drees said:
Phil, GREET explicitly takes into account full lifecycle emissions. The study JRP linked to hardly discussions CO2 emissions but in passing.
I'll say it again;
Show me the studies! As I mentioned earlier, the Petroleum "well to wheels" energy path is so complex it's almost impossible to do an accurate recount, so often the studies do a "best case" or "worst case". The ones I have been involved with concern mainly with domestic sources, such as North slope Alaska, as we keep more accurate accounting and it's somewhat believable, whereas the numbers from the middle-east are not well accounted and seldom accurate.
drees said:
The studies referred to in the article discuss CO2 emissions of EVs on the grid as an average which I do not disagree with. My (and JRP3's) point which you seem to disagree with are simply these 2 items:
1. You completely overstated the amount of energy that goes upstream into a gallon of gasoline by claiming one could drive an EV 40 miles on the upstream CO2 emissions when in reality it's a tiny fraction of that number.
2. That EVs on coal power are substantially cleaner than gasoline cars when in fact they are similar and when compared to the Prius might even be worse.
EV's and PHEV's are 2 different animals, especially since most of the work is based on the Hymotion Prius PHEV that ANL did extensive quantification of, and since they all burn some amount of petroleum, and have CO2 emissions, even when in "electric" mode, it is NOT the same as an EV! This warping of information is precisely why I will vehemently ask for hard numbers, which you will never be able to produce as "good science". I never quoted anything about upstream CO2 emissions driving an EV 40 miles. I stated that the amount of extra energy (not directly derived from the actual petroleum itself) needed to drill it, transport it, refine it, distribute it, and dispense it at least 10kWh per gallon of unleaded gasoline (not Diesel). My driving patterns in my Leaf mean 10kWh is about 40 miles.
Now I'm well aware that a lot of that 10kWh comes from byproducts of the petroleum operations, such as flare gas, natural gas, etc. Still, if we stopped using the gasoline, that energy would still likely be available for electricity production to the grid, even if that's not sustainable.
drees said:
Painting a rosy picture of EVs and ignoring ugly realities doesn't get us anywhere. Obviously I agree that EVs are the way to go (even in coal country primarily because EVs significantly reduce neighborhood emissions) - but at the same time a substantial portion of the rest of our grid has a long ways to go as well.
I don't think this paints a rosy picture at all. I'm worried that this is all too little, too late, and that we are doomed. But wrongly making the "long tailpipe" front and center does no good whatsoever, because this isn't about CO2, it's about sustaining our economy and keeping people alive. Sadly, Despite my own ideas, The planet has always comes after these concerns, and probably will for a long time to come.
Dirty Coal is a temporary argument, just like Dirty Oil. It's non-renewable, and we are using it up like gangbusters, so it will not ultimately matter. Personally I think we should be building more advanced nuclear, such as pebble bed, as a stop-gap, but so much NIMBYism over nukes will likely make that impossible. We can't even put in wind turbines without people boycotting them for the "ugly eyesore" factor, or almost unbelievably; "killing the birds!"
We need to grow our science budget instead of cutting it, so advanced future energy research, such as what is happening at LLNL's NIF (National Ignition Facility) can expand. If we do, we may look back on this time and laugh, as there is enough heavy water (Deuterium) in the ocean to power our EV's almost until the sun goes nova.
-Phil