Create. You can submit your idea or solution (preferably a video) around our questions about climate and energy challenges.
Vote. Help us choose the best ideas by rating their viability or discuss the ideas submitted by others. Get the FAQs.
Make it. Your ratings and comment help us decide which ideas are featured on our PBS TV Special. Learn how to make a video.
ActivismAdaptationAgricultureAlgaeArchitectureArtBikingBiofuelsBiomimicryBusinessCampus SustainabilityClean Tech
Climate ChangeEconomicsEducationEfficiencyElectric CarsEnergy StorageEngineeringEPA P3GeothermalGreen BuildingGreen CitiesGreen CommunitiesGreen Living
"Clean Tech: What technology are you, your lab or your workplace developing that will improve how we generate or use energy?"
Betting on the wrong horse(power)?
Are you buying an electric vehicle because you think it’s after all not a gas-guzzling machine and it’s environment friendly? Wait a minute, if you think there are zero emissions from electric vehicles, you are sadly mistaken.
A recent news article suggests that these dream-machines that we consider energy-efficient are problem-ridden. Here’s why, burning fossil fuels to generate electricity needed to power these vehicles produces double the C02 emissions compared to internal combustion engine vehicles.
Basing its claim on a UK-based study, the article points out that burning fuel inside the vehicle is more environment friendly than transmitting energy through the grid, which powers the EVs. Since EV-charging will occur at night, it might pressurize the grid at night too, leading to greater fossil-fuel exploitation.
The only way to ensure that these EVs do not spew C02, is to power them with electricity produced by renewable sources like the wind and the Sun. But harnessing the energy of these sources also has its limitations.
So, are plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) any better?
Well, both Plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles might help cut our oil dependence to some extent, but they do not decrease carbon pollution. A recent report by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) suggests that a PHEV powered by current coal technologies has 28-34% lower emissions as compared to a conventional vehicle and 1-11% higher emissions than the hybrid electric vehicle. So clearly, according to these statistics PHEVs don’t fit the bill either. Do we then depend on hybrid electric vehicles?
The writing on the wall is very clear, none of these
vehicles–PHEVs or EVs–are really “green” or eco-friendly. Till the time these vehicles are not powered using non-renewable sources, shifting from oil to coal to run these vehicles should not be considered such a great achievement.
So, when we hear plans of electrification of vehicle fleet or learn about the latest snazzy PHEV, we might want to take a moment to think how will it be powered, what will be the source of its energy?
A recent news article suggests that these dream-machines that we consider energy-efficient are problem-ridden. Here’s why, burning fossil fuels to generate electricity needed to power these vehicles produces double the C02 emissions compared to internal combustion engine vehicles.
Basing its claim on a UK-based study, the article points out that burning fuel inside the vehicle is more environment friendly than transmitting energy through the grid, which powers the EVs. Since EV-charging will occur at night, it might pressurize the grid at night too, leading to greater fossil-fuel exploitation.
The only way to ensure that these EVs do not spew C02, is to power them with electricity produced by renewable sources like the wind and the Sun. But harnessing the energy of these sources also has its limitations.
So, are plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) any better?
Well, both Plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles might help cut our oil dependence to some extent, but they do not decrease carbon pollution. A recent report by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) suggests that a PHEV powered by current coal technologies has 28-34% lower emissions as compared to a conventional vehicle and 1-11% higher emissions than the hybrid electric vehicle. So clearly, according to these statistics PHEVs don’t fit the bill either. Do we then depend on hybrid electric vehicles?
The writing on the wall is very clear, none of these
vehicles–PHEVs or EVs–are really “green” or eco-friendly. Till the time these vehicles are not powered using non-renewable sources, shifting from oil to coal to run these vehicles should not be considered such a great achievement.
So, when we hear plans of electrification of vehicle fleet or learn about the latest snazzy PHEV, we might want to take a moment to think how will it be powered, what will be the source of its energy?
Tell your friends:
facebook
twitter
On July 9th, 2010 at 9:40 pm Robert H. Pike Said:
We’re in transition, here. A few decades from now, when gasoline engines are in museums, and autos are self charging by the solar panels integrated in to the (retractable) roof and hood and powered by super-efficient quick charging batteries, we’ll wonder how we ever made it through. But; this is the end technology we need. We need an engine with no heat production, no emissions directly or indirectly, to survive our big-and-getting-bigger by 200K-a-day population. And I’m optimistic; it will happen – sooner or later.
On July 10th, 2010 at 2:55 pm Tony Wildish Said:
Charging EVs at night is fine, demand is lower then than during the day so baseload capacity can be used. If we have carbon-free baseload electricity 24 hours per day then a massive shift to EVs would definitely give us greatly reduced emissions.
Renewables like solar and wind don’t make the grade, as you point out. It seems to me that you’ve just made the perfect case for nuclear power. It’s clean, efficient, and can provide the extra baseload capacity without trashing the environment.
On July 16th, 2010 at 4:58 pm Kerry Soloway Said:
If our carbon footprint is an issue, there is an interesting article on the Wired web site: http://www.wired.com/autopia/2008/05/the-ultimate-pr/. The title? “Go Green: Buy a Used Car–It’s Better than a Hybrid.” The author’s contention is that simply manufacturing a Prius consumes about 113,000,000 BTUs in energy just for manufacturing. That is equal to about 1000 gallons of gas. So, according to the author, it won’t pay off until the driver has traveled at least 46,000 miles. That is, versus, one of the many energy-efficient used cars that are out there.
I pose another question. How many additional BTUs do we expend in order to pay for the premium that hybrids or electric cars cost us. My rationale is that, if it costs, let’s say, a 20% premium over a similar ICE auto, we have to do 20% more work to to pay for it, meaning that we are using 20% more energy. I don’t have precise figures. As I say it is only a question. What is the true environmental cost in buying “green”?
On July 24th, 2010 at 1:22 pm Joseph Conti Said:
Please have a look at the D-cycle. It offers real efficiency all around. Less is more! Our D-cycle will be lighter and consume at least 30% less fuel and it will use the same technology as ICE’s run on today. We’re on the cusp of going commercial and just need a little financial help. Yan Engines is awaiting confirmation on a Navy contract to do some initial studies before building a full scale demonstrator. We already have functional prototypes that tell show the fuel and performance that the D-cycle can deliver. Check us out at http://www.yanengines.com
On July 25th, 2010 at 11:40 pm Kerry Soloway Said:
That’s a very interesting design. The comparative animations of the D-cycle and the 4-cycle cylinders does lead me to one observation. If we consider those two cylinders to be equal in size, clearly there is greater volume in the 4-cycle engine since the piston travels the entire length of the cylinder. However, in the D-cycle, the piston cap, which serves as the top of the piston, appears to travel only 50 or 60% of the cylinder. Being a layman in this, I wonder what the practical effects of that are. Logic would tell me that there is a corresponding lessening of compression. And, correct me if I’m wrong, that lessening of compression would mean a reduction in the power.
Clearly there are many technologies out there that can help reduce the usage of fossil fuels, whether the intention is to reduce our carbon footprint or dependency on foreign oil.
Decades ago I read an article in one of the science/mechanical magazines. (I don’t presently recall whether it was Popular Science, Popular Mechanics or the now-defunct Mechanics Illustrated.) There was a car design that didn’t use friction to brake the automobile. Instead, it used a hydraulic reservoir that, when braking, would engage a pump and pressurize the reservoir. It would be similar to slowing down an automobile by downshifting instead of braking. Then, after the stop, the energy in the hydraulic system would be used to restart the movement of the vehicle thus saving gas. There must be a better way than braking via friction which creates heat (a waste of energy) and wear and tear on the system.
Obviously that article had an effect on me as I can still recount it 40 or so years later. A Google search shows me that that type of system is now known as regenerative braking.
On September 12th, 2010 at 9:50 pm jerry dycus Said:
another oil company propaganda article or by someone who doesn’t know what they are talking about. According to the EPA 12 yrs ago before so many ineff coal plants were shut down, EV’s were still cleaner.
EV’s are 3-9x’s as eff because they only use power when it’s needed. An idling ICE uses enough power to idle as my EV needs to go 60mph. Facts are ICE’s rarely are in their eff range. Most of the time they are idling, coasting or cruising, all of which are ineff at. Only accelerating is an ice EFF.
aND MOST EV’S BY THE TIME ANY NUMBER OF THEM ARE ON THE ROAD, COAL PLANTS WILL BE FAR LESS, FAR MORE EFF THAT ARE THERE, that they won’t be so bad. Now figure EV’s will be charged mostly on a smart grid where they mostly use wasted power that can’t be turned off/on fast so instead, EV charging will be cycled to use the unneeded power, making the grid more eff.
Plus add EV’s will get far smaller. My EV’s get the equivalent of 250 and 600mpg for my 2 seat EV sportwagon and Harley size EV trike, both of which cost 25% to run compared to similar ICEs including fuel and battery. Plus I can make my own power thus not dependent on big companies who’s only goal is to screw you out of as much money as possible..
On September 13th, 2010 at 1:48 am Joseph Conti Said:
Ah Jerry.. but that is just it. The D-cycle operates in a much more efficient region.. It’s a simple retrofit concept.. we’ll be in the market before EV’s ever get perfected..don’t forget the environmental effects of the batteries.. Check us out at http://www.yanengines.com
On September 13th, 2010 at 3:20 am jerry dycus Said:
Joesph, even if it’s 30% more eff, EV’s are 3-9x’s as eff depending on electric source. Since electric production is increasingly eff, 50% and more in many cases, not a chance you can catch up.
EV’s went 110 mile range 100 yrs ago and already perfected. I drive mine every day at 250 and 600mpg. Can yours do that? And that’s with lead batteries. Once Lithiums drop in price ICE’s are doomed other than charging batteries sometimes.
Plus with EV’s one can make their own fuel for far less at 9x’s as eff as an ICE by solar and wind. $2k , 1kw worth of PV or wind can power a 4 passenger EV for 30-50 yrs. Can yours do that?
On April 27th, 2012 at 1:56 pm gumby Said:
EVs has NO TAILPIPES… NO LOOSE PCV HOSE CONNECTIONS, NO VOCs , etc.. We can charge EVs with solar, wind and other clean energy … We can breath much easier on streets.. We spent billoons on Advils, Aleves, Execdrins , etc… WE are still letting investors getting away with holding oil stocks…. while dumping solar stocks as of recently.. WE are starting to think that solar stocks are just jokes already!!..
On April 27th, 2012 at 1:59 pm gumby Said:
People are still burning firewood like cavemen did eons ago.. 7 billons live on Earth bu rning having 100,000,000 or 300.000.000 fires still blaring at any given time… We blame coal, OH reallllllllllllllllllllly!?????????????
On April 27th, 2012 at 2:03 pm gumby Said:
enviormentalists argue that firewood IS A-OK cuz it is unsequestered carbon while coal is sequestered carbon…. What they forget is that we are already putting far more carbon into atmosphere than putting it back in ground at any time .. no matter what be it firewood or coal!! Firewood has NO POLLUTION CONTROLS WHATSOEVER except lame EPA approved fireplaces and stoves… low standards !! way low !! Charcoal and lighter fluid , UGH! We actually stopped breathing deeply any more.. just shallowly to stay alive … wheez wheez
On April 27th, 2012 at 2:04 pm gumby Said:
Humans willl evolutionize with shrunken lungs and mouths… We will develop supermucus in our sinuses that our noses will move an inch forward to make way for more mucus in our sinuses..
On April 27th, 2012 at 2:06 pm gumby Said:
Our mouths will be able to open enough to smoke ci garettes… WE will use straws to eat liquid food