# New study of Chinese emissions – and its disturbing conclusion



## CHARGED EVs Magazine (Nov 14, 2011)

In some Chinese cities, the environmental impact of EVs is worse than that of gas vehicles, due to old coal power plants that lack modern pollution controls... Newswire >


----------



## rkarl89203 (Aug 15, 2011)

Interesting, only conclusions were posted, and the question is, who funded the study and what is their agenda?
Also, their conclusions tend to say that electricity CHARGING EVs is evil, producing CO2 from old power plants. Chinese EV technology is based on fast-tracking battery-replacement technology using the State Grid, which is currently modernizing the grid, using more Hydro, Nuclear and Wind to generate Electricity, Of COURSE there will be a transition period, as there will be here as we modernize OUR grid. 
Just because it's Chinese doesnt make it evil....just different. Personally I look at it froma National Security viewpoint....I am GLAD that MY EV is running using electricity generated by *American* Coal, not Mideast Oil. Technologies to make coal cleaner are under constant development.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

I don't see this as a nefarious strike at EVs - it seems more a straightforward alarm concerning dirty coal plants in China. However, I'll agree that they could have pointed out that if the power plants burned the gasoline to charge EVs instead of the cars burning the gas directly then the emissions would have been lower yet.

But, dirty coal plants in China are a real threat (and I don't mean "Global Warming"). They are building 1-2 of those bad boys every week, and the toxic cloud of yuck is going everywhere the wind blows...

This is the point where I don't understand why the Chinese don't go build Thorium reactors and make the U.S. look like a bunch of idiots. Of course, doing so successfully would raise awareness that THEY then have no need of conventional nuclear plants too, and so take away their justification for the plants that provide fuel for nuclear weapons. Apparently, no government with nuclear weapons wants to give up their flimsy excuse for maintaining the means to produce more...


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

They did make an announcement a while back about investing research into thorium. Even if it isn't some form of international posturing, something like that takes time and they need power right now.


----------



## Arlo (Dec 27, 2009)

Uhm btw it takes electricity to make gas too


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

david85 said:


> They did make an announcement a while back about investing research into thorium. Even if it isn't some form of international posturing, something like that takes time and they need power right now.


I'm not a nuclear physicist nor nuclear engineer; however, after watching the various YouTube videos on Thorium reactors it appears that they are a) extremely easy to build; b) don't require extensive oversight to operate; c) cannot cause "meltdown"; and d) could be retro-fitted to power the boilers of existing coal plants. There was a working plant for dozens of years in a lab which never had any problem, nor did it require significant oversight to run - it just worked.

Given those truths, Occam's Razor suggests that the reason governments don't want to pursue, nor allow private industry to pursue, this technology is that it DOES work - which would be extremely "inconvenient politically" as it would eliminate their excuses for retaining the means (conventional nuclear plants) to create nuclear weapons.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

PhantomPholly said:


> I'm not a nuclear physicist nor nuclear engineer; however, after watching the various YouTube videos on Thorium reactors it appears that they are a) extremely easy to build; b) don't require extensive oversight to operate; c) cannot cause "meltdown"; and d) could be retro-fitted to power the boilers of existing coal plants. There was a working plant for dozens of years in a lab which never had any problem, nor did it require significant oversight to run - it just worked.
> 
> Given those truths, Occam's Razor suggests that the reason governments don't want to pursue, nor allow private industry to pursue, this technology is that it DOES work - which would be extremely "inconvenient politically" as it would eliminate their excuses for retaining the means (conventional nuclear plants) to create nuclear weapons.


I'm not a nuclear scientist either, but that angle is very plausible.

The other angle I'm inclined to follow, is that nobody wants to even say the word 'nuclear' aloud.

We live in the shadow of power plants that were designed to make weapons grade material. Most of their designs date back to the glory days of the cold war in the late 50s and onward. I think its safe to say we can do better these days with or without thorium, but there is no interest in bringing nuclear back into the spotlight. Look at germany's reaction to the japanese incident as proof.

So there is a deadly cycle where ageing plants are putting out huge amounts of waste but cannot be shut down due to the essential base load they supply. Meanwhile they are producing so much waste (potential fuel if reprocessing was allowed) that they have no place to put it. Something's gotta give but nobody wants to talk about it until the lights start flickering.

We sometimes like to discuss the inefficiency of ICE's but these old nukes have horrible 'combustion' efficiency and a lot of the waste still has fuel grade uranium in it.


----------



## Arlo (Dec 27, 2009)

It should be noted its not as bad as we think over there. China has made huge amounts of solar in the last couple years. This is why our solar prices have droped so far lately!


----------



## FWD (Feb 3, 2012)

PhantomPholly said:


> I'm not a nuclear physicist nor nuclear engineer; however, after watching the various YouTube videos on Thorium reactors it appears that they are a) extremely easy to build; b) don't require extensive oversight to operate; c) cannot cause "meltdown"; and d) could be retro-fitted to power the boilers of existing coal plants. There was a working plant for dozens of years in a lab which never had any problem, nor did it require significant oversight to run - it just worked.
> 
> Given those truths, Occam's Razor suggests that the reason governments don't want to pursue, nor allow private industry to pursue, this technology is that it DOES work - which would be extremely "inconvenient politically" as it would eliminate their excuses for retaining the means (conventional nuclear plants) to create nuclear weapons.


and E: still nuclear waist
so no option there.
we dont need that, what we need is a better way of using energy and people education that there is a limit.


----------

