Electric vehicles vs Climate Change

Assuming electric vehicles will pretty much replace gasoline vehicles over the next couple of decades, how much of an effect do you think it will have on climate change? I think it's an interesting question for both sides of politics (pro-economy vs pro-climate) because for conservatives it possibly gives ammunition for spending less on climate change and for liberals it gives confidence for a better climate.

It seems to boil down to how much vehicles currently contribute to world-wide carbon output. I'll try to do some rough calculations which also include the carbon cost of power stations (very necessary of course).

Apparently transportation in general accounts for 1/3 of all carbon output ( http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2006/2006-06-28-03.asp ). The same link also says cars average 4.5 metric tons of carbon per year. And according to http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/comparativeco2.html) , power stations output 20 grams per kilowatt hour.

I don't know a good energy consumption figure for electric cars but http://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=7880#p118973 says 333 Wh/m so I'll use that for now.

So if a normal car uses 4,500 kg of carbon per year and an electric car uses 0.02 kg of carbon per kilowatt hour, an electric car could use 225,000 kilowatt hours of energy per year and still be in front (4,500 kg / (0.02 kg / kWh)) . At 0.20 USD per kilowatt hour that means you could use 45,000 USD per year in electricity and still be ahead. More likely a consumer would pay 1/100 of that for their vehicles electricity bill. But that would mean an electric car is 100 times more carbon efficient which seems too high.

Another way to calculatte is to use the energy consumption of the electric car and estimate the number of miles used by any type of car. At 333 Wh/m the electric car could do 675,676 miles per year (225,000 kWh / (0.333 Wh / m)) . Again that seems very high and you'd think a normal car would do more like 30,000 miles per year or 1/20 of that.

Could it really be true that electric vehicles use 1/20th of the carbon that a normal car uses? If it is 1/20 and not 1/100, that would imply users will pay around 2,000 USD in electricity per year.

Assuming electric vehicles will pretty much replace gasoline vehicles over the next couple of decades, how much of an effect do you think it will have on climate change?

Click to expand...

In short ...none !

You have obviously bought into the human influence on climate change theory.
If man completely disappeared from the face of the earth today, the effect on climate change would be undetectable against the background natural effects .....even if someone stayed around to monitor it for a few hundred years. .

Hillhater said:

Assuming electric vehicles will pretty much replace gasoline vehicles over the next couple of decades, how much of an effect do you think it will have on climate change?

Click to expand...

In short ...none !

You have obviously bought into the human influence on climate change theory.
If man completely disappeared from the face of the earth today, the effect on climate change would be undetectable against the background natural effects .....even if someone stayed around to monitor it for a few hundred years. .

Click to expand...

You have obviously ignored all scientific research and fact over the past few years

Hillhater said:

Assuming electric vehicles will pretty much replace gasoline vehicles over the next couple of decades, how much of an effect do you think it will have on climate change?

Click to expand...

In short ...none !

You have obviously bought into the human influence on climate change theory.
If man completely disappeared from the face of the earth today, the effect on climate change would be undetectable against the background natural effects .....even if someone stayed around to monitor it for a few hundred years. .

Click to expand...

+1

KiM

Please just assume man-made global warming for the sake of the calculations. My goal is to better understand the change in carbon output that 100% electric vehicle penetration would bring.

The impact of cabon on the climate is interesting but IMO a discussion about that would really belong in the toxic discussions forum.

The military will still burn kerosene in their helicopters and fighters/bombers/cargo-planes. (though I appreciate that they have established a standard for the refineries to mix bio-diesel into their fuel up to 50% if needed).

China is burning coal like they are trying to win a prize for it.

I'm told that Mt St Helens (a volcano eruption in the 1980's) spewed out more CARBON-dioxide, CARBON-monoxide, and other carbon compounds in one month than all the cars in history combined (I don't know if thats true...yes/no?) but there was also Krakatoa, Mt. Pinatubo, Pompeii (Mt Aetna?), that recent one in Iceland that I can't pronounce, Kilauea in Hawaii in a non-stop on-going CARBON-spewer isn't it? (Would that make Hawaii the most polluting state in the USA?...)

I think more EVs and more hybrids are a good thing, but as far as reducing carbon?...IDK

The electric car will have minimal impact on climate change as long as it's parked in the garage of the trophy house. There's your carbon footprint, that 5,000 square foot house.

from wikipedia...

The Chevrolet Volt claims that without using energy from the battery running on gasoline only, fuel consumption is expected to be 50 mpg on the city cycle of the EPA's test.

Click to expand...

So, if most cars get about 25mpg in the city then it looks like the Volt, a series-hybrid, is expected to be about twice as efficient. I wonder how it compares on the highway though.

Without doing any calculations, it has been my experience that it would take about 20 percent of the population to switch before an event causes change.

Winding down 2 wars would also be more beneficial then driving electric cars.
However, if we were all driving electric vehicles then there wouldn't be 2 wars ongoing.

The best we can do is act individually for the better, and allow the government to catch up.

0 within our lifetime
Climate change is a train already in motion
The more CO2 we pump the steeper the downhill grade the train is traveling on and the farther it will go

As to the electric cars, I'm a pessimist and I don't think putting every chinese or indian chap in an electric car in the next 20 or 30 years will make any difference to the way we're going. But then again it's better than the same amount of ICE's....

spinningmagnets said:

I'm told that Mt St Helens (a volcano eruption in the 1980's) spewed out more CARBON-dioxide, CARBON-monoxide, and other carbon compounds in one month than all the cars in history combined (I don't know if thats true...yes/no?) but there was also Krakatoa, Mt. Pinatubo, Pompeii (Mt Aetna?), that recent one in Iceland that I can't pronounce, Kilauea in Hawaii in a non-stop on-going CARBON-spewer isn't it? (Would that make Hawaii the most polluting state in the USA?...)

Click to expand...

I believe that volcanoes only produce a very small fraction of the CO2 of what humans emit.
And the really big eruptions have a global cooling effect due to SO2. But I'm not a climate scientist, I just listen to Dr Karl.

The entire history of humans burning things doesn't cumulatively add up to a statistically significant amount of anything.

There are single wetlands areas that release more greenhouse gas in a year than all human activity does.
If we wanted to limit greenhouse gas, we would dredge and/or drain the wetlands areas, burn the rainforests, etc.

But, we don't want to limit greenhouse gases, and the earth is currently in a cooling trend right now to begin with, so let things cycle and bounce around a bit. Things shift around a bit, things die, other things thrive, life goes on.


"Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (5). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate."

liveforphysics said:

The entire history of humans burning things doesn't cumulatively add up to a statistically significant amount of anything.

There are single wetlands areas that release more greenhouse gas in a year than all human activity does.
If we wanted to limit greenhouse gas, we would dredge and/or drain the wetlands areas, burn the rainforests, etc.

But, we don't want to limit greenhouse gases, and the earth is currently in a cooling trend right now to begin with, so let things cycle and bounce around a bit. Things shift around a bit, things die, other things thrive, life goes on.


"Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (5). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate."

Click to expand...

Obviously you must know something that 98% of people whose job titles involve "climate", do not. And all scientific bodies of national or international standing. Global warming is a positive feedback process, the human activities warm up the atmosphere, which in turn brings more water vapor into it.

The thread topic sounds like the start of a good joke.

Q: "Whats the difference between electric vehicles and climate change?

A: "Man made electric vehicles actually DO exist!"

fizzit said:

liveforphysics said:

The entire history of humans burning things doesn't cumulatively add up to a statistically significant amount of anything.

There are single wetlands areas that release more greenhouse gas in a year than all human activity does.
If we wanted to limit greenhouse gas, we would dredge and/or drain the wetlands areas, burn the rainforests, etc.

But, we don't want to limit greenhouse gases, and the earth is currently in a cooling trend right now to begin with, so let things cycle and bounce around a bit. Things shift around a bit, things die, other things thrive, life goes on.


"Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (5). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate."

Click to expand...

Obviously you must know something that 98% of people whose job titles involve "climate", do not. And all scientific bodies of national or international standing. Global warming is a positive feedback process, the human activities warm up the atmosphere, which in turn brings more water vapor into it.

Click to expand...

You are aware we had a "global-cooling" scare 30 years earlier?
You are aware the earth is substantially cooler now than 500 years ago?
You are aware that 'scientific-data' has a way of following the concerns of the folks funding it?
You are aware that 'climate change' concerns give folks funding the research massive power/control?

Follow the money/power.

Not only that Luke, even today, the "climate scientists" can't agree whether human produced C02 is gonna cause warming or cooling, the only thing they seem to know for sure is that humans are causing "it" (whatever "it" may be today) and "it's" bad. :wink:

Remember your Ronald Raygun Whitehouse Syance? It's the Trees, the trees are to blame.

"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." Reagan '81
http://deoxy.org/reagan.htm

liveforphysics said:

You are aware we had a "global-cooling" scare 30 years earlier?
You are aware the earth is substantially cooler now than 500 years ago?
You are aware that 'scientific-data' has a way of following the concerns of the folks funding it?
You are aware that 'climate change' concerns give folks funding the research massive power/control?

Follow the money/power.

Click to expand...

There may be some power in creating a scare, but that's not what the people with the information are trying to do. Global warming is where our information leads us. Considering that the richest people on earth are the oil giants, I would say that there is more interest in having people ignorant and happily using fossil fuels than worried about the environment and trying to consume less. Even 30 years ago, studies were being published supporting global warming. There truly were a few people that were loud about a perceived cooling trend, but that was disproved.

If we wanted to limit greenhouse gas, we would dredge and/or drain the wetlands areas, burn the rainforests, etc.

Click to expand...

Yes, lets burn the rainforests to stop climate change dead in its tracks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Tree rings show that humans were burning tons and tons of wood, which releases an incredible amount of CO2 ( 8x more carbon per joule ) before the black death. / plague. The cooling period happened as a result of tons of CO2 being absorbed and the trees growing back..

We have already experienced human-caused climate change !



There is a general consensus among the world's scientists that climate change is real..

The people who are fighting it often have an interest in carbon-containing energy sources. Or just don't like the idea that we may have to reduce our 'quality of life'..

And the way people perceive it seems to be a lot like how a frog can be boiled without noticing. Hey, the winters are still cold.. the summers are still not.. no problems, right? It is only looking at a graph of global temperatures is where it starts to make sense. Every chart i have seen points to temperatures going up.

http://green.autoblog.com/2011/04/0...laring-emits-same-co2-as-77-million-vehicles/

Check this report out about oil. This doesn't even take into account all the carbon produced by the refining process or transporting oil.

Makes electric cars powered by 100% dirty ass coal look angelic.

You picked a conveniently short time scale there.
Take your green blinkers off and look at the bigger picture !..
Look closely ..you may see a pattern. Better start stocking up on warm clothes !

Temperature estimates relative to today from over 800,000 years of the EPICA ice cores in Antarctica.

I have a question. Who decided what the Earth's perfect temperature is? Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone has because NO ONE KNOWS right? So (hypothetically) let's say we all decided as humans that the Earth's temperature as it is right now is the perfect temperature and we were going to devote the entire resources of the human race to maintain the temperature where it is. How would we go about doing that?? :|

Here's a few things "the consensus" has decided global warming should be blamed for...pay no attention to the fact that many of them are contradictory. :?

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

StudEbiker said:

let's say we all decided as humans that the Earth's temperature as it is right now is the perfect temperature and we were going to devote the entire resources of the human race to maintain the temperature where it is. How would we go about doing that?? :|

Click to expand...

However you.. "go about doing that" .. you are pitting yourself against mother nature. !
I think i can guess who will win that fight ! :wink:

StudEbiker said:

..Here's a few things "the consensus" has decided should be blamed for global warming...pay no attention to the fact that many of them are contradictory. :?
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

Click to expand...

I assume you meant to say... " a few things global warming should be blamed for" .. ?
yeh , global warming is a bitch . :?
... it a pity there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING we can do to control it

You got it HillHater. Post edited and corrected. Just wanted to elaborate some too. If know one knows what the perfect temp. is, how do we know warming is bad?? I suspect Julesa is going to chime in here pretty soon. He's been keeping a real low profile lately, but a good climate change thread should bring him around.

Hillhater said:

You picked a conveniently short time scale there.
Take your green blinkers off and look at the bigger picture !..
Look closely ..you may see a pattern. Better start stocking up on warm clothes !

Temperature estimates relative to today from over 800,000 years of the EPICA ice cores in Antarctica.

Click to expand...

I see that. And i won't deny that the earth has gone through natural cycles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record

The question is, do you believe in the greenhouse effect or not? eruptions of volcanoes and releases of methane are generally agreed upon to be the cause in the past, before humans were present in such numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

And while the earth may be capable of spitting out more greenhouse gasses than us, that doesn't make changing the climate to the point to ill effect justifiable and not a problem.

Seeing that we are at the peak ( or maybe a bit past ) of population and no massive geothermal events are occurring.. i think you would be foolish to think that we weren't the cause.