Suzuki Burgman USA Forum banner
1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,511 Posts
BTW, In 2020, in the US, plug-in things burned about 60% fossil fuels, 20% nuclear, 20% renewable.
Producing and distributing petrol also burns up electricity.

It took more electricity to make a gallon of fuel than to make my electric bike go the distance the gallon would have given me - so with petrol I’d have burnt twice the fossil fuel (Electric v electric + petrol)

Thats on very old amateur battery/motor technology, modern “manufacturer” technology will be even better.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,511 Posts
Isn't there some aspect like the law of diminishing returns that make electrics (over time) more carbon friendly than i.c.e....
Yes, and that is stated in the Volvo link @Lunatic Fringe posted
(plus ICE material is recycled, the gap will close once electrics are)


So how does it make sense to turn to electric vehicles if they generate more greenhouse gasses to manufacture and to operate?
Because, as your linked article explains, long term - emissions are less, and they create massively less emissions to operate.

In addition to what the article says, fuel tanker trucks and ships don’t need to be made/operated. Spilled fuel is astronomically more damaging than burned fuel (including drips during fill up) etc etc.

Electric vehicles are a prime example of style over substance. Sure, on your end it's clean and happy, but behind the curtain (or on the other end of the transmission line) odds are they're burning coal to get you the electricity your vehicle needs.
Last year only 1.8% of electric in U.K. came from coal. 0% in Norway....
(edit: I’m also pretty sure I read coal dropped below renewables in the US in 2020 or before)

no one's going to put up with a 12 hour charge time for a 90 km range.
True, I never spent more more than about 8 seconds (time it took to plug it in when I got home).
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,511 Posts
According to US Energy Information Administration:

Utility-scale electricity production for 2020

Coal - 19.3%

Renewables - 19.8%
(plus an estimated 42 billion + kWh produced via photovoltaic and other small/scale local sub utility-scale)
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,511 Posts
There is also the known and unknown environmental cost of releasing so much hydrogen into the atmosphere and its contribution to the greenhouse effect.

Hydrogen is pretty much impossible to keep completely contained due to its molecule size. In the atmosphere it rises and attacks/depletes the ozone layer. It may also recombine at altitude, forming noctilucent clouds, a greenhouse gas.
Some will ultimately leave the planet, so we don’t get all that cracked water back.

You also don’t want hydrogen around steel/other metals, the tiny molecules are so small that they pass deep into the metal causing it to become brittle and fail.

Lots of people trying to sell it to us, lots of problems still to fix/understand
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,511 Posts
Both things are what they are - love/hate doesn’t cone into it, neither is perfect.

China controls rare earths for the same reason as most things - they are the cheapest option at the moment

There are a number of issues with with materials in hydrogen tech too and they still use rare earth elements.
The fuel cell catyliser is usually platinum, the production and disposal of PEM Nafion is a major source of pollution.

Another complication is that any air that gets into the cell will kill it.

Hydrogen does benefit one particular group of companies, one with an existing infrastructure of refuelling stations and supply network - they will lose you as a customer if you can just plug in at home.
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top