ICEs and EVs

[kuririn]

As I mentioned previously, even if one doubts the findings of the AIEZ study, there are Swedish, Norwegian and UK studies that affirm the same thing.
That is all I have to say on the matter.
The horse is dead and reincarnated by now.

 

[KenECoyote]

The horse is dead and reincarnated by now.

Nay!

 

[jderimig]

The horse is dead and reincarnated by now.

Why beat a dead horse when we can beat a live one?

 

[KenECoyote]

Why beat a dead horse when we can beat a live one?

Both live and dead horses expel methane. Beating a dead one may expel it more quickly.

 

[KenECoyote]

Not sure if this was posted earlier and part of me actually doesn't like posting it here since it may anger some of the EV diehards and draw their criticisms, but...

I saw this today and I feel it is important to share for awareness and safety. I have 4 e-bikes (apparently the most common danger) and I will definitely be handling their charging and storage differently now.

 

[KenECoyote]

Interesting proposal to reduce methane by converting it to CO2.

"a potential process for converting the extremely potent greenhouse gas methane into carbon dioxide, which is a much less potent driver of global warming. The idea of intentionally releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere may seem surprising, but the authors argue that swapping methane for carbon dioxide is a significant net benefit for the climate."

"Most scenarios for removing carbon dioxide typically assume hundreds of billions of tons removed over decades and do not restore the atmosphere to pre-industrial levels. In contrast, methane concentrations could be restored to pre-industrial levels by removing about 3.2 billion tons of the gas from the atmosphere and converting it into an amount of carbon dioxide equivalent to a few months of global industrial emissions, according to the researchers. If successful, the approach would eliminate approximately one-sixth of all causes of global warming to date."

Source.

 

[kuririn]

When methane is burned the byproducts are CO2 and water vapor.
The $60000 question is:
How do you collect all the methane being released into the atmosphere and treat it?
A significant amount is coming from decomposing organic material in bogs and swamps.
Not really practical.
It seems to me that the scientists and engineers are concentrating on doing what is feasible and practical now.

 

[jderimig]

It seems to me that the scientists and engineers are concentrating on doing what is feasible and practical now.

Which is just talking about it to get more government grants to raise their lifestyle. a worthy pursuit. More plant food is good.

 

[KenECoyote]

When methane is burned the byproducts are CO2 and water vapor.
The $60000 question is:
How do you collect all the methane being released into the atmosphere and treat it?
A significant amount is coming from decomposing organic material in bogs and swamps.
Not really practical.
It seems to me that the scientists and engineers are concentrating on doing what is feasible and practical now.

From the article (just a proposal so far):

"Methane is challenging to capture from air because its concentration is so low. However, the authors point out that zeolite, a crystalline material that consists primarily of aluminum, silicon and oxygen, could act essentially as a sponge to soak up methane. “The porous molecular structure, relatively large surface area and ability to host copper and iron in zeolites make them promising catalysts for capturing methane and other gases,” said Ed Solomon, the Monroe E. Spaght Professor of Chemistry in the School of Humanities and Sciences.

The whole process might take the form of a giant contraption with electric fans forcing air through tumbling chambers or reactors full of powdered or pelletized zeolites and other catalysts. The trapped methane could then be heated to form and release carbon dioxide, the authors suggest."

"A zeolite array about the size of a football field could generate millions of dollars a year in income while removing harmful methane from the air."

One major point is that these scientists are saying that methane is much more harmful than CO2... enough so that it can actually make sense to try to convert it to CO2 so it would be less damaging.

 

[boatgeek]

Not sure if this was posted earlier and part of me actually doesn't like posting it here since it may anger some of the EV diehards and draw their criticisms, but...

I saw this today and I feel it is important to share for awareness and safety. I have 4 e-bikes (apparently the most common danger) and I will definitely be handling their charging and storage differently now.

The guidance I saw was that you should buy e-bikes and e-scooters from reputable manufacturers and use the always chargers that come with them. Between those things, you head off most of the failures that fire departments have seen.

 

[kuririn]

From the article (just a proposal so far):

"Methane is challenging to capture from air because its concentration is so low. However, the authors point out that zeolite, a crystalline material that consists primarily of aluminum, silicon and oxygen, could act essentially as a sponge to soak up methane. “The porous molecular structure, relatively large surface area and ability to host copper and iron in zeolites make them promising catalysts for capturing methane and other gases,” said Ed Solomon, the Monroe E. Spaght Professor of Chemistry in the School of Humanities and Sciences.

The whole process might take the form of a giant contraption with electric fans forcing air through tumbling chambers or reactors full of powdered or pelletized zeolites and other catalysts. The trapped methane could then be heated to form and release carbon dioxide, the authors suggest."

"A zeolite array about the size of a football field could generate millions of dollars a year in income while removing harmful methane from the air."

One major point is that these scientists are saying that methane is much more harmful than CO2... enough so that it can actually make sense to try to convert it to CO2 so it would be less damaging.

Worth looking into, but a theoretical hypothesis right now.
No working commercial hardware, not even prototypes.
Perhaps the technology will become practical in the coming decades.
Low or no carbon energy production however is a reality.
Again, that is something that can be done now, and is in fact being done worldwide.
The scientists, engineers and world leaders know what they are doing.
Have faith.

 

[KenECoyote]

Worth looking into, but a theoretical hypothesis right now.
No working commercial hardware, not even prototypes.
Perhaps the technology will become practical in the coming decades.
Low or no carbon energy production however is a reality.
Again, that is something that can be done now, and is in fact being done worldwide.
The scientists, engineers and world leaders know what they are doing.
Have faith.

The concern for me is the overwhelming focus on CO2 as if it's the cool thing right now and in doing so, most aren't even aware of the methane issue. I wasn't until a month or so ago.

In the 90s the government was pushing for people to start using diesel cars because they were much more fuel efficient and I came very close to buying a diesel VW hatchback. All this was before we found out just how bad for the environment those diesel cars actually are... and in many cases the mpgs were false or faked.

 

[kuririn]

The concern for me is the overwhelming focus on CO2 as if it's the cool thing right now and in doing so, most aren't even aware of the methane issue. I wasn't until a month or so ago.

In the 90s the government was pushing for people to start using diesel cars because they were much more fuel efficient and I came very close to buying a diesel VW hatchback. All this was before we found out just how bad for the environment those diesel cars actually are... and in many cases the mpgs were false or faked.

They ARE aware of the methane issue.
Didn't you read my links about methane abatement projects?
And about the United Nations Agreement on methane signed by over 100 countries?

 

[KenECoyote]

They ARE aware of the methane issue.
Didn't you read my links about methane abatement projects?
And about the United Nations Agreement on methane signed by over 100 countries?

So you're saying most (people) are aware of the methane issue vs the CO2 issue?

 

[KenECoyote]

I personally think EVs have been oversold as a quick "gotta do it now" solution to global warming when it doesn't really appear to be the case since:

• Methane appears to be 20-84 times worse than CO2 and reduction would have more immediate results for global warming vs. decades or eons for CO2 reduction.
• Many question just how much reducing passenger car emissions will actually help to reduce CO2 given how small that sector is of all the CO2 producers.
• Mining coal is one of the top sources of methane and that is one of the major fuels used on our powerplants.
• Many EV supporters argue that it is key to reducing global warming... but is it really?

 

[KenECoyote]

I thought this was a good video on total EV emissions vs. ICE.

 

[KenECoyote]

I thought this was a good video on how the public may be oversold on how much EVs will save the planet.

 

[boatgeek]

I personally think EVs have been oversold as a quick "gotta do it now" solution to global warming when it doesn't really appear to be the case since:

• Methane appears to be 20-84 times worse than CO2 and reduction would have more immediate results for global warming vs. decades or eons for CO2 reduction.

Even when you account for carbon equivalencies, methane is about 21% of world GHG emissions. Methane is 11.3 Gt CO2 equivalent, CO2 is 37 Gt. If you're bleeding from an artery and also from a vein, you probably want to focus on the artery first. (And yes, there are projects to limit methane emissions as well).

• Many question just how much reducing passenger car emissions will actually help to reduce CO2 given how small that sector is of all the CO2 producers.

It's a yes, and approach. No, you can't solve climate change with passenger cars alone. However, it's still an important piece of the puzzle.

• Mining coal is one of the top sources of methane and that is one of the major fuels used on our powerplants.

And global coal use is more or less flat over the last decade. As China brings on more wind and solar, their usage will start dropping. New renewables capacity in China is double new fossil fuel production. They also have a significant number of nuclear plants under construction.

• Many EV supporters argue that it is key to reducing global warming... but is it really?

As stated above, I don't think that most policymakers think that passenger EVs on their own will solve climate change. But it's still an important piece of the puzzle. As for individual EV owners? Who knows?

 

[boatgeek]

I thought this was a good video on total EV emissions vs. ICE.

Worth pointing out for people who didn't watch the video, he concludes that EVs are significantly cleaner than ICEs over the lifespan of the vehicle. Note that he appears to be citing the Argonne study I've brought up a few times in this thread.

 

[jderimig]

And global coal use is more or less flat over the last decade. As China brings on more wind and solar, their usage will start dropping. New renewables capacity in China is double new fossil fuel production.

More correctly, that rate of fossil fuel increased consumption will start dropping. But not until 2030-2035 will China peak according to the China government's promises. Which we all know we can 100% be sure of that government's information. Then India might peak sometime later.

Solar and wind CF is about 25%. They would need to build 4x more capacity to offset 1x in fossil fuel addtional generation not double.

 

[boatgeek]

I thought this was a good video on how the public may be oversold on how much EVs will save the planet.

So I can find a lot of places that say that EVs alone won't stop climate change, but they're an important part of the solution. I'm having a lot of trouble finding anyone who says that EVs alone will stop climate change. This whole line of questioning feels like a straw man for those opposed to EVs to knock down.

Who's saying that EVs alone will stop climate change?

 

[boatgeek]

More correctly, that rate of fossil fuel increased consumption will start dropping. But not until 2030-2035 will China peak according to the China government's promises. Which we all know we can 100% be sure of that government's information. Then India might peak sometime later.

Solar and wind CF is about 25%. They would need to build 4x more capacity to offset 1x in fossil fuel addtional generation not double.

Solar and wind generation (GWh, not installed capacity) are up 22% and 24% (respectively) over last year. Hydro, coal, and gas were flat, though that may have been a one-year blip. BTW, the 4:1 ratio is also wrong. Wind is 14% of installed capacity and 9% of total generation. Solar is 15% of installed capacity and 5% of total generation. So it's actually at worst 3:1 (solar only) or 2.1:1 (combined).

https://www.eia.gov/international/analysis/country/CHN

 

[kuririn]

I personally think EVs have been oversold as a quick "gotta do it now" solution to global warming when it doesn't really appear to be the case since:

• Methane appears to be 20-84 times worse than CO2 and reduction would have more immediate results for global warming vs. decades or eons for CO2 reduction.
• Many question just how much reducing passenger car emissions will actually help to reduce CO2 given how small that sector is of all the CO2 producers.
• Mining coal is one of the top sources of methane and that is one of the major fuels used on our powerplants.
• Many EV supporters argue that it is key to reducing global warming... but is it really?

Like I said many times in this thread (and others have said as well) the auto industry is one of many industries that are reducing their carbon emissions.
Don't know why you are thinking that the world is putting all their resources into EVs.
Nobody said that there is a singular solution to the problem.

So you're saying most (people) are aware of the methane issue vs the CO2 issue?

I'm saying that scientists and policy makers know that methane is a greenhouse gas.
Greenhouse gases are contributing to the problem.
Therefore there are multi pronged efforts to curb greenhouse gasses across multiple sectors.
We can curtail the greenhouse gasses that are produced anthropogenically.
It would be many times more difficult to curb greenhouse gasses that are produced biogenically.

 

[KenECoyote]

Even when you account for carbon equivalencies, methane is about 21% of world GHG emissions. Methane is 11.3 Gt CO2 equivalent, CO2 is 37 Gt. If you're bleeding from an artery and also from a vein, you probably want to focus on the artery first. (And yes, there are projects to limit methane emissions as well).

Actually, I'd beg to differ because...

Methane is 20-84 times worse at trapping greenhouse gasses. That means that 11.3Gt of methane can act like up to 949Gt of CO2.

Additionally methane disappears after 10-20 years, so any reduction should have a more immediate effect vs. CO2 which may take much longer to see.

It's like your car isn't running right with a flat tire and a check engine light. Do you fix the check engine light before the flat tire? It's usually the quick and obvious fix that should be done frst.

Using your analogy, to me it's like the doc says your blood pressure is really high and you're bleeding out. What do you address first?

 

[jderimig]

Solar and wind generation (GWh, not installed capacity) are up 22% and 24% (respectively) over last year. Hydro, coal, and gas were flat, though that may have been a one-year blip. BTW, the 4:1 ratio is also wrong. Wind is 14% of installed capacity and 9% of total generation. Solar is 15% of installed capacity and 5% of total generation. So it's actually at worst 3:1 (solar only) or 2.1:1 (combined).

https://www.eia.gov/international/analysis/country/CHN

Are you saying SW are up 22 and 24% up over total CN electric production or their SW component? What is the total yoy SW addition in GWh versus added fossil GWh?

If what you are saying is true we should be seeing dramatic drops in China CO2 emissions any year now. I can't wait to see that. Actually I can. So when will China stop building coal power plants?

 

[KenECoyote]

So I can find a lot of places that say that EVs alone won't stop climate change, but they're an important part of the solution. I'm having a lot of trouble finding anyone who says that EVs alone will stop climate change. This whole line of questioning feels like a straw man for those opposed to EVs to knock down.

Who's saying that EVs alone will stop climate change?

I definitely feel that EVs are part of the solution, however I feel it's been way oversold to us and evidence of it is legislation passed to ban new ICE vehicles by 2030 or on like it's the top priority and an emergency. Really?

I recall many originally noting that EVs were "zero emissions ", which initially made sense to me, but that wasn't really true.

The video noted that passenger vehicles account for only about 7% of the CO2 global GHG emissions. Seems quite a small amount to focus trillions in funding on as well as passing laws banning new ICE sales. *I'll try to dig up numbers on that when I get a chance.

 

[boatgeek]

Actually, I'd beg to differ because...

Methane is 20-84 times worse at trapping greenhouse gasses. That means that 11.3Gt of methane can act like up to 949Gt of CO2.

Additionally methane disappears after 10-20 years, so any reduction should have a more immediate effect vs. CO2 which may take much longer to see.

It's like your car isn't running right with a flat tire and a check engine light. Do you fix the check engine light before the flat tire? It's usually the quick and obvious fix that should be done frst.

Using your analogy, to me it's like the doc says your blood pressure is really high and you're bleeding out. What do you address first?

Ken, I respect that you are trying to get at the heart of this. I believe that you are sincere in your questions and that your intentions are good. I also really, really need you to read what I write. I said 11.3 Gt CO2 equivalent. They've already done the multiplication of the added effects of methane. You don't need to multiply it again.

Methane emissions are not solved with a quick and easy fix. There are some things that could theoretically be done relatively quickly, but many others that are much harder. And some of the "quick" items (say, banning cattle production) are politically infeasible.

By all means, if you think that methane emissions are the problem, propose reduction in methane emissions that would be equivalent to transitioning to EVs.

 

[KenECoyote]

Ken, I respect that you are trying to get at the heart of this. I believe that you are sincere in your questions and that your intentions are good. I also really, really need you to read what I write. I said 11.3 Gt CO2 equivalent. They've already done the multiplication of the added effects of methane. You don't need to multiply it again.

Methane emissions are not solved with a quick and easy fix. There are some things that could theoretically be done relatively quickly, but many others that are much harder. And some of the "quick" items (say, banning cattle production) are politically infeasible.

By all means, if you think that methane emissions are the problem, propose reduction in methane emissions that would be equivalent to transitioning to EVs.

Thanks boatgeek and I do appreciate the courteous reply. My apologies for missing that you had earlier done the multiplication! That does change things somewhat, however I'm still convinced that methane should be the bigger focus as well as less focus on ICE passenger car emissions (which imho seemed to already be doing better and better each year).

Also correction to above is that the video noted that passenger cars account for 7% of the global greenhouse gases.

 

[boatgeek]

I definitely feel that EVs are part of the solution, however I feel it's been way oversold to us and evidence of it is legislation passed to ban new ICE vehicles by 2030 or on like it's the top priority and an emergency. Really?

I recall many originally noting that EVs were "zero emissions ", which initially made sense to me, but that wasn't really true.

The video noted that passenger vehicles account for only about 7%* of the CO2 emissions. Seems quite a small amount to focus trillions in funding on as well as passing laws banning new ICE sales. *I'll try to dig up numbers on that when I get a chance.

Edit add: that video is from the U.K., so U.S. likely differs and likely higher.

If you don't want to take the politically impossible stance of banning all ICE cars, and you want to meaningfully reduce emissions, you need to start a fairly quick transition of new cars so that old cars tail off and they wear out and are replaced. Also, there is a technologically feasible solution for passenger cars, so they take a somewhat outsized percentage of the burden. There is no current technologically feasible replacement for ICE aviation or transoceanic sea freight, for two current examples. So by offsetting cars a little more, we can decrease the bite we need to take out of those two industries.

 

[boatgeek]

Are you saying SW are up 22 and 24% up over total CN electric production or their SW component? What is the total yoy SW addition in GWh versus added fossil GWh?

If what you are saying is true we should be seeing dramatic drops in China CO2 emissions any year now. I can't wait to see that. Actually I can. So when will China stop building coal power plants?

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here.
I am saying that China's solar generation in 2022 was up 22% over China's solar generation in 2021. Solar went from 4% of total power generation to 5% of total generation in that period. China's wind generation in 2022 was up 24% over China's wind generation in 2021. Wind went from 8% to 9% of total power generation over the same period.

Feel free to read the sources I link, too. You might find valuable information there.