Are Electric Cars Really Green?
- Thread starter Scottydog
- Start date
I'm skeptical about coal plants being dirtier than tiny little in-your-face IC engines.
In terms of energy per passenger mile, electric vs. ICE doesn't change that as much as vehicle weight and speed does. For interurban, I'd guess weight is the predominant factor in energy per passenger mile.
I'd love to see a similar analysis of bicycle/ebike VS. automotive.
In terms of energy per passenger mile, electric vs. ICE doesn't change that as much as vehicle weight and speed does. For interurban, I'd guess weight is the predominant factor in energy per passenger mile.
I'd love to see a similar analysis of bicycle/ebike VS. automotive.
ccmdr
100 W
I'll bite.
Firstly I guess is the actual infancy of electric cars in general, the ICE has been actively matured for over 100 years, where full electric has only in the past 6-7 years become 'mainstream'.
Secondly, as batteries are the 'major' cause of CO2 why limit the CO2 comparision to 90,000 miles, why not 120,000 where the majority of Tesla cars are reaching 20% capacity loss. Simply put the more mileage you get on electric the more CO2 friendly it becomes.
Thirdly here in the UK, Gas (as in the 'state of matter type' for our overseas compatriots
) is the major source of electrical power output, which is almost a third cleaner than coal. Denmark, where this guy is from is one of the most CO2 friendly 
.
So an infant product produces 8% less CO2 in countries that are powered by the worst CO2 emitting coal power stations and that's a negative thing?
Firstly I guess is the actual infancy of electric cars in general, the ICE has been actively matured for over 100 years, where full electric has only in the past 6-7 years become 'mainstream'.
Secondly, as batteries are the 'major' cause of CO2 why limit the CO2 comparision to 90,000 miles, why not 120,000 where the majority of Tesla cars are reaching 20% capacity loss. Simply put the more mileage you get on electric the more CO2 friendly it becomes.
Thirdly here in the UK, Gas (as in the 'state of matter type' for our overseas compatriots
) is the major source of electrical power output, which is almost a third cleaner than coal. Denmark, where this guy is from is one of the most CO2 friendly .So an infant product produces 8% less CO2 in countries that are powered by the worst CO2 emitting coal power stations and that's a negative thing?
Drunkskunk
100 GW
This idea has been debated here before. While that video has some (serious) factual errors, it's basically correct.
Converting all transportation to electric will have only a small overall effect on the global pollution. CO2 is only an indicator of pollution, and easy to track. it's not even the worst greenhouse gas produced by a car or truck.
If we took all the cash needed to convert every car in the world to electric, and instead invested it in green power sources like wind, tidal, solar, geothermal, and possibly even nuclear, we would lower the worlds pollution by a much greater factor.
Of course, we all need to be driving electric cars. it is better for the environment. But at this point, it should be a secondary concern. A Clean power grid should be our first priority. Trying to get the public to vote to subsidize more windmills instead of giving out cash incentives for those Sexy, shiny Teslas is something we may never accomplish, however. Individual greed trumps environmentalism.
Converting all transportation to electric will have only a small overall effect on the global pollution. CO2 is only an indicator of pollution, and easy to track. it's not even the worst greenhouse gas produced by a car or truck.
If we took all the cash needed to convert every car in the world to electric, and instead invested it in green power sources like wind, tidal, solar, geothermal, and possibly even nuclear, we would lower the worlds pollution by a much greater factor.
Of course, we all need to be driving electric cars. it is better for the environment. But at this point, it should be a secondary concern. A Clean power grid should be our first priority. Trying to get the public to vote to subsidize more windmills instead of giving out cash incentives for those Sexy, shiny Teslas is something we may never accomplish, however. Individual greed trumps environmentalism.
Drunkskunk
100 GW
The first big error was with Coal being the dominant power source. In the U.S., it make up only 38.8% of our grid, with Nuclear, natural gas, and renewable sources making up the vast majority of the grid. That means the emissions caused by an electric car are much better than they try to claim. Their point is valid, but they ruin their credibility with such a large factual problem.
The second problem is with their claim that a car's life is 90,000 miles. That's just wrong. The current expected life of a car is closer to 200,000. If you want to calculate pollution from cradle to grave they way they did, having double the life span puts the difference in pollution more in the electric car's favor.
(one source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/a...-100000.html?_r=1&ref=business&pagewanted=all)
The second problem is with their claim that a car's life is 90,000 miles. That's just wrong. The current expected life of a car is closer to 200,000. If you want to calculate pollution from cradle to grave they way they did, having double the life span puts the difference in pollution more in the electric car's favor.
(one source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/a...-100000.html?_r=1&ref=business&pagewanted=all)
It's oft stated that EVs simply shift pollution elsewhere. While this is a valid point, it does have two advantages: 1) Eliminates local air pollution which brings significant health benefits 2) With pollution concentrated to just a few big sources it's easier and cheaper to target improvements. The average car owner isn't going to pay much for a small improvement in efficiency, but a power station would due to the economies of scale. You also can't apply heavy or bulky exhaust treatment systems (scrubbers, carbon capture) to vehicles.
There's also a psychological perspective: If you tell people their personal vehicle is ruining the environment they will get defensive. If you tell them the nearby power station is, they’ll likely demand action (probably for the sake of the children).
There's also a psychological perspective: If you tell people their personal vehicle is ruining the environment they will get defensive. If you tell them the nearby power station is, they’ll likely demand action (probably for the sake of the children).
hey scotty i see this argument brought up many times
and every time i totally disagree.....production ,sure, that's a one time where the environment takes a hit but after it's rolling the thing pays for itself
and this dosn't even address all the maintenance and oil/toxic chemicals you need to constantly main a complicated combustion engine i think that takes a bigger toll on the environment
reality is electric cars are not 100% green but 100% better than all these gas powered vehicles pushing off poisonous fumes everywhere making people sick(smog alerts etc)
gas powered vehicles are unsustainable and at the point where a solution will need to be found (especially in large cities)
I've heard from a few sources that even paris considered shutting down its core to gas vehicles (note this diesel stuff they use over there is the worst)
the main factors
1. sure the electricity of today is produced via coal etc... however electricity can be produced clean
2. we need a green recyclable battery (and in time i believe this will be a reality). current battery technology is toxic and difficult to recycle
and every time i totally disagree.....production ,sure, that's a one time where the environment takes a hit but after it's rolling the thing pays for itself
and this dosn't even address all the maintenance and oil/toxic chemicals you need to constantly main a complicated combustion engine i think that takes a bigger toll on the environment
reality is electric cars are not 100% green but 100% better than all these gas powered vehicles pushing off poisonous fumes everywhere making people sick(smog alerts etc)
gas powered vehicles are unsustainable and at the point where a solution will need to be found (especially in large cities)
I've heard from a few sources that even paris considered shutting down its core to gas vehicles (note this diesel stuff they use over there is the worst)
the main factors
1. sure the electricity of today is produced via coal etc... however electricity can be produced clean
2. we need a green recyclable battery (and in time i believe this will be a reality). current battery technology is toxic and difficult to recycle
cheers guys! I also mentioned the energy used to refine gasoline, which according to some sources as 6 kWh per gallon.
Also locally on our island they are phasing out the older less efficient diesels to more efficient diesels so by default the electric cars become greener. Also more and more solar is being installed improving the situation.
Also locally on our island they are phasing out the older less efficient diesels to more efficient diesels so by default the electric cars become greener. Also more and more solar is being installed improving the situation.
Note that this video data comes from Prager University. Prager U is owned by Dennis Prager, and is an alternative on-line school. It is not a research university as implied. Prager is a well known right-wing Christian fundamentalist radio show host who denies climate change at every turn. A very smart man with lots of good ideas, but a boat load of kooky ideas. He often fans nutcase conspiracy theories of all kinds.
The video presenter, Bjorn Lumborg, has degrees, including a PhD, in business. He is not a scientist and should not be considered a reliable source for the many scientific claims he makes in the video. He otherwise seems very legit, working as a visiting professor at the Copenhagen Consensus Center (not Centre as spelled in the video).
Among the many gross distortions in the video (implication of lithium mining worse than all the other metals mining required for every car, claiming more energy is needed to produce EVs than standard cars even though BMW claims their i3 EV uses 50% less energy to produce than their entire fleet average, absurdly low life milage for EVs at 90K miles, etc.), the biggest hole in the video is ignoring the electrical cost of producing gasoline. A typical gallon of gasoline requires over 10kWH of electricity to deliver to your gas tank. Refineries vary, but all are huge electricity consumers. The electricity to produce that gasoline is no cleaner (less CO2 emissions) than the electricity to charge an electric car battery.
A gallon of gasoline contains the equivalent of 33.4kWH of energy. A typical EV goes about 100 miles on 33.4kWH of electricity (the lowest is the Tesla around 85-90 MPGe, and the i3 is the highest at 124 MPGe). That is, a gallon of gasoline requires enough electricity to produce it that would drive an EV over 30 miles, a bit more that the average car would go on that gallon of gas. That is, a gasoline (or diesel) vehicle not only produces much more CO2 out the exhaust pipe per mile driven than does an electric vehicle indirectly produce at the power plant smokestack, but that does not include any of the electricity needed to produce the gasoline, which would be by itself enough to drive the EV the same distance.
The video presenter, Bjorn Lumborg, has degrees, including a PhD, in business. He is not a scientist and should not be considered a reliable source for the many scientific claims he makes in the video. He otherwise seems very legit, working as a visiting professor at the Copenhagen Consensus Center (not Centre as spelled in the video).
Among the many gross distortions in the video (implication of lithium mining worse than all the other metals mining required for every car, claiming more energy is needed to produce EVs than standard cars even though BMW claims their i3 EV uses 50% less energy to produce than their entire fleet average, absurdly low life milage for EVs at 90K miles, etc.), the biggest hole in the video is ignoring the electrical cost of producing gasoline. A typical gallon of gasoline requires over 10kWH of electricity to deliver to your gas tank. Refineries vary, but all are huge electricity consumers. The electricity to produce that gasoline is no cleaner (less CO2 emissions) than the electricity to charge an electric car battery.
A gallon of gasoline contains the equivalent of 33.4kWH of energy. A typical EV goes about 100 miles on 33.4kWH of electricity (the lowest is the Tesla around 85-90 MPGe, and the i3 is the highest at 124 MPGe). That is, a gallon of gasoline requires enough electricity to produce it that would drive an EV over 30 miles, a bit more that the average car would go on that gallon of gas. That is, a gasoline (or diesel) vehicle not only produces much more CO2 out the exhaust pipe per mile driven than does an electric vehicle indirectly produce at the power plant smokestack, but that does not include any of the electricity needed to produce the gasoline, which would be by itself enough to drive the EV the same distance.
speedmd
10 MW
The video is hogwash! No credible evidence given on any of the MFG claims, nor any discussion of all the other clouds of toxic gasses the ICE produces. Power is Worst case is taken using coal produced grid supply. It would be nice to see some best case comparisons on the electrical supply side just to show even the co2 having significant improvements.
Lurkin
100 kW
An electric car has the potential to be charged with renewable energy.
A fossil fuel car cannot.
Yes, it's really that simple.
Arguments about co2 emission illustrate a lack of regard for production technique both ways and ignores what consumers actually value. Price and convenience. If the majority cared about co2 and other effects as much as the amount in their wallets, fossil fuel energy use would all but disappear overnight.
A fossil fuel car cannot.
Yes, it's really that simple.
Arguments about co2 emission illustrate a lack of regard for production technique both ways and ignores what consumers actually value. Price and convenience. If the majority cared about co2 and other effects as much as the amount in their wallets, fossil fuel energy use would all but disappear overnight.
nutnspecial
10 MW
Kinda didn't mean an essay here, but whatever- beef up chew the fat.
E (at least currently- I would argue perhaps forever) has zero chance to completely replace more natural means of locomotion, including use of sequestered fuel. When things like cost, manufacture complexity, raw material sourcing, availability and renewability, lifespan, reliability, and toxicity are factored against the ability of E to 'DO WORK', newer offerings fail even compared to earlier offerings, which fail compared to less manipulated energy sources.
Do you really think the system could work without use of oil? (or animals, or guns, or morality?) Really think that thru before you decide. Do you really think the system doesn't know this? That is why it only ever offers bullshit 'schools' of thought, which are never complete and always polarizing.
Why would 'the system' want focused attention on itself? I'll leave you to determine what 'system' is for yourself, but I feel 'ruling class' is sufficient for me, for now.
Yes, wildly using sequestered fuels is foolish, but so would be trusting in one source's generation of statistics and solutions, especially when that source is what propagated any associated potential problems to begin with. Use facts and logic to see a bigger picture and avoid being another mindless drone on the right or left. The educational institutions and media are the farthest thing from neutrality. Look at the way things are setup- Impartiality? Objectivity? Truth? We are never given a realistic, complete, or selflessly objective approach in things regarding politics, rule of law, environment, morality, etc. Just weak cloudy polarizing preordained stances that always place blame on other politics, sexes, religions, ages, races, countries, cultures. Take a step back and this is should become perfectly clear.
To think/say or preach everyone must or even should give up oil use for personal transport is the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard. It's not even about arguing on such an insignificant level over which ultimately costs more fiat fractional reserve notes, or even if it's smarter to start with the grid or personal aspects.
A recurring theme around here seems to be flavored against the use of animals, personal cars, oil, guns, etc etc. These things are each important issues, but worthless and likely harmful in themselves without opening perspective and seeking change where the root problem really lies. Without that, any or all of the above would just be more checkboxes for a psychopathic ruling class furthering a system of lies and the perversion of nature and of humanity.
IMO we would start by fixing our perspectives, then the system- otherwise what some are routing for will most likely be the most unhuman and unnatural world/ environment, only to 'progress' until inevitable outcome- full and complete depravity of all that is good or even natural.
Personal test- what is good, what is bad, what is natural, what direction is this world going? Apply to EVERYTHING- not just energy generation, diet, or defense.
E (at least currently- I would argue perhaps forever) has zero chance to completely replace more natural means of locomotion, including use of sequestered fuel. When things like cost, manufacture complexity, raw material sourcing, availability and renewability, lifespan, reliability, and toxicity are factored against the ability of E to 'DO WORK', newer offerings fail even compared to earlier offerings, which fail compared to less manipulated energy sources.
Do you really think the system could work without use of oil? (or animals, or guns, or morality?) Really think that thru before you decide. Do you really think the system doesn't know this? That is why it only ever offers bullshit 'schools' of thought, which are never complete and always polarizing.
Why would 'the system' want focused attention on itself? I'll leave you to determine what 'system' is for yourself, but I feel 'ruling class' is sufficient for me, for now.
Yes, wildly using sequestered fuels is foolish, but so would be trusting in one source's generation of statistics and solutions, especially when that source is what propagated any associated potential problems to begin with. Use facts and logic to see a bigger picture and avoid being another mindless drone on the right or left. The educational institutions and media are the farthest thing from neutrality. Look at the way things are setup- Impartiality? Objectivity? Truth? We are never given a realistic, complete, or selflessly objective approach in things regarding politics, rule of law, environment, morality, etc. Just weak cloudy polarizing preordained stances that always place blame on other politics, sexes, religions, ages, races, countries, cultures. Take a step back and this is should become perfectly clear.
To think/say or preach everyone must or even should give up oil use for personal transport is the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard. It's not even about arguing on such an insignificant level over which ultimately costs more fiat fractional reserve notes, or even if it's smarter to start with the grid or personal aspects.
A recurring theme around here seems to be flavored against the use of animals, personal cars, oil, guns, etc etc. These things are each important issues, but worthless and likely harmful in themselves without opening perspective and seeking change where the root problem really lies. Without that, any or all of the above would just be more checkboxes for a psychopathic ruling class furthering a system of lies and the perversion of nature and of humanity.
IMO we would start by fixing our perspectives, then the system- otherwise what some are routing for will most likely be the most unhuman and unnatural world/ environment, only to 'progress' until inevitable outcome- full and complete depravity of all that is good or even natural.
Personal test- what is good, what is bad, what is natural, what direction is this world going? Apply to EVERYTHING- not just energy generation, diet, or defense.
I suggest we divide resources on this one: you cover pop-psychology, breaking down the class system and uncovering The Truth, everyone else will stick to a gradual adoption of green energy and transportation as the advantages of doing so become increasingly clear. We'll have a progress review in 10 years
Chalo
100 TW
My thinking is that today's e-cars are green from a resources per mile standpoint, inconclusive from a sunk-resources standpoint, and just as bad as gas cars from the standpoint of how much they ruin cities and kill people.
When it comes down to it, it's not about what the cars run on; it's a matter of whether you have to yield your home to them.
When it comes down to it, it's not about what the cars run on; it's a matter of whether you have to yield your home to them.
Lebowski
10 MW
I hope within a few years the nuclear fusion reactor will be reality and that all other types of power plant will be phased out. So then the CO2 picture looks better (as this cuts all the driving around CO2 and part of the production CO2). As far as batteries goes, one would hope that at a certain point in time Lithium will be recovered from scrapped cars, cutting down the need for mining.
Another thing to contemplate, what if nuclear fusion is a reality and someone makes a commercially viable factory turning CO2 (from the air) + water + electric energy into long strain carbohydrates (so gas or diesel). This would make the classic ICE CO2 neutral and solves the charging/range issue. Still doesn't solve NOx etc though...
I think the greenest vehicle in the garage at the moment is my Honda Wave 110i. OK, with an ICE but it is a small 99kg scooter (so not so much production CO2 and/or raw materials) which gets around 60km/l (140 mpg) and can do around 90 kmh (55 to 60 mph). Even though its only 110cc it has fuel injection and a catalytic converter. Did a 1500km trip last year, a small scooter is capable of big trips...
Another thing to contemplate, what if nuclear fusion is a reality and someone makes a commercially viable factory turning CO2 (from the air) + water + electric energy into long strain carbohydrates (so gas or diesel). This would make the classic ICE CO2 neutral and solves the charging/range issue. Still doesn't solve NOx etc though...
I think the greenest vehicle in the garage at the moment is my Honda Wave 110i. OK, with an ICE but it is a small 99kg scooter (so not so much production CO2 and/or raw materials) which gets around 60km/l (140 mpg) and can do around 90 kmh (55 to 60 mph). Even though its only 110cc it has fuel injection and a catalytic converter. Did a 1500km trip last year, a small scooter is capable of big trips...
sendler2112
100 kW
EV drive is 250% more efficient than the best ICE engine in a Prius in actual use on the road. A Prius gets 50 MPG. An EV car gets 120 MPGe. The difference in carbon emitted during manufacturing is only about 10% higher for the EV with it's battery which is quickly made up for if you live in an area like NY or CA which have very clean grids due to Nuclear and Hydro. I would have to find an ICE car that can get 112 MPGus in order to emit less carbon than charging an average EV car in upstate NY.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
sendler2112
100 kW
Honda made a huge commitment to efficiency and low emissions in 2000 with the decision to design a universal fuel injection platform that could be used on all upcoming single cylinder world bikes. 50cc to 300, all of their affordable bikes have injection and a cat with an O2 sensor. The PCX is a brilliantly capable all around machine that gets 100 mpgUS And can be ridden comfortably all day long in the pouring rain. Mine has 19,000 miles on it so far.Lebowski said:
.
.
.
.
My CBR250R has 29,000 miles on it with a lifetime of 94 mpgUS and goes cross country camping three times per year.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The Chevy Bolt will do 140 MPGe. Makes me feel guilty about my 94 MPGus bike.
.
.
.
.
sendler2112
100 kW
Here are a couple more studies comparing cradle to grave carbon footprints of ICE cars versus electric showing that the EV pays back it's extra carbon manufacturing debt in 5-15,000 miles if charged from a green grid such as the west coast USA.
.
USAhttp://www.greencarreports.com/news/1102307_once-again-electric-cars-have-lower-lifetime-carbon-emissions
.
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1094754_electric-car-life-cycle-analysis-renault-fluence-ze-vs-diesel-gas-models
.
.
USAhttp://www.greencarreports.com/news/1102307_once-again-electric-cars-have-lower-lifetime-carbon-emissions
.
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1094754_electric-car-life-cycle-analysis-renault-fluence-ze-vs-diesel-gas-models
.
My wife an I are retired and put on about 5K miles a year on our remaining car. That mileage will go down as we get even older. Does it make any sense to trade in my wife's old Corolla on a Bolt? It is in perfect shape, and could clearly serve us well as long as we will still be driving. That said, we will probably spend twice what we have ever paid for a vehicle, and trade it for a Bolt. I look at it as a political statement. Will it have any real affect on reducing the degradation of the planet? I'm with nutspecial, and chalo on this one.
This from one of my favorite blogs.
"thermodynamic limits impose a cap to energy growth lest we cook ourselves. I’m not talking about global warming, CO2 build-up, etc. I’m talking about radiating the spent energy into space......the Earth has only one mechanism for releasing heat to space, and that’s via (infrared) radiation. We understand the phenomenon perfectly well, and can predict the surface temperature of the planet as a function of how much energy the human race produces. The upshot is that at a 2.3% growth rate (conveniently chosen to represent a 10× increase every century), we would reach boiling temperature in about 400 years."
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/
"thermodynamic limits impose a cap to energy growth lest we cook ourselves. I’m not talking about global warming, CO2 build-up, etc. I’m talking about radiating the spent energy into space......the Earth has only one mechanism for releasing heat to space, and that’s via (infrared) radiation. We understand the phenomenon perfectly well, and can predict the surface temperature of the planet as a function of how much energy the human race produces. The upshot is that at a 2.3% growth rate (conveniently chosen to represent a 10× increase every century), we would reach boiling temperature in about 400 years."
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/
sendler2112
100 kW
Only as a staement. The Corolla is a good car and by scrapping it you would probably never pay back the carbon it took to build any new car. Unless the Corolla is sold to someone that needs a car anyway and then putting a Bolt or Tesla 3 on the road would be a win for the future.Warren said:
sendler2112'
"Unless the Corolla is sold to someone that needs a car anyway and then putting a Bolt or Tesla 3 on the road would be a win for the future."
Any car sold goes to someone who "needs" a car. Putting an electric car on the road is only symbolic. Given how much we need to restrict our energy use to get to near zero CO2 emissions by mid-century, nothing about our current system is a "win for the future."
"Unless the Corolla is sold to someone that needs a car anyway and then putting a Bolt or Tesla 3 on the road would be a win for the future."
Any car sold goes to someone who "needs" a car. Putting an electric car on the road is only symbolic. Given how much we need to restrict our energy use to get to near zero CO2 emissions by mid-century, nothing about our current system is a "win for the future."
