forum, there's your nickname above your avatar, all neatly packed in a post border.

Oh, keep dreaming. 30 years of sun, rain, wind, snow, sun rain, wind, snow. That is not going to happen.

And those lead batteries, they're awesome. Very green.

Solar panels from the 1970s are still producing power. Manufacturers are offering warranties on their panel's output for 30 years. Typically it's 80% - peak power for their product will not be less than 80% rated power for 30 years. Why do you suppose manufacturers have more confidence in their product than you do?

Not sure what lead batteries had to do with anything... are you suggesting that electric cars use lead batteries? Could it be you are branching out into even more ways to embarrass yourself? Lead batteries are some of the most successfully recycled things ever, BTW.

=Smidge=

[Custard Donut (In Space)]

When will the petroleum age end?

Short answer: in 52.9 years.

[source]

Long answer: At current levels of reserves and production, 52.9 years. This time would get longer if proven reserves went up, or production went down, and vice versa. In reality as reserves shrink the price will go up and this will restrict demand, so you could find that the R/P ratio stayed in the same 40-50 years range it's been hovering at for a while.

That's terrible but i'l be dead before then, Woohoo! I mean...that's terrible.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Custard Donut (In Space)

[iDan122]

I actually wish cars were never invented, they pollute the atmosphere so hard that Earth will be unhabitable in approx. 100years. Why can't we jus walk places? I don that've a car and I'm fine. If I had the money I'd buy myself a nice Tesla and a small solar station.

[Aghanim]

Its all come down to simple energy density

We need huge amount of nuclear fission/fusion reactor and a way to store that energy in compact size