Climate Impacts - No extremism will be tolerated!

DevSecOps

Well-Known Member
First Name
Todd
Joined
Sep 22, 2021
Messages
1,102
Reaction score
2,154
Location
Sacramento, CA
Vehicles
2021 Audi SQ5 / 2021 Mach-E GTPE
Occupation
IT Infastructure Security / Software Development
Country flag
FIRST AND FOREMOST:
I am creating this thread to challenge ideas and to have a creative discussion using facts. I intend for this to be an educational experience (high hopes, I know).

RULES REGARDING FACTS:
Every data point should be backed with factual evidence of the claim (as reasonably as possible). Facts are not posts by media outlet pundits. Facts should not from far left or far right outlets. So nothing from WaPo, Vox, Breitbart, etc, etc. Cite your sources!!! If you disagree with a source say why. It's ok to disagree and it's ok to hypothesize and ask questions, just try to take a balanced approach.

RULES REGARDING POLITICS:
I will flag every comment for removal that is biased and non-fact based solely for the purpose of pushing political agendas. This applies to all sides. If you want to start a thread about politics go do that. This isn't the thread for it and I hope the forum moderators will honor these rules.

SOLAR:
The argument of "solar" is not to be used unless it's regarding grid power. Yes, if you charge during the day using a solar array, we get it... This isn't a thread about solar and it's impacts which is a completely different subject and argument regarding ROI on it's footprint, farming materials and destruction/chemical impact.

THE TOPIC:
Are EV's really the answer to a lower carbon footprint?

The Government provides a website to check your carbon footprint of EV's, also known as "beyond tailpipe emissions". The MME GTPE, which I have, uses power which amounts to 200g/mi based on energy production throughout the ENTIRE day (cited). It's important to note that it's the entire day because if you only charge at night, that number goes up significantly due to the decrease in green energy production. Do you think this website accounts for line loss and EVSE loss?

What I've always found astonishing is that it's almost impossible to find g/mi numbers for gas/ICE vehicles. Why aren't these numbers published like the EV numbers are? My guess is because if you look at the ones published by some of the mfgs you'll see that higher mpg vehicles can achieve 50g/mi in emissions (cited). Of course there's other impacts such as refinement and drilling etc that one could argue and boiling a number down to a gallon seems hard to find. Additionally, since we derive NG and LPG from refinement how much of the refinement GHG actually account for the per gallon of gasoline number? I would love for someone who has that data to present it in a non-biased way. I think education and truth behind the data is fascinating.

How do PEV vehicles impact these numbers? Is that really the best way since those numbers appear to be lower than BEV (cited)? What about ICE gas alternatives like eFuel (cited)?

On a personal note:

Let me make clear that I'm all for reducing the carbon impact reasonably, efficiently and safely. I own an EV and an ICE vehicle. I want technology to find cleaner, better ways for vehicle propulsion. I like keeping my mind open to all avenues and sometimes I think that as a society we pigeonhole ourselves into things that end up being worse than we originally thought. I never believe things because "I saw it on TV". I think things out and play devils advocate trying to disprove all angles for the sake of getting to the truth. 15 years ago I remember our government pushing CFL Bulbs on us because "Electricity was bad" and we had to reduce usage to save the world.
Advertisement

 
Last edited:

ebeponyan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2021
Messages
188
Reaction score
446
Location
Puget Sound
Vehicles
Infinite Blue Mach-E Premium AWD ER
Country flag
Yours is a tall order, and one that I don't immediately have time to rise to. Especially typing this out from my phone. That said:

This similar tool from UCSUSA may interest you. Methodologies can be found in their FAQ, which addresses a number of your constraints. Notably, all greenhouse emissions are converted to CO2e, and a consistent model is used to account for the extraction, refinement and transportation of fuel. I should point out that, as it stands, the 2022s and GTs are not currently available to select with this tool. Treat this as a second opinion, perhaps.

It is curious how tailpipe and total emissions are conspicuously absent from most ICE vehicle reporting/calculations. As long as we're comparing totals to totals though, I'm not sure it matters. I would be comfortable with a simple ratio of total co2e for gas cars based on the average (27mpg from your fueleconomy.gov source, 28.7mpg from uscusa) and the combined epa rating of a given ICE vehicle. So a new RAV4 at 30mpg combined would come in at 410*27/30=369g/mi. This aligns almost exactly with the 2.31kg/10k km number given for a RAV4 by co2everything.

The first takeaway I'm getting is that Indiana needs to invest more heavily renewables, probably wind and nuclear (though the latter is a tough sell polotically), but I don't have a citation for that, I just have the naive impression that there's a lot of windswept empty plains out there. My calculator link from uscsa uses a Seattle ZIP for contrast due to our predominantly hydro/wind/nuclear power grid. Part of the assertion that EVs are "the answer" is that our national grid has a high ceiling for improvement. As these technologies scale, they will become cheaper (see battery cost) and more efficient (see battery density). Solar technology, for another example, is following a similar trend.

However, while EVs are an improvement over ICE vehicles (and continually improving at that), they are not "the" climate solution. We need to invest more heavily in public transportation, design our urban spaces to encourage foot/bicycle transportation and, as the last couple of years have taught us, just stop commuting for hours every day for literally no reason.
 
OP
OP
DevSecOps

DevSecOps

Well-Known Member
First Name
Todd
Joined
Sep 22, 2021
Messages
1,102
Reaction score
2,154
Location
Sacramento, CA
Vehicles
2021 Audi SQ5 / 2021 Mach-E GTPE
Occupation
IT Infastructure Security / Software Development
Country flag
Thank you for the thoughtful response. I know it's a tall order, but this topic is widely politicized and, while many of us probably aren't on the same political sides, that doesn't mean that we can't have a discussion about facts. The problem with "facts" now a days is they aren't facts, they are mostly political or ideological driven ideas or distortions of fact, but we can try none the less.

Let me clarify that for the listing of the MME on the GOV website I just put in any zip code. I'm in California and that's why I didn't take the local number in my opening post, instead opting for the National average, which doesn't change by locale.

I like how your sources have the FAQ explaining their numbers. The thing that always comes to my mind however is where the power is sourced at the time of charging. I realize that there's many sources of power, however almost all electrical utilities encourage EV charging at 12am or owners are forced to charge in "dark" hours based on work schedules. This obviously removes a lot of green energy, most obviously solar. In California, for example, in the time of drought we had almost no hydro power and they are shutting down Diablo which is a huge contributor to our grid via Nuclear. For much of our summer 90% of our grid power at 12am was gas/coal. Which brings me back to my point that there's no listing of what time of day their calculations are based on, which disturbs me and makes me feel like the data is screwed to their liking.

It's quite obvious that in "greener" states the middle of day in the summer is going to have the lowest carbon impact. Again, this brings the numbers into question. If you take California (CalISO) as an example you will see that the demand at 12am is almost 1/2 of what it is during the day. It wouldn't be in good conscious to take an average highly skewed based on daytime consumption and sourcing and apply it to 12am.

The other thing I question regarding these electrical numbers is that it's often times listed as the power plant number. In transmission there's power loss of approximately 5% (cited) and an additional 12%-15% loss at the EVSE (cited). So can we add 20% to the actual CO2e or g/mi numbers?

Okay so, back to gas. There's a ton of vehicles that get 40mpg or more. Per the EPA the CO2 Emissions from a gallon of gasoline is 8,887 grams CO2/ gallon and that the average passenger vehicle emits about 404 grams of CO2 per mile (cited). This would mean that they assume the average MPG is about 22 (8887/404). As we all know EV efficiency at low speeds is great, but at high speeds it's terrible. Whereas with gas, it's reversed. That being said wouldn't an ICE vehicle that gets 40mpg highway emit approximately 222g/mi? If we look at the EV data for the MachE GTPE at approximately 200g/mi with no indication of when that power was sourced or the MPGe it leads me to believe that it could ostensibly be much higher than a 40mpg ICE vehicle at highway speeds.

As these technologies scale, they will become cheaper (see battery cost) and more efficient (see battery density). Solar technology, for another example, is following a similar trend.
I'm trying to stay away from these topics because I think they have issues as well. We just had tornadoes rip through the middle of the country and I can only imagine how many solar panels were destroyed. Those panels, especially the older ones are extremely toxic (cited) and those toxins released into the air and our ground water is very scary thing to think about. We've seen far too often in recent history where we have destroyed lives based on similarly toxic events. It's not prudent to destroy one thing while saving another. So those topics in general I think have their place, but I'm trying to stay away from them here.
 
Last edited:

FCCinAZ

Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2021
Messages
22
Reaction score
38
Location
Scottsdale, AZ
Vehicles
Mache
Country flag
EV’s are a component of a lower carbon footprint, but they will not be the answer. Looking on the micro effect of converting to a BEV will often miss the macro consequences that can more than offset the savings. Unfortunately, even if you had a zero carbon electrical grid with solar/wind/nuclear, current battery technology has a significant carbon footprint in it’s manufacturing process. Further complicating this calculus is that China controls 85% of rare earth metals and up to 60% of the other components. China already has over 1000 coal plants and are servicing their energy needs by building more. Increased manufacturing demand will increase China’s power demand likely to be fueled by the cheap and abundant coal resource.

Ultimately, the impact of these vehicles on the overall carbon footprint will be negligible, it will only shift the geography which doesn’t count when you are tackling a global problem. This is why serious people, when contemplating this issue, realize it cuts across geopolitical, economic, environmental, and national security.

There are ways to calculate the carbon footprint for production of an individual BEV which is estimated to be 40% more than ice, but I would argue that increased demand will force the dominant producer of the raw materials to need more energy. The consequences of this do not stop with the production of 1 car and the more coal power plants put into service have to be added to the equation.

The only real solution to reducing a carbon footprint will be in the development of a viable, clean, and inexpensive energy generation technology. Until that happens, I’m afraid we’re just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
 

ebeponyan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2021
Messages
188
Reaction score
446
Location
Puget Sound
Vehicles
Infinite Blue Mach-E Premium AWD ER
Country flag
The problem with "facts" now a days is they aren't facts.
Facts all come with points of view, facts don't do what I want them to. Not an academic source, but it shows this is not a new problem. Until one starts getting into "alternative facts" territory, I'd say it's more the points of view than the facts that are so disparate.

Getting back on topic, or maybe just going off the rails, what's the thesis here? That gas cars are better for the environment than EVs? I understand the desire for reasoned, sourced, debate, but it's also laying a pretty heavy burden on anyone looking to participate. And for what? I could waste the rest of my night digging up sources to argue 'no', but ultimately, it doesn't matter. Fossil fuels have thoroughly proven themselves to be an unsustainable power source, and we need to both change power sources and consume less in order to mitigate the already growing effects of our greenhouse emissions. If anyone needs a citation for that, then our points of view are not compatible with the facts.

We just had tornadoes rip through the middle of the country and I can only imagine how many solar panels were destroyed. Those panels, especially the older ones are extremely toxic (cited) and those toxins released into the air and our ground water is very scary thing to think about.
I can imagine a number as well, and it isn't very high. Setting that aside though, I think it's fair to say that tornadoes, hurricanes, wildfires and other destructive weather phenomena are already environmentally catastrophic to the areas they impact. Burning fossil fuels contributes to the climate stress that tends to exacerbate these events, and that's the self-defeating cycle that we already find ourselves in. Fossil fuels are the reason we are here, they will not be the solution, so we need to invest elsewhere.

I concede that tornadoes are not uncommon, but as I understand it, getting wiped out by one would still be considered bad luck. Fossil fuel pipelines and tankers don't require an act of god to poison groundwater or cause ecological disaster. Fracking poisons ground water, and combustion engines poison the air even when working as designed. Still, risk mitigation is prudent. Don't put a nuclear plant in a major metropoitan area, and don't block out the sun from fertile land. Solar farms are best suited for land that is not otherwise agriculturally productive anyway, so if a tornado hits an already desolate, Nevada landscape, I wouldn't feel so bad. Again, not an Indiana expert, but this seems like another reason to pursue wind energy in the notoriously windy Midwest.

The unfortunate truth is that climate change is political whether or not the debate is framed as such. Money and priorities need to shift monumentally to solve a problem in a way that is contrary to the status quo, and that won't happen without dramatic, almost inconceivable, political change. Somehow, that needs to happen not only for our country, but for the entire world. Guess we'll all just die, or leave it to our descendants to just die.

A pragmatist may call EVs a compromise to drag auto/oil companies on board using the only language they understand. A cynic may say it's another in a storied string of half-measures (see plastics recycling) that make consumers just comfortable enough to continue consuming as the proverbial frog boils. An optimist may see this as the beginning of a global technological revolution and our grandchildren will ask us what it was like to have a car that used controlled explosions to move about. For the truly blissful, all of this will evaporate as soon as they get behind the wheel and mash the accelerator. I could fall into any category on a given day.
 
OP
OP
DevSecOps

DevSecOps

Well-Known Member
First Name
Todd
Joined
Sep 22, 2021
Messages
1,102
Reaction score
2,154
Location
Sacramento, CA
Vehicles
2021 Audi SQ5 / 2021 Mach-E GTPE
Occupation
IT Infastructure Security / Software Development
Country flag
First of all - All of my below statements are regarding the citations in my second post.

Getting back on topic, or maybe just going off the rails, what's the thesis here? That gas cars are better for the environment than EVs?
I clearly stated the reason for the thread in the beginning, which was to explore the truth behind the numbers and to consider all alternative fuels and means of propulsion. There's this hatred for ICE vehicles on most EV forums that I find to be unfounded. I personally think that we could make ICE vehicles carbon neutral if we tried and that yes, it's possible that ICE could be cleaner than EVs. I am questioning the validity behind the desire for EVs, even as an owner of one. I'm not a sheep, I don't just listen to what CNN/FOX says and believe it. I'm a critical thinker, I challenge ideas and want answers with proof to back it up.

I understand the desire for reasoned, sourced, debate, but it's also laying a pretty heavy burden on anyone looking to participate. And for what? I could waste the rest of my night digging up sources to argue 'no', but ultimately, it doesn't matter.
First of all, the part "to argue no" is concerning. This isn't an argument and when seeking truth you shouldn't be set on "no". Have an open mind, and don't be critical of those who disagree.

Second, If you don't want to take part in the process of sourcing your ideas then don't participate in the debate. You're free to go to any thread on here and leave a comment. You're also free to start your own thread about theories and unsubstantiated facts. I thanked you for your links and the information you provided. I questioned the numbers, which is what a critical thinking person does. We look at data and we try to disprove it for the sake of truth in understanding and to bring clarity to how the source got that data.

Most all of my comments are in forms of questions, not statements. This is because I'm seeking answers. I'm asking people for their factual based input. I'm not "attacking" your point of view, I'm criticizing the numbers. Most of the links that I've provided are from the Government while most of the links you provided are from climate activist websites. Obviously, there's argument to be made about where the Government stands, but it's as neutral as I can get. If I started linking articles from far right sources I'm sure you would agree that would be counter productive.

Fossil fuels have thoroughly proven themselves to be an unsustainable power source, and we need to both change power sources and consume less in order to mitigate the already growing effects of our greenhouse emissions. If anyone needs a citation for that, then our points of view are not compatible with the facts.
So you would argue that burning fossil fuels to convert into electricity, which has up to a 20% loss in transmission and EVSE's, which is then used to power a vehicle at a far more inefficient way than a traditional ICE vehicle, would be bad? 1 gallon of gas = 33kWh, let's not forget about the inefficiency of EV power.

Let me be clear, if we had 100% nuclear power, as an example, I would agree that as for CO2 emissions, EVs would be a clear winner, hands down. But as many people will argue, there's nuclear waste to be dealt with, which is a real problem. The reality is that at 12am we are "fueling" EVs with fossil fuels, is it not? If that's the case then why not explore other methods to keep ICE vehicles and use alternative fuels like eFuel from Porsche?

As for solar ... I'm just gonna let you have the last word. I said this thread isn't about solar unless it's used in the sense of grid power. There's a ton of arguments and people sounding the alarm from ALL political sides about solar waste and it's a completely different subject.

My observation about the user base and why critical thinking is important to further honest discussion and problem solving:

As car companies like Ford make GT and GTPE or Performance editions of EVs you'll notice that the demographic and political ideologies of those on the forum (owners of said vehicles) shift. I've noticed it here. It brings into it people who like EVs because of their power, instant torque and pleasure to drive. They didn't buy the car to "save the world". Just something to ponder over.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
DevSecOps

DevSecOps

Well-Known Member
First Name
Todd
Joined
Sep 22, 2021
Messages
1,102
Reaction score
2,154
Location
Sacramento, CA
Vehicles
2021 Audi SQ5 / 2021 Mach-E GTPE
Occupation
IT Infastructure Security / Software Development
Country flag
Further complicating this calculus is that China controls 85% of rare earth metals and up to 60% of the other components. China already has over 1000 coal plants and are servicing their energy needs by building more.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-set-to-create-new-state-owned-rare-earths-giant-11638545586

There are ways to calculate the carbon footprint for production of an individual BEV which is estimated to be 40% more than ice, but I would argue that increased demand will force the dominant producer of the raw materials to need more energy.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...ou-think-the-supply-chain-is-carbon-intensive

I would love to see an ROI vs ICE on this. If for example the carbon footprint was the equivalent of making 5 ICE vehicles how does that factor into the beyond tailpipe emissions if at all.

The only real solution to reducing a carbon footprint will be in the development of a viable, clean, and inexpensive energy generation technology. Until that happens, I’m afraid we’re just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
This is the basis for my questioning and the topic as a whole. I don't believe a lot of the narrative surrounding EVs and the hatred for ICE. I'm willing to accept it as truth if it could be proven, but to this day, my search for that proof leaves more questions than answers. I do think that there's a lot opportunity to reduce carbon impacts but I feel like the current push for EVs is a way to obfuscate and line the pockets of the richest people in the world.

Someone who truly wants to help reduce the carbon impact will question the logic pushed by the main stream media and make reasonably sound decisions based on all facts. The question I would pose is, if we could prove eFuel, as an example, was a cheap alternative and zero emission fuel much better than EVs, would the worlds "climate fanatics" ditch their EVs to go back to ICE vehicles on eFuel?
 
Last edited:

ebeponyan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2021
Messages
188
Reaction score
446
Location
Puget Sound
Vehicles
Infinite Blue Mach-E Premium AWD ER
Country flag
Just want to say that I appreciate you taking the time to respond, but I do not find this thread to be productive use of my time. Hopefully you find someone to take you up on your invitation.
 

ab13

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
Messages
433
Reaction score
357
Location
California
Vehicles
Rav4 Hybrid
Country flag
Are you looking for this kind of data for vehicles?

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=42808&id=43603&id=43463&id=42959&#tab2
"Energy and environment" tab

Also, Volvo did a study to compare their gas and electric cars. The life assessment report is linked at the bottom. I don't think it's surprising that resources to build electric vehicles are greater, they have a payback time frame and cost, right now mainly dealt with by customers paying more and dealing with adding facilities to handle them (charging and electrical upgrades).

https://www.media.volvocars.com/glo...alise-full-climate-potential-of-electric-cars


Gas turbines for power generation can be highly efficient with cogeneration.
"Well matched gas turbine cogeneration systems will achieve overall thermal efficiencies of more than 80% and, if there is a use for low-grade heat, the efficiency can approach 90%."

https://www.powerengineeringint.com...es-for-cogeneration-efficiency-is-everything/
 
OP
OP
DevSecOps

DevSecOps

Well-Known Member
First Name
Todd
Joined
Sep 22, 2021
Messages
1,102
Reaction score
2,154
Location
Sacramento, CA
Vehicles
2021 Audi SQ5 / 2021 Mach-E GTPE
Occupation
IT Infastructure Security / Software Development
Country flag
Are you looking for this kind of data for vehicles?

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=42808&id=43603&id=43463&id=42959&#tab2
"Energy and environment" tab
Yes! Thank you. This is exactly what I was looking for and I guess I just missed it. Unfortunately they don't provide beyond tailpipe emissions for EV's in that section, but there's other resources for that on the same site.

What I see from looking at a few cars is that BEVs are currently more harmful to the environment if you look at pure g/mi stats compared to PEVs and, as I suspected, on par with many high mpg ICE vehicles. Interesting that no one talks about that...

To be completely fair, this doesn't take into considering sourcing of the raw materials for the fuel, which is likely comparable for NG and Oil. Also there's refinement and transport of gasoline. I'm assuming is considered the "upstream" emissions listed on the website, although it doesn't specify. They calculate this at 40g/mi.

Of course there's no comparison in EVs vs big trucks, but my question from the beginning was always can gas or alternative fuels actually be better than EVs.

Also, Volvo did a study to compare their gas and electric cars.
Interesting report

Gas turbines for power generation can be highly efficient with cogeneration.
I agree but most people who are anti-ICE are anti any fossil fuel which makes it a hard sell.
 
Last edited:

OWG

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2021
Messages
105
Reaction score
72
Location
MA
Vehicles
Waiting for 2021 MME Premium
Country flag
Looking forward to the discussion.

Are EV's really the answer to a lower carbon footprint?

The Government provides a website to check your carbon footprint of EV's, also known as "beyond tailpipe emissions". The MME GTPE, which I have, uses power which amounts to 200g/mi based on energy production throughout the ENTIRE day (cited).
I am unsure that New Palestine, IN is a good national surrogate. The "cleanness" of the regional grids vary siginificantly. That same site also provides a 180 g/mi factor using the " Average US Electricity Mix".

Do you think this website accounts for line loss and EVSE loss?
Information about the Greenhouse Gas Emission Calculations (fueleconomy.gov) says that:
" Some electricity is lost as it travels from the power plant to where it is used by the consumer (e.g., at the outlet). To adjust for these transmission & distribution losses, we apply five regional grid loss factors from eGRID2018."

This is clearly macro level and given the huge built-in transmission losses (rejected energy) EVSE losses are rounding error. See: Energy Flow Charts (llnl.gov)
Energy_US_2020.png
Energy_US_2020.png (3249×1911) (llnl.gov)

What I've always found astonishing is that it's almost impossible to find g/mi numbers for gas/ICE vehicles. Why aren't these numbers published like the EV numbers are?
I am challenged by this statement. Your citation above provides such a g/mi number for ICE -
410 g/mi Average New Gasoline Vehicle's Total Emissions. Additionally, the About these calculations on that page describes the method to derive that value:
" This gasoline-powered vehicle has a fuel economy of 27 mpg. A factor of 1.25 is applied to account for emissions from the production and transportation of gasoline. " and " On average, 8,887 grams of CO2 are emitted from burning one gallon of gasoline. "

I can back into a number that's close:
(8887 grams/27 miles)*1.25=411.43 g/mi

That basic formula can be applied to a specific vehicle - say the Subaru Crosstrek that my Mach E will replace:

(8887/30.663)*1.25=362.29 g/mi
Comparing it to the Premium AWD Extended range fueled by my regional grid (@ $.2539/kWh) I get 100 g/mi.

Based on that information I can state that I appear to be making a solid trade if carbon reduction is my only objective - but - I don't see the "carbon load" associated with the production of the MME or the ICE vehicle factored in.
 
OP
OP
DevSecOps

DevSecOps

Well-Known Member
First Name
Todd
Joined
Sep 22, 2021
Messages
1,102
Reaction score
2,154
Location
Sacramento, CA
Vehicles
2021 Audi SQ5 / 2021 Mach-E GTPE
Occupation
IT Infastructure Security / Software Development
Country flag
@OWG it would appear that you didn't read the entire post. I know it's long so lets dive into it:

I am unsure that New Palestine, IN is a good national surrogate
No where did I say or use the Palestine, IN number. I used the national number which is not 180 as you claim it's actually 200. I spoke to this a few posts down as well.

" Some electricity is lost as it travels from the power plant to where it is used by the consumer (e.g., at the outlet). To adjust for these transmission & distribution losses, we apply five regional grid loss factors from eGRID2018."
True it does which is approximately 5% loss. It however, DOES NOT account for EVSE loss which is 12%-15% as I cited in post #3.

I am challenged by this statement. Your citation above provides such a g/mi number for ICE
A few posts further down I thanked someone for pointing that out. I stand corrected and I just didn't see the tabs that lead me to the ICE numbers.

" This gasoline-powered vehicle has a fuel economy of 27 mpg. A factor of 1.25 is applied to account for emissions from the production and transportation of gasoline. " and " On average, 8,887 grams of CO2 are emitted from burning one gallon of gasoline. "

I can back into a number that's close:
(8887 grams/27 miles)*1.25=411.43 g/mi
That's a bit misleading. Here's why:

That assumes that NG used in power plants doesn't have transportation, drilling and refining, which it does. If you want to use a 1.25 multiplier you would have to use it on NG as well. The electrical calculation on that same page starts at the Power Plant. We have to compare apples to apples. If we want to start the tally at the power plant then we have to start gas after production and refinement.

While I agree how you arrived to that number and agree that the application of the multiplier is correct in your example, mixing it with the sentence above and the fact that we don't use the same multiplier for power generation using fossil fuels is deceptive. This is because the website clearly states that the multiplier is APPLIED to the numbers that they use for determining emissions.

Lastly, I think for a fair comparison we shouldn't be using national MPG averages since ICE vehicles have been around for a long time, include commercial vehicles and many hundreds of thousands of vehicles that are old and not efficient.

Comparing it to the Premium AWD Extended range fueled by my regional grid
You say it's based on your regional grid. When I look at the MA grid numbers most of your grid power comes from NG. My issue with renewable numbers and the numbers provided by the national "average" is that the majority of consumption is during the daylight hours when solar is contributing to the grid. This IS NOT when the majority of Americans charge their EVs. As I've said many times over ... most all electrical companies encourage users to charge their EVs during "dark hours". This means that the majority of power charging EV's is generated from fossil fuels. This again, is why I feel the data is deceptive. It's not prudent to take averages, which are predominantly skewed by daytime consumption and daytime solar contribution and apply that to EV charging at midnight.

Lastly, EV range numbers posted online are WAY WAY WAY off. It's comical how ICE vehicles have to have very strict EPA numbers but EVs can flat out lie. There's no way in bloody hell that my MME will get 270 miles at this time of the year on the freeway. An ICE vehicle will relatively get the same MPG as listed regardless of the time of the year.

So then how do we calculate actual carbon emissions? The numbers are easy to find but the variables are what complicate things. For the sake of using the pure numbers we will set some ground rules. I will use my 2 vehicles as real life examples (one ICE the other EV) and we will use known numbers in their raw format. We will not apply "sourcing" multipliers, estimations of time of day charging or energy source assumptions.

Today I am going to travel from my house to my family's house and back. It's 240 miles round trip. My EV will get 1.8 mi/kWh. This is not a BS number. This is a trip that I take weekly and at the time of the year that is what I get on I5 in California. I have many posts talking about this as well.

If I were to take my Audi I would get about 24mpg.

This means that my MME will use approximately 133 kWh of power
My Audi would have used 10 gallons of gas.

If we use the governments data on emissions located here we will see that 1 gallon of gas = 18.74 lbs of carbon emissions.

If we take the governments data on power plant emissions located here per kWh we see that it's approximately 0.91 lbs/kWh for NG, 2.23 lbs/kWh for Coal.

So on to the math, giving the EV a huge edge by assuming no coal.

133 * .91 = 121.03 lbs (MME)
10 * 18.74 = 187.40 lbs (Audi)

If we did a 50/50 split of coal and NG:

133 * 1.57 = 208.81 lbs (MME)
10 * 18.74 = 187.40 lbs (Audi)

Now, here's where the critical thinking part comes in. Obviously by the numbers above, in it's raw form, without multipliers, using just NG, the MME takes the win. That assumes that all power is generated from natural gas, which isn't logical. It doesn't take into consideration souring or EVSE losses. It doesn't take into consideration carbon impact from battery production. It doesn't take into consideration additional wear caused by heavier EVs which uses fossil fuel for road repairs. But moving on... there are many cars that can get over 40mpg like most hybrid vehicles. So if we re-did those number with a Prius it would look like this:

133 * .91 = 121.03 lbs (MME)
4.53* 18.74 = 84.89 lbs (Prius)

Even if we assumed the EPA estimated 2.8 mi/kWh for the MME (and let's be fair and give the Prius it's city MPG) we would get:

85 * .91 = 78 (MME)
4.13 * 18.74 = 77 (Prius)

My point here isn't that all ICE vehicles are better than EVs. I do however think that alternative fuels and high efficiency ICE vehicles have the potential to out perform EVs on carbon emissions.

I believe that in order to reduce our carbon footprint we need to be open to all possibilities and question the entire ecosystem from start to finish. It shouldn't be limited to the ozone and should include impacts to humankind via slavery, humankind via support of countries with human rights violations and the role that toxins and chemicals will play on the environment. This topic is meant to be just the last mile numbers, but in reality it's a much larger problem.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement

 
Advertisement
Top