Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California Has a Plan to End the Auto Industry as We Know It

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 218 posts

Re: California Has a Plan to End the Auto Industry as We Know It

#21

Post by adventured »

cjensen wrote: post #10
ajmarsh wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A quick googling produced: The impact of coal-burning power plants and gasoline can be quantified. The EPA estimates that the average passenger vehicle emits 5.1 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year. Coal-burning power plants, on the other hand, produce more than 4 million metric tons per power plant, per year. The overall carbon dioxide output of coal-fired electric power plants exceeded gasoline by mo…

California doesn't burn coal. It's mostly natural gas and some oil. Natural gas is a very efficient fuel in terms of CO2 output.

California doesn't burn coal in-state, but it still gets around 5%-7% [1] of its energy from coal via imports from five coal plants. [2]

I can't seem to find any more recent data showing how that coal energy use has declined in the last two years, the most current seems to be 2013.

They appear to have projected to be getting 20gwh of energy from coal in 2015. [3]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_California

[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/07/ca...

[3] http://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/tracking_progress/docume...

Re: California Has a Plan to End the Auto Industry as We Know It

#23

Post by a3n »

kwhitefoot wrote: post #15
rubbingalcohol wrote: post #2

Serious question: unless all the electricity for these vehicles comes from completely renewable and environmentally friendly sources, won't banning fossil fuel emissions from motor vehicles just externalize this pollution onto electric power plants? Is there data to show that the environmental impact will be somehow lessened?

Yes it externalizes it. But it centralises it too, making it easier to keep it clean. It also removes the pollution from town centres making them much pleasanter places to be. The total efficiency of burning oil in a large power station to power electric cars is generally is slightly better than burning the oil (which must be much more highly refined) in an internal combustion engine even if it is a hybrid.

There's also that you have to burn fuel in the tank trucks to get the fuel to the consumer.

Centralized generation is vaguely like dependency injection, or loosely coupled modularity in general, you can put what you want into it.

My only concern with electric vehicles is battery end of life. What do I the consumer do? Will I be able to sell my 25 year old EV? Have we gotten far enough to see what that end looks like?

Re: California Has a Plan to End the Auto Industry as We Know It

#24

Post by pjc50 »

Shivetya wrote: post #19

Well battery tech will be a roadblock for some time but deadlines as far out as these make it look like something is being accomplished but provide enough time to not actually be a deadline. Converting off peak electrical power into hydrogen is getting more and more viable and frankly, I don't mind storing and transporting hydrogen versus stuffing the planet with li-ion batteries replete with their hazards. GM should…

I don't mind storing and transporting hydrogen

Spoken like someone who has never tried to store or transport hydrogen. It's much less convenient than li-ion and has its own hazards.

Re: California Has a Plan to End the Auto Industry as We Know It

#25

Post by tdaltonc »

danmaz74 wrote: post #16
smarterchild wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The keyword for the problem you're talking about is the "long tailpipe theory." [1] I was just reading Wait But Why's article [2], which concluded that the overall greenhouse impact will still be lessened by using electric cars over internal combustion. I didn't dig into the sources enough to conclude that it's truly a better option, but those articles are a good place to start. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_…

Do those analyses also account for the energy needed to build the batteries? From the wikipedia link, it looks like they don't.

How big is that fixed cost in proportion to the fuel energy? Also, how much energy does it take to make a combustion engine?

Re: California Has a Plan to End the Auto Industry as We Know It

#26

Post by murbard2 »

rubbingalcohol wrote: post #2

Serious question: unless all the electricity for these vehicles comes from completely renewable and environmentally friendly sources, won't banning fossil fuel emissions from motor vehicles just externalize this pollution onto electric power plants? Is there data to show that the environmental impact will be somehow lessened?

Beyond what's been said about efficiency, you have to look forward a bit. Solar is really cheap and getting cheaper. This is anticipating for a future where a much larger fraction of the power on the grid comes from less polluting sources.

Re: California Has a Plan to End the Auto Industry as We Know It

#27

Post by a3n »

rhaps0dy wrote: post #22

>Cali­fornia emits only 2 percent of global green­house gases What? That's huge! California does not have 2% of the world's population, not even close! Looking at it another way, all the more effect the regulations there will have.

> California does not have 2% of the world's population

Consider all the power required to support a Californian's life style, including his direct use and all the services and products that converge on him. That Red Bull can on his desk is probably not negligible, not when you factor in all the infrastructure required for it.

Re: California Has a Plan to End the Auto Industry as We Know It

#28

Post by danielweber »

What is the comparison between using energy to generate liquid fuels from atmospheric CO2 (which would be carbon neutral) and trying to electrify the entire transportation sector?

Those Los Alamos guys [1] said in 2007 they could get it down to $3.40 a gallon. Okay, maybe they were wrong and/or optimistic. But, still, there is some price point at which it is break-even. What is it? Five dollars? Ten?

The advantages of this over electrifying everything are that we already have built up the infrastructure for liquid fossil fuels. There is no extra engineering to be done for storage and/or transport, and no environmental impact from building new facilities like battery factories or erecting more transmission towers.

In both technologies, you start with an energy source, and then distribute it to consumers who use the product up. Both are carbon-neutral once you get past the "have the centralized energy source" step.

[1] http://bioage.typepad.com/greencarcongress/docs/greenfreedom...

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/science/19carb.html?_r=0

Re: California Has a Plan to End the Auto Industry as We Know It

#29

Post by Lx1oG-AWb6h_ZG0 »

rhaps0dy wrote: post #22

>Cali­fornia emits only 2 percent of global green­house gases What? That's huge! California does not have 2% of the world's population, not even close! Looking at it another way, all the more effect the regulations there will have.

What does the number of people have to do with this? Industries contribute much more to emissions.

(also not relevant, but California's current GDP is ~2.2T, which is around 3% of the total world GDP (75T)).

Re: California Has a Plan to End the Auto Industry as We Know It

#30

Post by stickfigure »

I don't get it. Mandating that auto manufacturers sell a certain percentage of electric vehicles seems a bit like legislating the weather. If CA really wants to push people into electric vehicles, why not manipulate the demand for electric vehicles? Perhaps add another dollar or two to the gasoline tax?
Post reply on HN