Are electric cars powered by coal-based electricity any benefit?

[pendennis]

Besides their heavy subsidization by governments, accelerated depreciation, tax breaks, etc., the true cost of wind farms is unknown. People also don't take into consideration the ancillary costs for backup power systems, infrastructure costs (roads, site construction, distribution routes).

The footprint of windmills is very broad, eliminating the possibility of truly massed power generation.

Also forgotten is the environmental costs in the way of dead birds, and the noise pollution on nearby animals and people.

 

[Gary A.]

Yes, electric vehicles ultimately deliver cleaner air. It is much much easier to eliminate pollutants from a single stationary point source (power plant) than from thousands of mobile pollution sources.

It's not as simple as that.
Cleaning exhaust gases at a large static power plant is certainly easier, but electricity has significant transmission & storage losses, and nearly all the batteries around utilize toxic components...

As yet there is no magic bullet

Nothing is ever simple. But it is certainly a factual generalization and starting point.

 

[Gary A.]

Besides their heavy subsidization by governments, accelerated depreciation, tax breaks, etc., the true cost of wind farms is unknown. People also don't take into consideration the ancillary costs for backup power systems, infrastructure costs (roads, site construction, distribution routes).

The footprint of windmills is very broad, eliminating the possibility of truly massed power generation.

Also forgotten is the environmental costs in the way of dead birds, and the noise pollution on nearby animals and people.

All those points will be addessed and mitigated during the permitting process. (At least in California they will be.)

 

[Overread]

Wind farms have caused huge problem when they've been placed on migratory routes and ended up carving through birds and butterflies. I still maintain that for all the good of renewable its just too little power for the large areas required to be dedicated to produce enough energy for modern requirements. Dams (Hydro Electric) require huge areas to be flooded; have a limited life span (they silt up unless you dredge them) and can cause huge problems for rivers (sudden lack of silt - the Nile Delta is collapsing due to a starvation of silt); wind farms require huge areas and are a risk for flying animals; solar again requires huge areas.

I personally think nuclear is the future; its clean during production and its only major risks are in the waste disposal and storage. The other issue is the insane cost that they come with which can cripple companies before they've even got to building.

 

[waday]

Also forgotten is the environmental costs in the way of dead birds, and the noise pollution on nearby animals and people.

All power has environmental costs. Have you compared the environmental costs of wind power to, say, coal or natural gas plants? What about nuclear plants? Or hydroelectric?

Yes, birds are a problem with windmills. I'm interested to know how that compares to the millions of fish and other aquatic fauna that die each year due to water intakes from power plants. Or the noise from these power plants compared to wind mills. Have you done this analysis?

 

[Gary A.]

Are there any viable alternative fuel sources other than (dirty) coal, that would make electric cars really that much cleaner?

Heard a report that countries around the world are setting deadlines when all cars on the road have to be electric, or at least a big percentage of the cars.

But is that a smart idea, considering that most of electricity is coal-based? Unless we go nuclear.

(I'm imagining that it's much worse to have coal-powered-electrically-charged cars than regular fuel, because the coal toxins are released into the air in the United States which makes it a local pollutant as opposed to the oil coming from somewhere else. And the cars themselves have probably cleaner Mufflers than the coal manufacturers in the United States. Is that right?)

Where are you getting your information from ?

Many coal plants in the US have converted and many more are converting to Natural Gas for electricity generation.
Petro and NatGas are used more than coal in the US nowadays with coal dropping more.
==>Electricity in the United States - Energy Explained, Your Guide To Understanding Energy - Energy Information Administration
==> Mapping how the United States generates its electricity

The test plant in the south to create a cleaner coal plant was shut down and is not only NatGas.
==> Kemper Project - Wikipedia

China still uses coal a lot but are converting over to NatGas. The U.S., now a LNG exporter is having issues getting their LNG through the recent Canal expansion.
==> Market Analysis of Natural Gas for Power Generation in China - ScienceDirect

In Europe ==> Overview of the electricity production and use in Europe

Natural gas, while much cleaner than coal, is still a fossil fuel.

 

[Gary A.]

@ smoke665: A cursory look into legislation for commercial trucking shows nothing on the books. But, the state is holding workshops and seminars looking into the future for heavy duty zero emissions vehicles (HD-ZEV). Essentially, the first step is gathering all the data of the present and future usage of HD vehicles in California (how many, what kinds, et cetera) ... where California wants/needs to go ... and how best to reach that future goal. Apparently, California is already working with major HD vehicle manufacturers both domestic and international companies. A ramping from diesel to AFV is proposed utilizing biofuels, fuel cells, hybrids, battery electric, et al. For HD-ZEV it seems like a 2.5% goal by 2023 and a 15% goal by 2030.

 

[tirediron]

I just want to be the first person to put a 350 small block in a Tesla!

 

[Gary A.]

To slow it down ...

 

[pendennis]

Also forgotten is the environmental costs in the way of dead birds, and the noise pollution on nearby animals and people.

All power has environmental costs. Have you compared the environmental costs of wind power to, say, coal or natural gas plants? What about nuclear plants? Or hydroelectric?

Yes, birds are a problem with windmills. I'm interested to know how that compares to the millions of fish and other aquatic fauna that die each year due to water intakes from power plants. Or the noise from these power plants compared to wind mills. Have you done this analysis?

Hydroelectric, gas, coal, and nuclear have been studied ad nauseum. And there are plenty of folks out there, pro and con, who've done the comparisons.

 

[waday]

Also forgotten is the environmental costs in the way of dead birds, and the noise pollution on nearby animals and people.

All power has environmental costs. Have you compared the environmental costs of wind power to, say, coal or natural gas plants? What about nuclear plants? Or hydroelectric?

Yes, birds are a problem with windmills. I'm interested to know how that compares to the millions of fish and other aquatic fauna that die each year due to water intakes from power plants. Or the noise from these power plants compared to wind mills. Have you done this analysis?

Hydroelectric, gas, coal, and nuclear have been studied ad nauseum. And there are plenty of folks out there, pro and con, who've done the comparisons.

You've thrown a statement out there with authority, which can be read as quite a negative perspective of wind energy. If you haven't done the research yourself, I'm assuming you've read and can provide links to the extensive studies and comparisons?

 

[AlanKlein]

I don;t have an ax to grind with gasoline. If they could run cars on water, that would be fine with me. The problem with electric cars is that they're enormously expensive. You're paying an awful lot for the battery that would buy many of the convenience and luxury features that you could get in a gas fired auto. A Tesla 3 costs $10-12K more than a similarly furnished gas run car. And much of those costs are being paid with tax rebates yet still cost more that a similarly furnished auto running on gas.

Then there's the issue with depreciation. Batteries eventually have to be replaced. What's the value of your car when you get to that point? If you want to sell it, you'll get nothing for it because the buyer's going to be stuck paying thousands more to replace the battery. Electric has nice cachet if you have a lot of money. But for the average owner, the economics aren't there, not yet anyway.

 

[pendennis]

...
You've thrown a statement out there with authority, which can be read as quite a negative perspective of wind energy. If you haven't done the research yourself, I'm assuming you've read and can provide links to the extensive studies and comparisons?

My statement wasn't presented as any sort of "authority". It's an observation based on my background in finance, accounting, and systems. I can read and understand financial statements, and I can read a prospectus. I'm a skeptic about any "systems" which tout advantages without proper vetting. "Green" energy is one of those which purports to be a panacea, replacing fossil-based and nuclear energy, but has to be propped up using tax credits and government subsidies. Not one of the statements I've read has done an end-to-end fully costed analysis.

For instance, steel making requires huge amounts of constant electrical power. If wind were such a great deal, why aren't steel makers rushing to convert their mills to wind powered electric for their plants? AC power can't be stored, and has to be ramped up or down as demand requires. Wind and solar are completely dependent on weather conditions. Long periods of windless or cloudy days mean no energy production, and dependence on alternative fossil or nuclear sources.

Any energy solution has to have a market-driven focus. Solar and wind are largely being driven by political forces relying on scientific benefits that are dubious at best, non-existent at worst.

 

[smoke665]

A cursory look into legislation for commercial trucking shows nothing on the books.

The old axiom "there's no such thing as a free lunch" applies. We live in a large, spread out country, the ability to move goods rapidly, is what has allowed us to grow. Back when we were in transportation, we explored several options for container and piggy back shipping by rail. While in some cases it worked out cheaper (cross country), the time to move the goods was just far to excessive for most of our customers. I know there's a lot of testing going on in the local delivery segment, UPS has actually jumped on the idea already and is testing https://www.trucks.com/2016/05/03/ups-places-large-workhorse-hybrid-delivery-truck-order/ but the problem still remains, that these types of vehicles are not for over the road, where the stops are far and few between. Add to that the cost of the hybrid vehicle, and you're looking at increased costs for shipping.

 

[waday]

My statement wasn't presented as any sort of "authority". It's an observation based on my background in finance, accounting, and systems.

First, thank you for your detailed response. I appreciate it. I also appreciate your finance perspective on the topic, something that's usually not discussed.

Second, the statement that I initially questioned had little to do with finance, rather dead birds and noise pollution. However, I'd appreciate a response from your finance perspective on the social and environmental costs (literal costs) from this. As an engineer (and consultant), I work on a very small portion of what power plants do, and in that small portion, we deal with social and environmental costs of impacts to society and the environment. Any thoughts?