EV are the worst polluters over time?

And the long term 'biology' of the planet is built up around those emissions. It is the major short term changes to that rate, that disrupt everything.

 

Yes, we need to make them buy some carbon credits!

 

They could be sequestering carbon through the erosion of any new stone they bring up to the surface.

 

The Volkswagen stance: https://www.volkswagen-newsroom.com/en/press-releases/electric-vehicles-with-lowest-co2-emissions-4886

 

Chevron, General Motors, and the U.S. Department of Energy just published a study that says just the opposite - it found that EVs produce fewer greenhouse gases than gasoline or diesel cars (even over their full lifecycle). And, this study was published by the American Chemical Society, not by some newspaper.

Summary: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.7b06006

Data and references: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/suppl/10.1021/acs.est.7b06006/suppl_file/es7b06006_si_001.pdf

Summary chart:

 

What's most notable is the tech mix they are predicting for the "future tech" scenario:



The only scenario that is plausible based on existing technology is the future electricity case (except for the Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) part). Fulfilling even future gas demand based on pyrolysis of forest residues is so ludicrous that I'm surprised they even included it. The cellulosic ethanol from corn stover is far more likely than that.

 

Pyrolysis has some government backing. It and thermal depolymerization can work with just about any organic material, not just forest residue.

When plug ins become a major part of the fleet, demand for liquid fuels will drop. Supply constrained renewable fuels become more feasible at that point.

What I found interesting in the posted graph was that the GHG emissions of E85 will be about the same as gas in their future scenario.

 

In case everyone didn't notice, the OP's quoted link intimating how electric cars are polluters (on par w/gasoline) is an article from Zero Hedge, one of the biggest mouthpieces for the EV hater's, stock shorting - pro gas - status quo world ..... not that they are unbiased or anything.

.

 

I know, but it is likely way more efficient (and, therefore, require less biomass) to go [biomass -> electricity] than [biomass -> pyrolysis oil -> gas/diesel/whatever].

The fact that their future ICEV fuel vehicle runs on what is still an experimental fuel compared to their future BEV, which is powered by technology that is already being scaled, speaks volumes about how much better BEVs are suited to achieving a low or even zero carbon vehicle future.

 

The USDA has a project developing a portable pyrolysis unit. The prototype is hauled by a heavy duty pick up. With processing on the lumber site or field, the efficiency advantage may not be clear cut.

Then plastic has limited uses and cycles of use with recycling. Some, like the soft stuff everybody wants in their cars, can't be recycled. Directly burning that, and other organic(I'm using the term here in the chemical definition, any compound containing carbon) waste, for power is a non-starter. We'd be better off making synthetic crude out of it.

Won't argue against that, but 100% BEV won't work for all our transport needs.

 

According to Argonne National Laboratory's GREET model ( https://greet.es.anl.gov/ ), the default BEV passenger car (long range) charged with 100% electricity from biomass would require slightly less process energy than a diesel passenger car on 100% pyrolysis fuel from biomass when taking the higher efficiency of BEV into account (5891 BTU/mile and 6478 BTU/mile, respectively).

Per unit energy output, pyrolysis from biomass is actually a much more efficient process than electricity produced from 100% biomass, according to that source.

 

I imagine you couldn't directly fire an efficient turbine with biomass. So it is stuck with the same efficiency constraints as any steam powered plant.