Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on September 19, 2017
China’s Electric Vehicles Run on Coal! Yes, But …
China’s offhand bombshell about potentially consigning gasoline-fueled cars to the scrapheap has met, predictably, with a round of cheers and jeers.
This is about one of the latter, which concerns the chart below:
With coal dominating China’s electricity generation, a common refrain about electric vehicles is: What’s the point? A car fed by a wire stretching back to a coalmine doesn’t seem like much of an improvement over a gasoline pump.
It’s a legitimate point. But it risks obscuring a different, more fundamental point.
The question here is whether or not an electric vehicle truly results in less greenhouse-gas emissions than a traditional one with an internal combustion engine. This doesn’t just encompass how the vehicles use their energy, but also where that energy comes from and how the vehicles get built in the first place — what are sometimes called “life-cycle” emissions.
The math around emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fuels and generating power is established. Meanwhile, some studies have also attempted to put numbers around the squishier concepts of emissions from building cars and batteries and producing and transporting fuels.
Different vehicles have different carbon footprints due to size, materials and so forth. For my purposes, I am going to use an assumption of 9.7 tons of carbon for a mid-sized vehicle, as per this study released by the Union of Concerned Scientists in 2015.
Building a battery (I’m only considering full battery-electric vehicles here, not hybrids) adds further emissions for the electric vehicle. There are relatively few commercial-scale studies on this issue, with the ones I’ve seen offering estimates implying ranges of between roughly 150 to 330 pounds per kilowatt-hour of capacity. Taking the mid-point of that for a 60 kWh battery — similar to what you might find in a Chevy Bolt or maybe a Tesla Model 3 — equates to 7.3 tons of emissions.
Now the fuel, starting with gasoline:
Emissions from producing oil, refining it and distributing the fuel varies widely; Canadian oil sands, for example, require more energy to produce than many conventional fields. I’ve used the results of a model developed by the Argonne National Laboratory , which estimates about 5.2 pounds of emissions per gallon by the time it gets to the pump. Burning the stuff releases another 20 pounds.
Assuming a theoretical Chinese vehicle gets 35 miles per gallon — a slight improvement on the figure for 2015 — this adds up to just over 0.7 pounds per mile.
With the electric car, “fuel” emissions depend on the mix of power sources. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change provides estimates of these before any fuel is burned. Using those, along with standard emissions for fossil-fuel combustion and assuming 6 percent of the power gets lost as it is transmitted over the grid, results in these estimates per kWh for the major power sources:
Let’s assume the electric vehicle gets 3.5 miles per kWh. This is 240 miles of range divided by 60kWh, subtracting half a mile as a conservative factor to take account of sub-optimal driving conditions and possible degradation of the battery over time. Use China’s coal-heavy power mix and you get emissions of just over half a pound per mile.
Now, assume both vehicles get driven 10,500 miles per year and last 12 years. Here’s how much carbon they emit overall:
So it takes about seven years to offset the emissions from making the battery, even with all that coal factored in. Granted, an 11 percent drop in cumulative emissions still may not seem worth the effort; a couple of alterations to the assumptions and you might end up with no savings at all.
But this brings us to the real story here: choice.
The vehicle with the internal combustion engine can be tweaked in terms of miles-per-gallon. But chemistry dictates that burning gasoline will always, more or less, send 20 pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It’s a closed system.
The battery vehicle, in contrast, is an open platform. Its menu of energy options can change dramatically according to the types of generation in your region, whether you’re using centralized or distributed power sources, and even the time of day you charge up. Critically, all those inputs can, and will, change over time.
To see how this affects things, the chart below shows my estimate of life-cycle emissions for the two vehicles described above, but also for Chinese vehicles using the International Energy Agency’s projected mix of power there in 2030 . For this, I’ve also boosted the efficiency of the vehicles by almost 30 percent, so the one using gasoline gets about 45 miles per gallon, while the electric vehicle gets about 4.5 miles per kWh. I’ve done the same for U.S. vehicles traveling 13,000 miles per year, and starting at 31 miles per gallon for the gasoline vehicle now, using the country’s current and projected power mix:
There are valid arguments against electric vehicles, be it their high cost or concerns around charging infrastructure, range anxiety or whatever. Yet it should also be acknowledged that all those concerns have diminished in importance over time and may well continue to do so. Certainly, much of the incumbent auto industry – not to mention some petro-states — seems to be thinking that way.
When it comes to carbon emissions, though, the argument that electric vehicles are as bad or worse than those burning gasoline is already hard to square with today’s numbers — and that will get harder over time. It ignores the inherent potential for change and choice that an electric drive-train opens up versus burning gasoline. Oil bulls dismissing this should take note that governments look ever less likely to do the same.
57 Comments on "China’s Electric Vehicles Run on Coal! Yes, But …"
Plantagenet on Tue, 19th Sep 2017 4:31 pm
The more coal that china burns, the more CO2 that will be emitted. The more EVs in China, the more coal that will have to be burned.
How are we ever going to make some progress in fighting global warming and carbon emissions if EV advocates become apologists for China’s huge and growing CO2 emissions?
Cheers!
Cloggie on Tue, 19th Sep 2017 4:36 pm
A. Moving to e-vehicles
B. Moving to renewables
It is very difficult to say A and B at the same time. Just try it.
eugene on Tue, 19th Sep 2017 7:17 pm
The issue I have with EV proponents (a bit fanatic in my book) is the “oh my god, we’re saved” push. The real CO2 picture is much more complex plus population increasing 80 million a yr. And, frankly, I’d love to see the China/Russia fanaticism in America go away. My read: Take a deep, deep breath, stand in front of the mirror and say it’s been me all along. A bit more humility in America would make the world a calmer place but what the hell, lets elect a severe personality disorder so the evening news is exciting.
ohanian on Tue, 19th Sep 2017 9:00 pm
It sounds to me like
What is the point of me turning from a meat eater to a Vegan
After all it is a fact that all vegetables and fruits are all planted by slave labor. And I detest slavery!
Dude, there is no physical reason why vegetables and fruits cannot be planted by non slave labor.
Boat on Tue, 19th Sep 2017 9:13 pm
eugene on Tue, 19th Sep 2017 7:17 pm
“The issue I have with EV proponents (a bit fanatic in my book) is the “oh my god, we’re saved” push”
Sounds to me your into fake news, EV’s are just a small arrow in a big quiver of steps to limit the damage of climate change. Your welcome, one issue solved.
rk on Wed, 20th Sep 2017 2:54 am
This article is nonsense. Power losses can be up near 70% see link by two power engineers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kU6izpryqqw&feature=youtu.be
twocats on Wed, 20th Sep 2017 6:53 am
[not the article, not the commentators. no one mentions peak oil. we need to change the website name.]
right, peak oil. oil getting harder to find – less gasoline – switch to coal and NG- “we got coal & NG for hundreds of years” – but that’s at current rates of consumption growth. how much coal/NG do we have if we continue BAU growth but with coal/NG as bulk of transition fuel?
Simon on Wed, 20th Sep 2017 2:53 pm
TLAFs at 6% …. wa ha ha ha
region I work in (like all others) quotes TLAFs per Unit per day, none above 1.1%
as for 70% … seriously is that grid using wool instead of wire
dave thompson on Wed, 20th Sep 2017 3:35 pm
If China is making all those low cost solar panels why do they still burn so much coal? Because they have to sell the panels to make a profit and there is no profit in making electricity from solar panels.
makati1 on Wed, 20th Sep 2017 5:40 pm
Bingo dave! Right on!
Apneaman on Wed, 20th Sep 2017 9:48 pm
Electric vehicles still gotta drive on the fossil fuel roads.
We’re building roads to withstand last century’s climate
Asphalt in use tolerates the temperature extremes of a period that ended in 1995.
“Does it make sense to build something that will almost certainly end up wrecked before its useful lifetime is over? In most contexts, the answer is clearly “no,” since doing so is a waste of money and resources. But lots of people seem to have a blind spot when it comes to planning ahead for climate change. North Carolina, for example, went through a protracted debate over whether it should allow people to build on sites that were likely to be under water. And the Trump administration recently cancelled rules that were intended to prevent infrastructure from being built where the ocean would rise to meet it.”
“There’s just one small problem with this: the engineers are directed to base this on temperature data from the period between 1964 and 1995.
A group of researchers based in Arizona decided that might already be causing problems, as global temperatures have risen considerably since 1995. So they obtained data on the asphalt type used on nearly 800 roads, widely distributed across the Continental US. And they compared those types to the sorts of temperatures those areas have been experiencing in recent years.
The news isn’t good. Of the roads built over the past 20 years, a full 35 percent were produced using an incorrect material. In most cases, this involves a tolerance for cold temperatures that no longer occur. But in a quarter of these cases, the road was experiencing high temperatures that it wasn’t designed to tolerate.”
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/09/were-building-roads-to-withstand-last-centurys-climate/
Simon on Thu, 21st Sep 2017 12:28 am
Mak n Dave
Probably,because the panels are not made by china, they are made in china, big difference.
There is a ton of money to be made in solar and wind, only curtailed by the (normal) deminimus nature of the unit and its inability to be despatchable (storage) when the last is solved the rush to solar/wind will be like the California goldrush
Simon
makati1 on Thu, 21st Sep 2017 12:45 am
Simon, so was the newest and fastest supercomputer ‘Made in China’ by Chinese engineers and talents. They also now have developed a new quantum security system that no one can read. Not even the US.
“BEIJING — China launched the world’s first quantum communications satellite from the Gobi Desert early Tuesday, a major step in the country’s bid to be at the forefront of quantum research, which could lead to new, completely secure methods of transmitting information.
Researchers hope to use the satellite to beam communications from space to earth with quantum technology, which employs photons, or particles of light. That type of communication could prove to be the most secure in the world, invulnerable to hacking. Scientists and security experts in many countries are studying the technology.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/17/world/asia/china-quantum-satellite-mozi.html
Your view of China is about 50 years behind reality.
Simon on Thu, 21st Sep 2017 12:52 am
Mak
let me rephrase this
the reason that china does not make and then use all its solar panels is because they are made IN china, but they are not made BY china
China the entity is not making the panels private Chinese firms are.
read before you kneejerk post
Simon on Thu, 21st Sep 2017 12:56 am
oh, and in about 10 seconds I found this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China
kinda seems that the Chinese Gov.is investing in solar
makati1 on Thu, 21st Sep 2017 1:49 am
Simon, sorry. if I misread your comment. you are correct. But private Chinese firms are still under Chinese control. If you think they are not, you need to check again. Even American ‘owned’ factories are under Chinese control to an extent not found in the US. Splitting hairs maybe? Yes, the Chinese are seeing the effects of pollution and doing something about it.
dave thompson on Thu, 21st Sep 2017 7:01 am
Simon lets not kid ourselves, alternative energy is a drop in the bucket when it comes to the total energy production and use worldwide.
For every year the alt energy production gains, the carbon burning of FF increases right along with it.
The other dirty little secret is that no alt energy exists at scale to replace what diesel, gasoline, jet fuel, and bunker fuel do for transportation in liquid form . That is at a scale that can be used for industrial civ. http://climateandcapitalism.com/2017/09/15/the-green-energy-cornucopia-is-100-percent-wishful-thinking/
Davy on Thu, 21st Sep 2017 7:06 am
1,2,3 just wait Dave, clog will give you an goofy unscalable example of an electric plane, boat, and farm tractor just as quick as you can say “uncle”
dave thompson on Thu, 21st Sep 2017 7:34 am
Yea Davy I know about Cloggie and the three garbage trucks in some EU country making pickups only using pixie dust and unicorn droppings as fuel.
Cloggie on Thu, 21st Sep 2017 9:37 am
Davy and low caps dave will refer to “collapse” before you can say “auntie”, a clear reflection of their inner state of despair.
3 e-trucks?
Really.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vFYFM25rDM
https://www.daimler.com/products/trucks/mercedes-benz/mercedes-benz-electric-truck.html
https://www.truck.man.eu/de/en/eTruck.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxAmkzz2Uok
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WttOar8UjlA
https://www.scania.com/group/en/scania-tests-next-generation-electric-vehicles/
dave thompson on Thu, 21st Sep 2017 9:52 am
Thanks Cloggie for the reminder that you think industrial civilization is on track to make a green alt energy transition.
Can I remind you dave thompson is my name and how I spell it. If you like you can see me on my latest video interviewing Guy McPherson. That way I can prove to you I am who I say I am. Not a doomer, a realist seeking truth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJT_QDfgbfU
Cloggie on Thu, 21st Sep 2017 10:11 am
Thanks Cloggie for the reminder that you think industrial civilization is on track to make a green alt energy transition.
Europe is on track, not to put a man on the moon, but to achieve the energy transition first, hopefully in 2050, perhaps (much) earlier, if it would turn out that we are indeed dealing with runaway climate change.
Can I remind you dave thompson is my name and how I spell it.
Nobody cares what your real name is, nobody asked for it. This is not a dating site.
dave thompson on Thu, 21st Sep 2017 10:19 am
“low caps dave will refer to “collapse” before you can say “auntie”, a clear reflection of their inner state of despair.” Cloggie is this your way of showing how much YOU care about my name? I have not ever asked anyone for a date on this site. Just what is your point?
Hello on Thu, 21st Sep 2017 10:29 am
low caps dave is pretty funny. I’ll keep that in mind. 🙂
Meanwhile you should take what my teenage daughter always recommends: a chill-pill.
Or might it be possible that you deserve the name ‘low caps dave’? It almost seems like.
dave thompson on Thu, 21st Sep 2017 10:35 am
Thanks Hello, Cloggie does not, has not upset me in the sense of taking a chill pill. I have only pointed out the fallacy of Cloggies claims of a clean green transition away from FF’s. Something that Cloggie cannot answer to without using ad-hominem attacks.
Boat on Thu, 21st Sep 2017 11:25 am
dave thompson on Thu, 21st Sep 2017 7:01 am
“Alternative energy is a drop in the bucket when it comes to the total energy production and use worldwide”.
Do you even know worldwide what percentage nuclear, renewable and hydropower equal?
Cloggie on Thu, 21st Sep 2017 11:54 am
I have only pointed out the fallacy of Cloggies claims of a clean green transition away from FF’s.
Fallacy? When are you going to admit that you were wrong with your “3 e-trucks”?
Something that Cloggie cannot answer to without using ad-hominem attacks.
Did I hurt your feelings with the factual “low caps dave”?
Back to reality, being a trucker will be not so strenuous in the near future:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIe9gSRBQTk
43 electric buses in Eindhoven:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNCC5_2pW2Y
35 electric buses in Amsterdam Airport:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61Rp6b681Yc
“3 e-trucks”.lol
dave thompson on Thu, 21st Sep 2017 12:02 pm
“Did I hurt your feelings with the factual “low caps dave”?”
No not at all. Because dave thompson is my name.
“three garbage trucks in some EU country making pickups only using pixie dust and unicorn droppings as fuel.” Is what I said. Never said; “3 e-trucks”
dave thompson on Thu, 21st Sep 2017 12:04 pm
As for your glorious transition, “43 electric buses in Eindhoven, 35 electric buses in Amsterdam Airport”. Cloggie in the grand scheme of things, I would say pretty pathetic.
Cloggie on Thu, 21st Sep 2017 12:12 pm
“Did I hurt your feelings with the factual “low caps dave”?”
No not at all. Because dave thompson is my name.
So where then was the “attack”? “Ad hominem”?
As for your glorious transition, “43 electric buses in Eindhoven, 35 electric buses in Amsterdam Airport”. Cloggie in the grand scheme of things, I would say pretty pathetic.
And of course ignoring that most large European truck companies have begun developing or even producing e-trucks, see links above.
But dave has decided that industrial civilization is going collapse because, you see, if it can’t be accomplished in three months, it will never get done.
/facepalm
Completely unable to think in terms of decades.
The very realistic plan in Europe is to get he job done before 2050.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_the_European_Union
But if you keep broadcasting your collapse message, nothing will get done. Fine with me, the sooner we in Europe get in control of our own civilization again and trash 1945.
Heck, 1776.
dave thompson on Thu, 21st Sep 2017 12:13 pm
Boat, Nukes are not alt energy in the sense that no new ones are being built at this time. Same for Hydro, all the viable sites have been built out and any new proposals are few and far between.
I am talking about solar and wind the two main alt energy systems that are being touted as the savior of industrial civ.
dave thompson on Thu, 21st Sep 2017 12:23 pm
Cloggie do you know what mocking someone is? Same as an ad hominem.
As far as decades go, ok you can make your claim of a transition. My issue is in the time scale and numbers you present. As I have pointed out countless times. No where do I advocate collapse as being the end result of human industrial civ on any time scale prediction as your 2050 time frame. However at the rate we are going with use and dependency on FFs’s I do not envision a prosperous future for mankind with an endless growth paradigm based on alt energy.
Boat on Thu, 21st Sep 2017 12:32 pm
dave,
Look at your post, you specified worldwide.
Boat on Thu, 21st Sep 2017 12:36 pm
dave,
Alternative energy is any energy source that is an alternative to fossil fuel. These alternatives are intended to address concerns about such fossil fuels, such as its high carbon dioxide emissions, an important factor in global warming. Marine energy, hydroelectric, wind, geothermal and solar power are all alternative sources of energy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_energy
GregT on Thu, 21st Sep 2017 12:38 pm
Boat,
“Do you even know worldwide what percentage nuclear, renewable and hydropower equal?”
Do you even understand the differences between worldwide total energy production and worldwide total electricity production?
Here’s a small clue; “Alternative energy is a drop in the bucket when it comes to the total energy production and use worldwide.” Less than 1/10th of 1%.
dave thompson on Thu, 21st Sep 2017 12:42 pm
Boat yes I did, World wide alt energy systems based on wind and solar is what i meant.
What other “new” alt energy systems do you want to add? Nukes are not new. Hydro is not new and has no where to grow much. Wave power? OK add that in. World wide Alt energy accounts for a very small % and it is not growing fast enough to take the place of FF’s. AND none of the alt energy is going to transportation on a scale able replacement level for FF’s by 2050 that Cloggie keeps promoting.
Boat on Thu, 21st Sep 2017 12:42 pm
dave,
wind 6.2 pecent……US
solar 1 percent
If 100 percent of electricity is a bucket how big is a drop.
dave thompson on Thu, 21st Sep 2017 12:45 pm
“Here’s a small clue; “Alternative energy is a drop in the bucket when it comes to the total energy production and use worldwide.” Less than 1/10th of 1%.” Thanks Greg for clarification.
dave thompson on Thu, 21st Sep 2017 12:47 pm
Boat yes agree in certain sectors the numbers look a lot better. However, The amount of CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere is still increasing so none of it amounts to any thing but wishful thinking. IMHO
Boat on Thu, 21st Sep 2017 1:46 pm
dave,
Even if all clean energy alternatives grow at a robust rate the world is still going to experience massive destruction over the next 80 years at min. That does not change the fact wind and solar are a cleaner per btu.
Boat on Thu, 21st Sep 2017 2:03 pm
greggiet,
“Alternative energy is a drop in the bucket when it comes to the total energy production and use worldwide.” Less than 1/10th of 1%.”
Do you know the definition of alternative energy. Last time I looked the US and the world were around 18 percent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_energy
dave thompson on Thu, 21st Sep 2017 2:05 pm
Yes Boat I agree wind and solar are cleaner per btu. Once you forget about all of the FF inputs that go into building, installing and maintaining the devices. And only focus on the end result of spinning turbines and solar panels soaking up the sun making electricity.
makati1 on Thu, 21st Sep 2017 5:29 pm
dave, Boat has a problem focusing on anything. He wants so much for ‘alts ‘ to support his world that he grasps every line of bullshit the government, it’s think tanks, or corporations put out that gives hope for an ‘alt’ future.
I like his 80 year timeline for destruction. Eight yeas would be a lot closer. Some here do not have the ability to climb outside the propaganda box and look at the real world. They don’t see the collapse happening all around them and refuse to consider that it will all end in the near future. Not 80 years from now when they will be dead. Denial? Hopium? Ignorance?
GregT on Thu, 21st Sep 2017 6:45 pm
“Last time I looked the US and the world were around 18 percent.”
Of electric power generation. Not TOTAL energy production. The point that you appear to be having a great deal of difficulty with.
Electricity does not run modern industrial society, and electric power generation is a byproduct of fossil fuels powered modern industrialism.
Boat on Thu, 21st Sep 2017 8:04 pm
greggiet,
Show me a link.
ff energy percentage of a total percentage
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.COMM.FO.ZS?
end=2015&start=1960&view=chart
greggiet, you’re like short, you make these wild claims without doing a simple google. Would you tell me why? Ideology run wild?
Cloggie on Fri, 22nd Sep 2017 2:28 am
dave’s “3 trucks” latest:
Tesla to reveal e-truck “Semi” later this year:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag279KjPKDQ
US company Nikola:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-J7H_XmmWg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLidTCqAAtY
dave thompson on Fri, 22nd Sep 2017 5:04 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWD15FBk3wg&t=613s
dave thompson on Sat, 23rd Sep 2017 1:46 am
Cloggie those trucks you posted are bullshit. Where and who are driving them? At what scale? Where does the hydrogen come from? Where are the refueling stations? Industrial hydrogen is made from natural gas, so how is that cutting GHG emissions? A truck that goes 200 miles per charge is not going to take over cross country shipping. Again total bullshit.
Anonymouse1 on Sat, 23rd Sep 2017 4:24 am
LoL@cloggen-fraud… tesla. If you reserve a seat now, maybe you can hitch a ride with musk to the promised land too, no not Jerusalem cloggen-stein, MARS!
No atmosphere to speak of, low gravity, nothing organic, only water is locked in the polar ice caps. Musk has implied Mars is pretty much a done deal, and you how you believe(and regurgitate) anything you see posted on the interwebs no matter how flimsy and fatuous.
(x2 if falls out of Musk’s cakehole.)
So what are you waiting for cloggen-stein? Start packing. And don’t forget to put your name in for a Tesla all-electric autonomous Mars Rover as well. Be the first in your pressurized geodesic dome to own one.
Cloggie on Sat, 23rd Sep 2017 4:50 am
I have shown that several major truck builders, mostly in Europe, are actively working on e-trucks, but here comes self-defeatist low-caps dave, saying it is not going to work, because it threatens his collapse world-view.
European Union e-truck program:
https://frevue.eu/
http://e-truckseurope.com/en
And come to think of it, why don’t dave, Davy and anonymouse, under the inspiring leadership of the TalmudTurk, start a collapse workshop, defending the Great American Idea of Total Collapse against foreign attacks. Why not just let you folks talk yourself into the grave, saves us in Europe a lot trouble. Getting rid of the overlord on the cheap. In the land of the collapsing bridges and failed foreign military adventures there is now such a level of (entirely justified) despair, that it is only a matter of time until the entire house of cards will collapse into itself. You folks just want to collapse.
Pointing out directions for a way out… pearls before swine. You do not want to hear it because you do not feel the creative spark inside yourself, necessary to seriously address problems. You folks get tired by the thought alone that you have to work yourself out of the problems, but that would be too much of an effort. That would make us tired, OMG.
Go collapse! You are asking, nay begging for it!