Concerned U.S. scientists have proved the importance of the electrification of heavy vehicles
The Union of concerned scientists USA (USC) released a study that even more than the previously published report U.S. Department of energy, proves that the electric trucks are more efficient and the more environmentally friendly of the existing diesel trucks. This conclusion is based on the quantitative analysis of the issue of global warming posed by electrographically charged from all categories of electrical networks of the country, as the cleanest, mainly using alternative (solar and wind) energy, to the dirty networks that still depend on coal.
According to the analysis electrogrooving allocated to 44-79% less emissions over its life cycle compared to similar (obviously on transport performance – ed.) diesel trucks. The study shows that in the trucking business there are a lot of applications for existing freight vehicles, the operating characteristics of which are well-suited work in certain areas, including covered warehouses, where they are also can be regularly recharged.
Research proves that electrification of the entire truck fleet of the United States will increase the consumption of electricity in the country by about 13%, but the total energy demand will decrease by 71% as the electric vehicle (commercial – ed.) much more efficient diesel and petrol.
The greatest health benefits from electrification of trucks will get people suffering from air pollution from heavy vehicles, which accounted for 45% of all nitrogen oxide emissions in the transport sector of the USA and 57% of the pollution by fine particles (PM2.5) since the freight electric vehicles do not emit during operation of such pollutants.
According to scientists, a quick translation of the trucking industry from diesel fuel to electricity must allow specifically for this policy, including investments and incentives.
something very much optimistic forecast of the American scientists about the reduction of emissions electrogrooving in General and American in particular.
First, the generation of electricity in the United States (as of 2018) is 35.1% by burning liquefied natural gas 27.4% coal and only 0.6 percent of the oil, i.e. 63.1 per cent at the expense of fossil energy sources and only 17.1% renewable energy (the remaining 19.3 per cent by nuclear energy, also not too welcomed by environmentalists). Hence, if a vehicle abruptly transferred to electricity, it will lead to an increase in production it is gas-and less coal-fired power plants, i.e. the transfer of emissions from suburbs in less populated areas, but the overall balance of emissions of harmful substances will not go away, or rather will decline as usual as the growth of renewable electricity (primarily wind and solar).
Secondly, is it really "environmentally friendly" electric trucks? Yes, diesels emit these same carcinogenic soot particles, but therefore introduced protivoluchevye filters and constantly toughen standards for fuel, which has now reduced soot emissions to almost zero (especially since they have no vehicles to natural gas, i.e. compressed (CNG) or liquefied (LNG) methane). But with the mass use of electric cars from taking over the seriousness of the issue of disposal of batteries yet (and probably for a long time) will contain very toxic lithium environmental friendliness of the process, scientists accurately counted or left out of the equation? Next, each truck loses money on every kilometer traveled for 6 g of rubber (i.e. micro-particles from abrasion of tyres), which is also millions of tons, calculated on the entire fleet. And if today this problem is ignored, then at least reduce emissions in General, it is more and more begin to come to the foreground, and the solution is, science has not offered.
Thirdly, we must not forget that the total electrification will lead to the decommissioning of the former generating capacity (coal, etc.), and will fundamentally affect the interests of the pillars of the American economy, the oil companies that formally support research in the field of new energy, but it is not allowed to electrify even the American railroad. Losing a multibillion-dollar business of selling liquid hydrocarbon fuels in a few years they just neither myself nor anyone else will not allow (e.g., prohibition of leaded petrol by tetraethyl lead the American public had to seek from the oil companies for six decades).
P. P. S.
to Write and draw on paper can be anything, but in reality, the replacement of some basic technologies, including transport, on a "progressive" can only happen provided that is a higher level of profit from most of these technologies, ie, simply they should be beneficial to consumers so that they prefer the former.
So, incidentally, was a century ago, when obtained safe and convenient electric start diesel cars easily beat even a clean, but slow, expensive (because of the huge battery) and has a ridiculously small reserve electric cars, and not economical, bulky and smoky steam cars. So that the electric current century, still required more advanced batteries with at least twice better than the most advanced current battery specific and price characteristics. So the "concerned scientists" at least "run ahead of a steam locomotive". Their conclusion that the state should "push" the refusal of "dirty" hydrocarbons are already quite similar to the approaches of the Soviet planned economy, which, by the way, Americans (from senators and congressmen to farmers and the homeless) can not stand. So while electric cars are limited to Sunny California (or even just Silicon valley) much opposition "ordinary American voters" they are almost not there, but when I begin to twist the arms of consumers in the vast "pikapolonica" "tehasschiny and arsonsisi" – still the question of how this conservatism will slow down the progress of the electrification of transport America..