If everyone moves from petrol/diesel powered vehicles to electric cars, will this really help the environment? Won't electricity consumption?

Question

rise exponentially meaning more coal fired power stations will have to be built thus damaging the environment?

Answer 1

.

Answer 2

It all depends on how electric power will be generated for EV's....coal is indeed one option but many power companies are using more cheaper, cleaner natural gas. Thermal solar or thorium nuclear would be the most effective, cleaner options than coal or other fossil fuels although clean coal tech may see some progress and will outlast other fossil fuels. If we had done clean(er) coal tech 10 years ago, we'd be in a better place today but everyone is pushing for better EV's and green power...wind/solar, etc... Low cost and safe Mini-nuke plants that can be buried in the ground to power local areas might see some gains or widespread use.



Volvo has plans to make all their cars EV or hybrids by 2019. Countries like France and Britain among others are banning petrol and diesel cars by 2040 and some earlier. Germany may follow as well. Yet they rely heavily on subsidies to do so. We'll see what energy sources they come up with and costs to do so.



https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-autos-idUSKBN1AB0U5

Answer 3

The problem with electric vehicles is that they get their electricity from the power grid. If your local power plant is running on renewable fuels, you are helping the enviroment, if it's running on diesel/petrol, you are just buying a new car.

Answer 4

Its a bs

Answer 5

A great many wonderful things could be done "if everyone would just..."



But everyone (or every nation) will not work together for ANYTHING.

Answer 6

We in the US won't have to build coal plants. NG is cheaper. We could liquefy NG and use it as a fuel like gasoline and or we could use it for electrical power generation. There is a cost to the environment in any case. With electric cars, the air, particularly around urban areas is cleaner. I like the idea of electric cars but they aren't a panacea.

Answer 7

no , you still have to throw away those batterys

Answer 8

Myth, the foot print, the environmental damage from the electronics.batteries and such, the electricity need for recharge and such. All cancel out out the so called gains to the enviroment by going electric.

Answer 9

Obviously...it would help the air quality due to no exhaust fumes.

Answer 10

why use coal? it's a dying industry. Many have changed to natural gas.

Answer 11

You can create Electricity from Solar-power, and you'd actually need the Hydrogen-Engine(because trucks, and busses need a Hydrogen-Engine for power, Electric-Power isn't very good yet) to finally be put to use.



The Hydrogen-Engine has been ready for mass-production since the early 2000's, the only reason we're not all driving in a Hydrogen vehicle, is because Oil-Companies refused to supply Gas-Stations with a Water Pump.

Answer 12

It does'nt have anything to do with earth's Environment. It's more like more money coming in since those chargers all around each country one day will cost more than using oil based fuels. Nothing & no one originally from earth was the cause of Global Warming. The species that created Global Warming left earth MAY 2017 for deep space. Yes I'm thinking those chargers will soon cost more money no matter where you go. Mike

Answer 13

Yes it would and they would STOP building trams in our cities which is a good thing when you consider that the major cities in the U.K. are switching off the street lights for 5 hours to conserve energy.Just wait until the new nuclear power station is built-they have a license to charge us what they like

Answer 14

We have invented new power sources in the past 20 years, and in fact before then. In 1935, for example, the Grand Coulee Dam was constructed in Washington State. I think no one in FDR's day was thinking about "green energy", but he built it with the WPA.

Answer 15

yes, even with coal power. easier to control one source than millions.

Answer 16

Libs leave out any "cons" in their explanations, just like on all issues.



Thats why they must block other viewpoints. Its the only way liberalism can be sold.

Answer 17

No, it won't rise exponentially, but it will increase. Since the electricity can be produced by methods that produce far less greenhouse gases, that can help the environment, as long as electric cars aren't a whole lot worse to produce than conventional cars.

Answer 18

1. As far as I'm aware, even if you're comparing a *completely* coal-fueled electric car to a standard gasoline car, the electric car comes out ahead in terms of less pollution emitted.



2. In terms of factors besides CO2, a single power plant is much easier to "scrub" than hundreds or thousands of point-source pollution factories, ie cars and trucks.



3. We have lots and lots and lots of ways to make electricity, only one of which is coal plants. In fact, intelligently used, electric cars could solve part of the "the sun doesn't always shine, the wind doesn't always blow" problem of several forms of zero-emission energy generation, if smart chargers preferentially charge whenever energy is cheap, and de-charge slightly when more energy is needed.

Answer 19

Coal fired power stations are not competitive in many places, they are being replaced by gas and renewables. (Even if this wasn't the case, combustion engines are about 20% efficient, while modern coal-fired power plants are about 33-40% efficiency.)



Electricity consumption is dropping in part because of energy efficiency and people putting solar on the roof. So electric vehicles will be a huge benefit to the companies generating the electricity as well as utility companies. It is the grid that is the main concern.



Utility companies could get into trouble. A 5kW grid tie solar system costs about US$9k (Without subsidies + permits and installation) so if you pay more than 11 cents per kWh, you should investigate if solar on the roof is for you. Time the washing machine etc to start when the sun powers up the panels, feed any excess into your car but depending on your driving, the car will need to get most power at night (when power is cheap) This is what I do, I don't drive much, I work from home, so I usually don't have to charge it at night. Some cars will even allow you to feed the electricity back into your house, quite handy in case of a power outage.



Utility companies used to charge our water heaters when they had surplus electricity, you would hear a loud "bang" as they switched it on. (yes, I am that old) Same can be done for electric cars, the utility companies could even allow consumers to choose the time to charge their car batteries based on cost of electricity and need. This could actually help to stabilize the grid and lower the cost per kWh to the consumer.



A 16kWh off grid system currently costs about US$50k (US$210 a month). In summer you wouldn't know what to do with all the (70kWh daily) power, while in winter you would have just enough to power the house and maybe charge your car batteries a little. If you are closer to the equator you will have more then ample power all year round. I realize that not many people have 50k to spare but prices are expected to drop significantly over the next few years.



Interesting times...



Edit:



"Gas engines ICE are more like 28% and diesels exceed 30% in efficiency." I am sure there are engines that perform better, I used an average. BTW EVs convert about 59%–62% of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels.



At the current price of oil. ICE's need to be far more efficient to compete with the cost of electricity. The only thing holding the electric car back is the cost of batteries, which is falling rapidly. Solid state batteries are being developed by companies like BMW and if they can get them to work economically, we could charge our car in 5 - 10 minutes. (just imagine the size of the cable to hook it up to be charged though and I wonder if it is as safe as a tank of gas in an accident.)



It always makes me laugh when I see people saying this can't be done while industry is already doing it. There are hurdles to overcome as it is scaled up, but come on, imagine that if we didn't have fossil fuels today, we could still have plenty of electricity to run our economies. It is the crazy old farts who are saying it can't be done.

Answer 20

They are crazy, it is totally impractical, where is all the infrastructure going to come from?

For a start many motorists do not have a garage or parking space, how will they charge their vehicles? are we going to have cables snaking over the sidewalks.

Where is the electricity going to come from? UK grid estimates an increase of 50%, apart from Norway none of them have enough reliable electricity (Norway has loads of hydro power) they dont want to build anymore coal fired stations, they are against fracking, they rely heavily on Russia for piped gas. most are against nuclear.

Wind and Solar don't make me laugh, several times a year we have a high pressure sitting over countries for days even weeks, with next to no wind blowing (what happens then)

All local electricity infrastructure will have to be upgraded it cannot handle the extra load imposed and will be unsafe.

$billions will have to be spent on extra transmission lines, $billions spent on charging stations.

The cost of electricity will go through the roof.

Where's all the money going to come from?

Truly they are nuts.

Answer 21

No. You obviously have been listening to liars and greed-head coal and oil barons and their apologists.

Answer 22

Without a lot of extra power generation capacity we will all be sitting in the dark with flat cars.

The good news is the police will geek getting flat batteries. They will have a 1 hour recharge not a 3 minute splash and dash.

Answer 23

Forget that.

Answer 24

No. Solar and wind are the fastest growing energy production methods in the world. Both are becoming more efficient and more economically competitive every year.