🚀 go-pugleaf

Will Stewart (will1000@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <30f28311.9516250@news.teaser.fr> bdebreil@teaser.fr (Bernard
: Debreil) writes: 

: >will1000@ix.netcom.com (Will Stewart ) wrote:

: >>>Besides, EVs, if produced at a large scale, will boost up the
: >>>implementation of more nuclear plants... for, indeed, what would be
: >>the point to produce the required electric energy from coal or oil,

: >True, an oil
: >or natural gas power plant may pollute a little less than an ICE car,
: >since its releases are supposed to be constantly monitored, but, in
: the
: >other hand, using batteries, which recoveries are not 1 (how much ?
: >The last figure I had was around 0.5), wastes part of the energy and
: >therefore calls for a greater production with, in turn, more 
: >polluting.

: Don't forget the losses for oil exploration, drilling, transportation,
: refining (significant), and other transportation and pumping
: requirements.

The fossil fuel production costs are the same, whether the fuel is 
turned into gasoline or whether it is burned to produce electricity. 
However, here in California we require low-sulfur oil for power 
production, which costs almost twice as much as the oil for gasoline.

In the refining process to make gasoline there is a loss of about 20% in 
volume, but a gain of 10% in heat value. The byproducts, like lubricating 
oils and tars, are are marketed separately. In comparison, of the highly 
expensive low-sulfur oil for electric generation, 70% shoots up the 
stack for an instant total loss.

In energy generation projections, it is important to apply the marginal 
supply/cost concept. For example, France has nuclear plants, which are cheap 
and clean, and therefore run at full capacity before more costly and more 
dirty coal plants come on like. The coal plants are thus the marginal 
producers. Hence, when anyone wants more electricity, like EV people for 
instance, it needs to come from the coal plants. 

Ernst