New Nissan Leaf from €20,990

Max Power1

Max Power1 wrote: »

Sure where do you think electricity comes from!
Bar a minority from renewables the vast majority is from fossil fuels!

Yes but you have much less harmful emissions in town, money point will spew out the crap it does regardless.

Electric cars are also much more efficient than ice cars.

Power stations have to be kept burning fuel at off peak times to be ready to produce electricity on demand that wastes huge amounts of fuel and charging batteries can greatly increase the efficiency of the power stations.

Electric cars can also charge from excess wind energy that would otherwise have to be turned off.

Max Power1

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes but you have much less harmful emissions in town, money point will spew out the crap it does regardless.

Electric cars are also much more efficient than ice cars.

Power stations have to be kept burning fuel at off peak times to be ready to produce electricity on demand that wastes huge amounts of fuel and charging batteries can greatly increase the efficiency of the power stations.

Electric cars can also charge from excess wind energy that would otherwise have to be turned off.

If we all switched to EVs tomorrow, it would be:

-More Pollutant?
-Less Pollutant?
-No Change?

Ill go for no change. All of the facts in your post would still happen (excess fuel wasted in stations etc). But we would require more electricity, so more fossil fuels burned.

Maybe there would be a slight decrease due to the minute amount of renewables used in electricity generation, but nothing major.

Plus we have to factor in the energy used to create all these new ev's which we will be changing to.

Max Power1

Max Power1 wrote: »

If we all switched to EVs tomorrow, it would be:

-More Pollutant?
-Less Pollutant?
-No Change?

Ill go for no change. All of the facts in your post would still happen (excess fuel wasted in stations etc). But we would require more electricity, so more fossil fuels burned.

Maybe there would be a slight decrease due to the minute amount of renewables used in electricity generation, but nothing major.

Plus we have to factor in the energy used to create all these new ev's which we will be changing to.

No everyone will change over night but as much energy will most likely be used to make electric cars as ice cars.

You're forgetting electric cars are much more efficient. And much cheaper to run.

Max Power1

Deleted User wrote: »

No everyone will change over night but as much energy will most likely be used to make electric cars as ice cars.

You're forgetting electric cars are much more efficient. And much cheaper to run.

More efficient but require more frequent charges.

Also, cheaper to run for now, until a larger number of people change, at which point they will be taxed like normal cars, and something like "road electricity" (similar to the road diesel/green diesel) will be brought in.

Matt Simis

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes but you have much less harmful emissions in town, money point will spew out the crap it does regardless.

This statement doesnt change the fact that EVs are currently "powered by fossil fuels" though does it? Also moving from a dispersed emissions model to a massively localised one also doesnt "erase" those emissions. They still exist and if anything, increased Power Station demand would mean anyone within 100km of a (fossil) power station would suffer decreased air quality, however this tidbit is never discussed as the pro-EV lobby schizophrenically calls Power Plants rubbish and inefficient at night yet somehow clean and efficient when they want to charge 200,000 EVs at once, at some random time. They cant be both.

Electric cars are also much more efficient than ice cars.

Im still waiting on someone to explain why we should care about this much vaunted "efficiency" (which is of EV "motors", not EV "cars") difference as from a performance standpoint, statically Li-Ion is grossly inferior in energy density. Only from a "social conscience" angle does this card have any playtime and thats largely irrelevant.

Power stations have to be kept burning fuel at off peak times to be ready to produce electricity on demand that wastes huge amounts of fuel and charging batteries can greatly increase the efficiency of the power stations.

This is terribly over simplified and at best, not currently even a "solution" to a problem that shouldnt exist, as we dont have a fleet of EVs so they arent playing any role at all in this.
Power Plants should not (and in the modern world argually do not) "waste huge amounts of fuel" at night. This mostly also only applies to Coal and mineral power plants anyhow, but this problem is addressed via:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage
If you store energy, you arent wasting it whenever demand drops. Nothing to do with EVs and should be mandated (and likely is, didnt check) globally anyway.

As per that link, if we lived in a world with massive EV rollouts and the bulk of them where somehow always near fully charged, they could be used as a direct grid storage device. But compared to a problem specific solution, not a tier 1 option by any stretch. Also an EV driver that leaves their car on charge and comes back to find its sold 33% of its power charge for $1.24 "profit" will likely be opting out of such a system fairly prompt.

Electric cars can also charge from excess wind energy that would otherwise have to be turned off.

You dont "turn off" Wind Power generation!?
Anyone setting up Wind Turbines realises instantly its a highly irregular and unpredictable power generator.. so part and package of Wind Power is an Energy storage solution. There is no such thing as "excess Wind Power" in a correctly rolled out Wind Power package. Without storage, Wind Power is useless.

Also how were you proposing EV drivers harness spontanteous and random "excess wind power" anyhow!?

lomb

Mad Lad post a pic once you acquire your EV and let us know how your getting on with it. There is no way electric cars are more efficient. Do you heat you house with electricity or oil? Electricity is double the cost of oil per KWH due to transmission losses so even using a motor once taxed at the same rate there wouldnt be alot in it even on night rates.

lomb

lomb wrote: »

Mad Lad post a pic once you acquire your EV and let us know how your getting on with it. There is no way electric cars are more efficient. Do you heat you house with electricity or oil? Electricity is double the cost of oil per KWH due to transmission losses so even using a motor once taxed at the same rate there wouldnt be alot in it even on night rates.

LOL what ?

I heat my house with oil because of the cost of electricity, that in no way reflects the efficiency of the electricity network ?

Electric heating is 100% efficient !

If I had to pay the say price per kwh as they do in France then I'd probably be heating with electricity.

If I had an electric car It would cost me the least of anything to run on night rate leccy even day rate.

Matt Simis

Matt Simis wrote: »

This statement doesnt change the fact that EVs are currently "powered by fossil fuels" though does it? Also moving from a dispersed emissions model to a massively localised one also doesnt "erase" those emissions. They still exist and if anything, increased Power Station demand would mean anyone within 100km of a (fossil) power station would suffer decreased air quality, however this tidbit is never discussed as the pro-EV lobby schizophrenically calls Power Plants rubbish and inefficient at night yet somehow clean and efficient when they want to charge 200,000 EVs at once, at some random time. They cant be both.

No emissions are still there though not nearly as concentrated in towns and cities. I don't get my power from Money Point, Chances are I get my leccy from gas powered generators.

Matt Simis wrote: »

Im still waiting on someone to explain why we should care about this much vaunted "efficiency" (which is of EV "motors", not EV "cars") difference as from a performance standpoint, statically Li-Ion is grossly inferior in energy density. Only from a "social conscience" angle does this card have any playtime and thats largely irrelevant.

E.V's (cars) are much more efficient than your ice including charging and the battery, being grossly inferior in energy density has nothing to do with efficiency. Li-ion batteries are very efficient. 80-90%

Matt Simis wrote: »

This is terribly over simplified and at best, not currently even a "solution" to a problem that shouldnt exist, as we dont have a fleet of EVs so they arent playing any role at all in this.
Power Plants should not (and in the modern world argually do not) "waste huge amounts of fuel" at night. This mostly also only applies to Coal and mineral power plants anyhow, but this problem is addressed via:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage
If you store energy, you arent wasting it whenever demand drops. Nothing to do with EVs and should be mandated (and likely is, didnt check) globally anyway.

I can only go by what the ESb have told us about that, that ev's charging at night greatly improve efficiency of the generating stations.

This is a quote from the University of Chattatnooga and the only one I can find right now.

http://www.utc.edu/Research/CETE/electric.php

Quote
The primary focus of EV's is to reduce the amount of noxious gases that are released into the air due to the combustion process of an internal combustion engine. An electric vehicle produces zero emissions. Some critics of the EV industry will argue that a reduction of polluting gases has not taken place because of the emissions that are generated in the production of electricity at the power plants. Though it is true that power plants do produce some pollutants, the government has very strict regulations on power plant emissions. And since power plants produce an excess of power at night, when the demand is low, EV owners can use the excess power by recharging at night. This makes the power plants more efficient. End Quote.

Matt Simis wrote: »

As per that link, if we lived in a world with massive EV rollouts and the bulk of them where somehow always near fully charged, they could be used as a direct grid storage device. But compared to a problem specific solution, not a tier 1 option by any stretch. Also an EV driver that leaves their car on charge and comes back to find its sold 33% of its power charge for $1.24 "profit" will likely be opting out of such a system fairly prompt.

No Matt, you'll be fully in control of how much when and if you want to export any electricity in your car. For the likes of the tesla 84 kwh battery, you could afford to give away 20kwh of electricity for most days as you would probably use 20kwh max in a car like that on an 80 mile commute.

If the electricity company buy the electricity off you at the 18c per kwh day rate that you have to buy it off them means if you charge at night you pay 9 c per kwh and sell it at 18 c/kwh.

For the likes of the Leaf/Zoe/I3/Spark etc thair batteries are much smaller and people that still do 20-30 miles a day and less can easily give 5 kwh or more and more would be cycling the battery more than they aught to perhaps on such a small battery.

Spent ev batteries will also find uses for grid storage in the future, and the ESB are already looking into it.

Matt Simis wrote: »

You dont "turn off" Wind Power generation!?
Anyone setting up Wind Turbines realises instantly its a highly irregular and unpredictable power generator.. so part and package of Wind Power is an Energy storage solution. There is no such thing as "excess Wind Power" in a correctly rolled out Wind Power package. Without storage, Wind Power is useless.

Yes wind power is next to useless with the current system and yes it does have to be turned off at times of low demand, and there was controversy in the U.K over this as investors were still paid while not generating.

In Germany more and more coal is being used to back up these wind farms, believe it or not and why is this ? because they have to to compete with the cost of wind that all other fuels are too expensive.

Matt Simis wrote: »

Also how were you proposing EV drivers harness spontanteous and random "excess wind power" anyhow!?

That is up to the ESB, I don't know how the grid works, and how they control everything.

You can also install your own solar pv and wind to charge your e.v and some already do this in the U.K. it does work.

My plan eventually is if I ever move I will install wind and solar p.v as I will make the costs back over some years and of course charging an e.v would pay back in eve shorter time. Electric heating also and I'll have 3 phase power.

BailMeOut

Deleted User wrote: »

at 3.5 kw for the leaf MK 1 you'd pull 291.66 amps @ 12V -220 volts

the Leaf MK 1.5 6.5kw charger would pull 541.66 amps to convert to 220 volts.

So you'd need at least 600 amp hr worth of 12 v car batteries that's 7.2 kwh of battery or 15 car batteries.

The reason is lead acid batteries are good for cranking or a few hundred amps peak but for continuous use like charging you's need to pull no more than 1C that's capacity of the battery in ah x1 so 600 amp h batteries is 600 amp draw.

And that's 2 miles of range, so you see how bad lead acid batteries are ?

Thanks fore the clarification Mad Lad

So one more question, do these cars plug directly into a home power when at home or is there an additional charging device needed? The Nissan site talks about them installing something at your home. I always thought you can plug into any 220V outlet!

We could probably use an electric car as daily driving in and out of town, to and from kids school and activities which would easily fit into a daily charge. I do need to change a car right now so this could be a serious option and our town does have an esb charging point in a very convenient location.

BailMeOut

BailMeOut wrote: »

Thanks fore the clarification Mad Lad

So one more question, do these cars plug directly into a home power when at home or is there an additional charging device needed? The Nissan site talks about them installing something at your home. I always thought you can plug into any 220V outlet!

Usually charging at home means installation of an EVSE or charge station, it's a wall box installed outside or in the shed etc and I recommend getting one for the max your car is rated for, so that would be 3.5 kw for the Leaf MK I and 6.5kw for the MK 1.5

In theory you can plug into any plug, now this gets complicated and I'm not an Electrician so always consult your electrician !!!

In the U.K and probably everywhere except Ireland the leaf comes with what's called a portable EVSE, it consumes around 2kw or 8.3 amps good for charging at a friends house or staying in a B&B if they allow you plug into the shed. You can give them the €1.50 for the charge ! :-) the ESB thought that was too much for normal sockets in Ireland so Nissan would not allow this 300 Euro device be shipped with the car.

You can find them on ebay from time to time, but make sure you get one suitable for 240 volts.

This company http://www.jtmpower.ie/

make a portable evse i think it's rated at 1800 watts, which should still provide more than enough juice for a return trip home from work.

You can use it on a (fully extended) extension lead connected to any power socket your boss will allow you plug in.

The renault Zoe supports 3 phase mains charging and it's portable evse will allow you to plug into any 3 phase electric socket you see in most industrial businesses allowing a 0-80% charge in 30 mins. But you wouldn't need to do that unless you were in a hurry.

BailMeOut wrote: »

We could probably use an electric car as daily driving in and out of town, to and from kids school and activities which would easily fit into a daily charge. I do need to change a car right now so this could be a serious option and our town does have an esb charging point in a very convenient location.

Remember the 2011-2013 MK I leaf has an onboard 3.5 kw charger and the 2013 mk 1.5 6.6 kw charger.

So the MK 1 will recharge roughly 3 kwh per hour of energy or 34 miles. The mk 1.5 will replace 6 kwh per hour or 12 kwh every 2 hours, roughly 20 miles per hour for the MK 1.5. A 2 hr charge will replace roughly 41 miles for the MK 1.5

or you can get a 0-80 % fast charge in 30 mins on a fast charger.

The Renault Zoe can charge in less than an hour 0-100% from all public ESB non fast chargers and makes the best use of the charging infrastructure, but imo the leaf is a better e.v.

Pkiernan

This thread is an example of why we could do with a dedicated forum for EVs.

It started out as a question about the new Leaf but it wasn't long before the trolls got in with other BS.

A lot of muppets just can't get over the fact that the Leaf is an ideal commuter tool with a cost of ownership running at about 10% of traditional cars.

I just edited my last post, it got mixed up a bit ! :rolleyes:

Cienciano

The idea that wind energy somehow travels directly from the wind turbines through the national grid and directly into EV's is funny. Don't pretend they're powered by wind energy, they're not. On a given day a certain small percentage of energy is put into the national grid from wind turbines, that percentage is all you can claim. Back when we had snow a couple of years ago the wind generation was going at about .3% of capacity. So an even tinier percentage of total electricity production.
I think most people know this and couldn't really give a rats ass about emissions, the main reason to buy an EV is cheap running costs.

I and I don't know if you do know how the grid works and how they can transport the wind throughout the grid ?

But I never said wind power was the solution, I don't believe it is as even if it can meet 90% of our electricity means what about converting transport to electricity ? that's an awful amount of extra demand that will never be met with wind.

This is why If Thorium in L.F.T.R is successful that we build our own reactors and become energy independent or at least as much as we can be. It's the only nuclear I would consider.

Ireland needs to wake up and have a proper debate with professionals and not idiots in politics, we need to inform people of the benefits and that wind will not work to supply all our energy needs.

You need to accurately calculate our total electricity consumption and factor in future demand including the electrification of our transport.

Then you need to calculate how many wind turbines that will need and then see if it's rational to expect the entire island of Ireland to be just one big wind farm.

Corkbah

Deleted User wrote: »

I and I don't know if you do know how the grid works and how they can transport the wind throughout the grid ?

But I never said wind power was the solution, I don't believe it is as even if it can meet 90% of our electricity means what about converting transport to electricity ? that's an awful amount of extra demand that will never be met with wind.

This is why If Thorium in L.F.T.R is successful that we build our own reactors and become energy independent or at least as much as we can be. It's the only nuclear I would consider.

Ireland needs to wake up and have a proper debate with professionals and not idiots in politics, we need to inform people of the benefits and that wind will not work to supply all our energy needs.

You need to accurately calculate our total electricity consumption and factor in future demand including the electrification of our transport.

Then you need to calculate how many wind turbines that will need and then see if it's rational to expect the entire island of Ireland to be just one big wind farm.

Cant see that working ... not with the multiple NIMBY's in this country !!

NIMBY - not in my back yard, the people that protest and lobby against ANYTHING which may damage the environment to be put in their area, for example the many proposed "super dumps" ...they have to go somewhere but anywhere proposed has some group up in arms complaining.

Corkbah

Corkbah wrote: »

Cant see that working ... not with the multiple NIMBY's in this country !!

NIMBY - not in my back yard, the people that protest and lobby against ANYTHING which may damage the environment to be put in their area, for example the many proposed "super dumps" ...they have to go somewhere but anywhere proposed has some group up in arms complaining.

Well you see if people were properly educated to the facts, this is in part the responsibility of the Government but also on the individual to educate themselves.

I wonder how many people realise that they get more radiation form coal burning than from being inside a Nuclear power station ?

Yes there are genuine safety concerns about nuclear waste which shouldn't go ignored but l.F.T.R uses 99% of it's fuel and has less than 1% waste of current reactors, that also shouldn't go ignored.

1 Tonne of Thorium = 3.5 million tonnes of Coal and the emissions from coal are really bad.

Also people should know of the safety benefits of l.F.T.R such as it's low pressure and the fuel being in a liquid form and there is no possibility of a melt down.

It should go to public vote and let the people decide their energy faith, do they want a cheap stable plentiful source of electricity or do they want increased taxes to install wind turbines to make wind investors rich while we pay ever increasing costs for electricity ?

I don't believe we should tolerate the idiots in Government making our energy policies who think wind is the answer and giving the image that Ireland is Green and to hell with what's best for the country, it's only the image that matters.

creedp

Pkiernan wrote: »

This thread is an example of why we could do with a dedicated forum for EVs.

It started out as a question about the new Leaf but it wasn't long before the trolls got in with other BS.

A lot of muppets just can't get over the fact that the Leaf is an ideal commuter tool with a cost of ownership running at about 10% of traditional cars.

While I'm very sensitive at being called a muppet(!) I glanced at the new BMW EV article in yesterday's Sunday Times Motoring supplement and a BMW spokesperson responding to the comment about fossil fueled electricity said that presently the EV would have the equivalent of approx 80g CO2 emissions which puts it ballpark with efficient ice or hybrid cars.

By the way this muppet considers it appropriate to comment on calls for increased levies on one class of vehicles in order to further subsidise another class of vehicles which is already massively subsisdised compared to the former. If someone wants to buy one and benefit from the already subsidised cost of running an EV then go ahead and do so. That's not at issue here.

Creedp, that figure is meaningless, who's to say I wouldn't charge from my solar pv or wind system ?

What was that 80 g figure guesstimated from ?

I presume he gave that figure based on the German electric system.

It could be more in Ireland or less.

But again that is co2 as the Germans still do grasp the fact that there are far worse emissions than C02 the emissions not quoted are the emissions that will kill us and are actual pollutants in our atmosphere.

stimpson

Deleted User wrote: »

This is why If Thorium in L.F.T.R is successful that we build our own reactors and become energy independent or at least as much as we can be. It's the only nuclear I would consider.

Can we cut the crap about Thorium being the solution to all energy problems? LFTR is currently a pipe dream and is 40-70 years from production if they can solve all of the technical issues. You're never going to see it in your lifetime.

creedp

Deleted User wrote: »

Creedp, that figure is meaningless, who's to say I wouldn't charge from my solar pv or wind system ?

Its about as meanginless as claiming EV's are emission free in a country in which the majority of electricity is generated from fossil fuels and when combined with the losses associated with distribution via the grid is the reason why electricity is classed as a dirty fuel for the purposes of heating your home. It can't be dirty for one purpsoe and completely virtuous for the other.

Who is to say you would use pv or mind to charge your car? By the way why would you invest in PV/wind technology when you have a plug in your house which as you say yourself charges your car for peanuts. The only way you would consider this is if auto electricity was hit with huge fule duties - in the same fashion as you are advocating for ice users.

But again that is co2 as the Germans still do grasp the fact that there are far worse emissions than C02 the emissions not quoted are the emissions that will kill us and are actual pollutants in our atmosphere.

It doesn't stop them from using more and more dirty coal to produce electricity -

In Germany more and more coal is being used to back up these wind farms, believe it or not and why is this ? because they have to to compete with the cost of wind that all other fuels are too expensive.

stimpson

stimpson wrote: »

Can we cut the crap about Thorium being the solution to all energy problems? LFTR is currently a pipe dream and is 40-70 years from production if they can solve all of the technical issues. You're never going to see it in your lifetime.

Thank you for your valued contribution to this thread.

No go do some actual research and come back when you have actually learned something about the subject.

creedp

creedp wrote: »

Its about as meanginless as claiming EV's are emission free in a country in which the majority of electricity is generated from fossil fuels and when combined with the losses associated with distribution via the grid is the reason why electricity is classed as a dirty fuel for the purposes of heating your home. It can't be dirty for one purpsoe and completely virtuous for the other.

E.V's are emissions free, but obviously the electricity to charge isn't. I'm not debating that, but I do believe the emissions are better out of the towns and cities than in direct contact with petrol and diesel emissions.

Moneypoint is the only coal power station in Ireland and I doubt my electricity comes from there anyway, most likely my electricity is gas. And speaking of which I am a big believer in LPG also as some of you know all to well and I would rather see LPG replace diesel.

creedp wrote: »

Who is to say you would use pv or mind to charge your car? By the way why would you invest in PV/wind technology when you have a plug in your house which as you say yourself charges your car for peanuts. The only way you would consider this is if auto electricity was hit with huge fule duties - in the same fashion as you are advocating for ice users.

Yes electricity is cheap to drive on compared to petrol and diesel, so installing wind and solar pv would pay back in greater time, or much less if you were to drive on petrol/diesel. You have the option to export. Solar would be cheaper by far compared to wind turbine installs which in Ireland are ridiculous and designed that way so as to prevent us having cheap energy.

But I do like the Idea of generation most or all my own electricity.

celtic_oz

Electricity from the dirtiest coal, with typical transmission losses is cleaner than ICE

http://green.autoblog.com/2009/07/24/study-even-with-electricity-from-coal-electric-vehilces-beat-g/

celtic_oz

celtic_oz wrote: »

Electricity from the dirtiest coal, with typical transmission losses is cleaner than ICE

http://green.autoblog.com/2009/07/24/study-even-with-electricity-from-coal-electric-vehilces-beat-g/

True or not I can't debate that articles findings at this time.

The downside is it ignores the actual harmful emissions to health and the environment, it only states C02 which is not harmful to human health or the environment.

stimpson

Deleted User wrote: »

Thank you for your valued contribution to this thread.

No go do some actual research and come back when you have actually learned something about the subject.

Here's what the UK national nuclear laboratory have to say about Thorium:

Based on NNL’s knowledge and experience of introducing new fuels into modern reactors, it is estimated that this is likely to take 10 to 15 years even with a concerted R&D effort and investment before the thorium fuel cycle could be established in current reactors and much longer for any future reactor systems.

http://www.nnl.co.uk/media/27860/nnl__1314092891_thorium_cycle_position_paper.pdf

So what ? who cares about what the UK national nuclear laboratory say about Thorium ?

What does that mean ? they can't tell the future.

But I do find it very interesting that the UK's National Nuclear Laboratory will make the Thorium fuel pellets for Halden research reactor in Norway !

The UK national nuclear laboratory is owned by the Department of Energy and are only interested in Uranium as a nuclear fuel because they are unwilling to invest in newer technologies. That is the problem with most of the nuclear industry.

Once the Nuclear industry know there is profit to be made then they will change their mind.

There is ever increasing interest in Thorium including in the U.K. But molten salt or L.F.T.R is the safer one and most of the funding comes from private organizations.

Even if it does take 20 years to make a full sized commercial reactor the technology shouldn't be ignored.

India, China and Japan may have L.F.T.R by then anyway.

stimpson

Deleted User wrote: »

So what ? who cares about what the UK national nuclear laboratory say about Thorium ?

What does that mean ? they can't tell the future.

But I do find it very interesting that the UK's National Nuclear Laboratory will make the Thorium fuel pellets for Halden research reactor in Norway !

The UK national nuclear laboratory is owned by the Department of Energy and are only interested in Uranium as a nuclear fuel because they are unwilling to invest in newer technologies. That is the problem with most of the nuclear industry.

Once the Nuclear industry know there is profit to be made then they will change their mind.

There is ever increasing interest in Thorium including in the U.K. But molten salt or L.F.T.R is the safer one and most of the funding comes from private organizations.

Even if it does take 20 years to make a full sized commercial reactor the technology shouldn't be ignored.

India, China and Japan may have L.F.T.R by then anyway.

I'd say they have a better understanding of the issues than a cheerleader on an Internet forum.

And India's thorium program is based on a Heavy Water reactor, not a LFTR. I thought such an expert would know that.

Matt Simis

celtic_oz wrote: »

Electricity from the dirtiest coal, with typical transmission losses is cleaner than ICE

http://green.autoblog.com/2009/07/24/study-even-with-electricity-from-coal-electric-vehilces-beat-g/

Umm did you read the article? Its complete fluff and fails, fairly instantly due to a massive fudging of the numbers (and not even the mysterious omission of all other pollutants other than CO2) as it just takes the whole Gasoline Barrel usage and looks at the CO2 in the barrel and spits out a result, when it should be looking at the vehicle, miles travelled and CO2 produced per mile (as a V8 truck made in the 80s and a 1.0 Ford Mondeo EcoFlex are miles apart in consumption).

A more accurate "Gasoline" CO2 assessment, using EPA figures.
The EPA dont do it this way (obviously) and have produced this formula:

8.92 × 10-3 metric tons CO2/gallon gasoline × 11,493 Miles travelled average × 1/21.5 US MPG car/truck average × 1 CO2, CH4, and N2O/0.985 CO2 = 4.8 metric tons CO2E /vehicle/year

193million cars/light trucks at average 4.8metric tons CO2 per year is 926 million metric tons CO2 for all passenger vehicles using gasoline in the US, at a crappy 21mpg and 11.4k miles covered, per year.

However comparing brand new eco focused EVs to an aging and not eco focused at all US fleet is purposely misleading, as if the average MPG was 35 (US Gallons) then the figure is much lower, each of those 35mpg cars puts out 2.92 metric tons CO2 a year and if all vehicles achieved this, thats a total of 565million tons of CO2.

Logically if people were faced with EV level range restrictions, they would plan journeys better and take less frivolous trips, so if we apply a little of this frugality and slightly reduced that 11,493 miles down to 9000 miles, our total Gasoline CO2 output comes down to (2.29 * 193mil) 442million metric tons a year.. which, shock horror, is less CO2 than powering 193million Electric Cars using Coal/peat fossil fuel power plants.



The EV comparison:
Switching all 193 million vehicles to EVs (as impractical as that might be):

Average US Coal Power plant produces 1kg of CO2 per kWh produced
193million US cars replaced with "average" 25kWh EVs at 100 full charges a year = 482 billion kWh requirement.

Thats 482billion kg of CO2 or 482 million metric tons of CO2 per year on top of what the plants already produce, assuming they can infact increase production to this level and dont drop efficiency levels at this new demand.



TLDR: A brand new all EV fleet (193million cars and light trucks) in the US offers better CO2 emissions than their aged fleet of uneconomical trucks and large engined cars but unlikely to be better than even a "current" gen refresh (to more efficient ICE modesl) of their fleet. Nuclear on the other hand completely eradicates this problem, but thats an entirely different issue.

stimpson

stimpson wrote: »

And India's thorium program is based on a Heavy Water reactor, not a LFTR. I thought such an expert would know that.

I was talking about L.F.T.R ? India are heavily involved in Research into L.F.T.R.

stimpson wrote: »

I'd say they have a better understanding of the issues than a cheerleader on an Internet forum.

Again another very intelligent contribution to the Thread, thank you.

May I politely ask you to take your attitude and trolling to another forum ?

Why are we talking about C02 ? what about other emissions. Why is C02 seen as a pollutant, it isn't.