jeepoch
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- Jay
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2019
- Threads
- 1
- Messages
- 1,052
- Reaction score
- 2,941
- Location
- Longmont, CO
- Vehicle(s)
- 2019 JL Wrangler Sport S 3.6L Auto 2 door, 2.5" lift, 35s
@AndySpill,
Andy yes, certainly at least in theory.
However, there are also more factors involved. For one, the physical loses involved with transmitting power over a wider area with a centralized power plant is a significant issue. Please note that the generating station not only has to displace the energy that your EV is using within just your vehicle itself, but the transportation of that energy to not only you but to all other vehicles requiring an electric charge as well.
Granted, the high voltage lines transporting this energy is much more efficient than a tanker truck, there's still unfortunately a lot of loss within the grid overall transporting this power to more and more locations. In addition, these losses accumulate as demand goes up. The power grid follows the principle of diminishing returns. Greater demand increases greater losses which also unfortunately result in even more emissions.
The primary takeaway here is that with ICE, your vehicle is decreasing the power demand on the grid since it's providing an independent power source (from the tanker truck) and not from the grid. It's individual emissions component is locally much less than the overall increase in powerplant spewage.
Of course this is based individually on just your vehicle. This emission trade off diminishes with the overall number of vehicles being driven simultaneously. So there is a statistical population sample at play here as well.
However as ICE is diminished, the grid demand will clearly only increase. This higher demand not only increases the amount of power generation required just for your vehicle but all others, and more importantly, all the normal demand for homes and businesses concurrently as well. As more power is needed more emissions (even if more centralized) will be generated and this of course must be factored over the entire load of everything. Also recall as this load increases, so also the transmission losses making matters even worse (law of diminishing returns).
Alternate energy sources such as solar and wind can certainly contribute but they are NOT reliable. Will this increase in demand only happen on sunny or windy days? So as demand increases, more traditional sources of power must be brought online. Do you think that the burning of any type of fossil fuel is any more emissions friendlier than gasoline?
Furthermore, is generating more power for everything more efficient than distributed power just where it's needed? This is a very complicated problem. It comes down to the overall sum of producing the energy for everyone everywhere, and the overall byproducts produced on a grand scale from a single source vs distributed demand on a case-by-case basis only when needed. Driving your ICE vehicle poses insignificant demand on the grid. I neglect stopping for a fill-up.
On sunny, windy, temperate weekdays where a lot of people work from home, your EV trip to the store is minimal on environmental emissions. However on a hot (or cold), calm, busy holiday weekend, using an ICE to the local market will likely help reduce the overall grid demand to actually reduce overall emissions output, whereas your EV will certainly contribute.
Everything is relative to overall demand and how that demand is distributed. Either all ICE or all EV are the worst case scenarios. The optimal solution is a balanced mix.
The overall goal is a solution that does not overburden any single energy source. Firing up more generators as demand increases has to come from reliable mechanisms (such as coal and gas) and this has to provide for more power (with more losses) to the entire grid infrastructure. If the grid doesn't collapse (brown or blackout) the emission byproducts are maximal.
So, the answer is complicated. But anything that reduces power grid burden during peak usage is clearly the most beneficial for everyone as a collective whole.
ICE has benefit to the overall big picture when looked at from something other than the idealized conceptual green model.
Perhaps when (someday) our power grid infrastructure will not require rolling blackouts due to peak demand, and solar panels and batteries become even somewhat viable, then (and only then) will the benefit of centralized power generation be able to significantly reduce carbon emissions.
Yet even then, is that a good thing? Many argue that plant life and vegetation will thrive on increased CO2 levels. So make up your own mind to which approach is better.
My belief is that until a better power mechanism is found for vehicle propulsion, a balanced mix is clearly the correct (and best) answer.
Forcing everything onto our current grid infrastructure too prematurely, is a clear recipe for trouble.
Jay
Andy yes, certainly at least in theory.
However, there are also more factors involved. For one, the physical loses involved with transmitting power over a wider area with a centralized power plant is a significant issue. Please note that the generating station not only has to displace the energy that your EV is using within just your vehicle itself, but the transportation of that energy to not only you but to all other vehicles requiring an electric charge as well.
Granted, the high voltage lines transporting this energy is much more efficient than a tanker truck, there's still unfortunately a lot of loss within the grid overall transporting this power to more and more locations. In addition, these losses accumulate as demand goes up. The power grid follows the principle of diminishing returns. Greater demand increases greater losses which also unfortunately result in even more emissions.
The primary takeaway here is that with ICE, your vehicle is decreasing the power demand on the grid since it's providing an independent power source (from the tanker truck) and not from the grid. It's individual emissions component is locally much less than the overall increase in powerplant spewage.
Of course this is based individually on just your vehicle. This emission trade off diminishes with the overall number of vehicles being driven simultaneously. So there is a statistical population sample at play here as well.
However as ICE is diminished, the grid demand will clearly only increase. This higher demand not only increases the amount of power generation required just for your vehicle but all others, and more importantly, all the normal demand for homes and businesses concurrently as well. As more power is needed more emissions (even if more centralized) will be generated and this of course must be factored over the entire load of everything. Also recall as this load increases, so also the transmission losses making matters even worse (law of diminishing returns).
Alternate energy sources such as solar and wind can certainly contribute but they are NOT reliable. Will this increase in demand only happen on sunny or windy days? So as demand increases, more traditional sources of power must be brought online. Do you think that the burning of any type of fossil fuel is any more emissions friendlier than gasoline?
Furthermore, is generating more power for everything more efficient than distributed power just where it's needed? This is a very complicated problem. It comes down to the overall sum of producing the energy for everyone everywhere, and the overall byproducts produced on a grand scale from a single source vs distributed demand on a case-by-case basis only when needed. Driving your ICE vehicle poses insignificant demand on the grid. I neglect stopping for a fill-up.
On sunny, windy, temperate weekdays where a lot of people work from home, your EV trip to the store is minimal on environmental emissions. However on a hot (or cold), calm, busy holiday weekend, using an ICE to the local market will likely help reduce the overall grid demand to actually reduce overall emissions output, whereas your EV will certainly contribute.
Everything is relative to overall demand and how that demand is distributed. Either all ICE or all EV are the worst case scenarios. The optimal solution is a balanced mix.
The overall goal is a solution that does not overburden any single energy source. Firing up more generators as demand increases has to come from reliable mechanisms (such as coal and gas) and this has to provide for more power (with more losses) to the entire grid infrastructure. If the grid doesn't collapse (brown or blackout) the emission byproducts are maximal.
So, the answer is complicated. But anything that reduces power grid burden during peak usage is clearly the most beneficial for everyone as a collective whole.
ICE has benefit to the overall big picture when looked at from something other than the idealized conceptual green model.
Perhaps when (someday) our power grid infrastructure will not require rolling blackouts due to peak demand, and solar panels and batteries become even somewhat viable, then (and only then) will the benefit of centralized power generation be able to significantly reduce carbon emissions.
Yet even then, is that a good thing? Many argue that plant life and vegetation will thrive on increased CO2 levels. So make up your own mind to which approach is better.
My belief is that until a better power mechanism is found for vehicle propulsion, a balanced mix is clearly the correct (and best) answer.
Forcing everything onto our current grid infrastructure too prematurely, is a clear recipe for trouble.
Jay
Sponsored
