Electric cars DIRTIER and COST MORE to run per mile... Say it ain't so......

[Ronkh]

Maps reveal how EVs can be WORSE for the environment than gas-guzzling vehicles
In some areas, mostly in the east of the US, the impact of charging up EVs does more harm to the environment
In monetary terms, electric cars are about half-a-cent worse per mile for the environment than gas-powered cars


They have been hailed as the environmentally-friendly solution to getting around towns and cities.

But new research has found electric cars have an overall impact on pollution that may be worse than gas-guzzling vehicles.





Read more: CityLab shows how electric cars can be WORSE for the environment than gas-guzzling vehicles | Daily Mail Online.

 

[Setec Astronomy]

Yeah, but that's interpreting the data the way you'd like it to be. That result is because of power plants that burn dirtier fuel than gasoline.

A few years ago I thought we were on our way to a modular nuclear solution but the xxxushima event and change in Energy Secretary seems to have derailed whatever small potential that had of happening.

Whattya got on hybrid cars? C'mon Ron, convince me to go find a pre-Clean Air Act car to drive around so I can help the environment!

 

[Junebug]

Jeremy Clarkson pointed out that you have to consider ALL the steps in making an EV - from the batteries and the shipping all over the world to the disposal of the hazardous waste. I definitely think one should really look at all the aspects before running out to "save the planet" with an EV. If, you just compare prices for a small car, feature for feature then look at the bottom line, how long would it take you to start saving money due to higher mpg? I compared a few and it was 5+ years before you would. Add in the cost of battery replacement and it's longer. But, drive what you like and makes YOU happy, I don't own a single share of stock in any car company!

 

[Ronkh]

Yeah, but that's interpreting the data the way you'd like it to be. That result is because of power plants that burn dirtier fuel than gasoline.

A few years ago I thought we were on our way to a modular nuclear solution but the xxxushima event and change in Energy Secretary seems to have derailed whatever small potential that had of happening.

Whattya got on hybrid cars? C'mon Ron, convince me to go find a pre-Clean Air Act car to drive around so I can help the environment!

 

[Angus]

"... if the power comes from wind, water or wave energy, it produces about one-quarter of the air pollution..."

The bottom line is we need to develop a clean energy alternative infrastructure to power the cars of the future. I'm all for that idea.

Elon Musk is already working on it for home charging from solar panels:

Tesla Powerwall

 

[Setec Astronomy]

Junebug, why should I consider all those steps before I buy such a vehicle? Myself and millions of other consumers make decisions every day about all kinds of things we buy, without such consideration. Do I need to think before I put a plastic bottle into a recycling container in a fast food establishment? Perhaps the garbage there gets incinerated, providing waste-to-energy that is more efficient than recycling.

I agree that the cost/benefit of a hybrid vehicle can result in a "not short" payback period. However, the higher gas prices go, the shorter that period...and I keep my vehicles a long time, anyway. I predict the price gap between conventional and hybrid vehicles will continue to close. It certainly is an entertaining argument about hybrid efficiency, since it has effectively two powertrains vs. a conventional or a full-electric vehicle.

Since you put it in consumer terms, if I keep my vehicles 10+ years, why shouldn't I, as a consumer, buy a hybrid vehicle that will result in lower fuel costs over the lifecycle of the vehicle? Why should I as a consumer care about shipping and hazardous waste? "I" don't care about it in any other context, I still get a new cell phone all the time, I don't give a hoot about how much it cost to ship from China and how much hazardous waste I just created, I just want a screen that's 1/4" bigger!!

I just find it funny that the arguments against electric and hybrid cars always rely on a level of consumer awareness that is not applied to any other item that consumers buy--including ones that consume large amounts of energy--like a house.

 

[Setec Astronomy]

The bottom line is we need to develop a clean energy alternative infrastructure to power the cars of the future. I'm all for that idea.

We need that for everything, not just for cars. If we could power everything else with solar or wind (or nuclear), then we could keep the gasoline for cars! What we really need is a breakthrough in solar cost or efficiency, so we can plaster everything with solar cells. And then we need a breakthrough in battery technology so we can store that power. I'm not too optimistic for either.

 

[Bunky]

I always viewed EV's and Hybrids more about energy independence as an alternative to gasoline. However, newer technology has allowed us to get more oil and natural gas extending the need for other alternatives.

 

[Setec Astronomy]

I always viewed EV's and Hybrids more about energy independence as an alternative to gasoline. However, newer technology has allowed us to get more oil and natural gas extending the need for other alternatives.

I always consider EV's and Hybrids to have separate objectives--an EV is trying to use an alternate fuel source (which may or may not be "cleaner" than gasoline as noted in the article Ron linked), while a Hybrid is simply trying to increase the efficiency of a gasoline-fueled vehicle (of course then you have plug-in Hybrids which are trying to do both).

I never could understand the vitriol unleashed against hybrids--if I bought low rolling resistance tires for my conventionally-fueled vehicle to try and increase the mileage, or poured Sammy's Slippery Stuff in my oil to try to reduce friction and increase my mileage, would I have pickup trucks pouring black smoke in my face? Or be accused of trying to "save the planet"? On that note I'm going to stop tuning up my car, because I don't want to be accused of being some planet-saving pansy. Because Tim Allen told me the more gas I use the more manly I am.

 

[Angus]

We need that for everything, not just for cars. If we could power everything else with solar or wind (or nuclear), then we could keep the gasoline for cars! What we really need is a breakthrough in solar cost or efficiency, so we can plaster everything with solar cells. And then we need a breakthrough in battery technology so we can store that power. I'm not too optimistic for either.

Totally agree.

 

[Bunky]

I never could understand the vitriol unleashed against hybrids

I attribute this to the view many have that they can do anything they want and no one can force them especially as viewed as some government idea. We saw this with something as simple as recycling where people produced stats showing that recycling actually may cost more energy...if only we had unlimited resources and places to store the trash.

 

[ec90]

Yeah, but that's interpreting the data the way you'd like it to be. That result is because of power plants that burn dirtier fuel than gasoline.

A few years ago I thought we were on our way to a modular nuclear solution but the xxxushima event and change in Energy Secretary seems to have derailed whatever small potential that had of happening.

Whattya got on hybrid cars? C'mon Ron, convince me to go find a pre-Clean Air Act car to drive around so I can help the environment!

I guess this is where the bandwagon for Thorium reactors in the future lies.

"... if the power comes from wind, water or wave energy, it produces about one-quarter of the air pollution..."

The bottom line is we need to develop a clean energy alternative infrastructure to power the cars of the future. I'm all for that idea.

Elon Musk is already working on it for home charging from solar panels:

Tesla Powerwall

I see the powerwall as a better idea to reduce strain on the grid by equalizing demand, rather than the surge in the daytime and lull at night you could easily balance it somewhat throughout the night and use it during the day if designed efficiently. Wave energy like any new technology still needs capital. Right now at least in the southwest solar and wind seem to be the easy moneymakers. We could look to Denmark on how a country can move forward with an idea that even if it costs more paves the way to the future instead of solely focusing efforts on technology with a more finite lifespan.

I attribute this to the view many have that they can do anything they want and no one can force them especially as viewed as some government idea. We saw this with something as simple as recycling where people produced stats showing that recycling actually may cost more energy...if only we had unlimited resources and places to store the trash.

The difficult part here is getting mass groups of people to spend more money on something without a monetary benefit and ease of use. I know I rarely recycle here in Vegas because of the barriers to entry. They only pickup every other week and until a few months ago nobody mentioned that sorting recycling into color coordinated bins was no longer required. A simple once a week pickup here and widespread knowledge of single item pickup would be great. I wonder how it would be effected if trash was only picked up once a week and recycle once a week somewhat forcing people to conform.

 

[XxBoostinxX]

We need that for everything, not just for cars. If we could power everything else with solar or wind (or nuclear), then we could keep the gasoline for cars! What we really need is a breakthrough in solar cost or efficiency, so we can plaster everything with solar cells. And then we need a breakthrough in battery technology so we can store that power. I'm not too optimistic for either.

I have never understood our negative stance on nuclear energy. I understand a meltdown could happen, but the amount of energy we would gain is crazy. I can't remember how many nuclear plants we have currently, I know it isn't many, but when you hear how many other countries have it is a big difference.

I don't see why so many people don't use some type of solar power at home. I even saw an article a few years back where they made a completely solar power home. Solar cells were in the glass of the windows, the roof, and outside. The technology is there, but the cost is just too much for the average consumer.

 

[4u2nvinmtl]

I actually got into a long and heated discussion about this with my Prius owning uncle. He's had his Prius for over 8 years and it's saved him a lot of money. He did all the math and happens to be a reporter for Radio-Canada so he was very good a presenting his points/facts objectively and not subjectively. Basically, he pointed out the power plants don't intentionally produce dirty energy just for electric cars they were already doing it before people were powering their cars with this electricity. He also pointed out that the Nickle mine in Sudbury Ontario had already caused the environmental disaster before the first EV/hybrid had even rolled off the line. Both sides clearly can skew the evidence how they want to mislead the public, but the fact is simple I can't breath the stuff that comes out the back of my SRT8 and my SRT8 costs much more than my uncle's Prius (to own and operate).

In short: At first I thought these articles were right but then after investigating for myself I seen how they twisted the words and skewed the facts to make it look this way... I'm currently on the fence about saving for a Hellcat Jeep or a Tesla P85D more than ever!

P.S. The study, by the National Bureau of Economic Research, looks incorrect to me because I know that Quebec sells surplus hydroelectric power to Vermont so why is the whole state red?! According to Wiki, "Exports from Hydro-Québec account for 28% of all power used in the state of Vermont". Note: I just noticed the graphs don't indicate the cleanliness of the power just how much money is and should be paid out to EV owners.

Why is the article converting environmental pollution into a cost and how is that being done? I'd like to see how much more pollution the EV's create and not hide the facts behind dollar figures (money is artificial the environment isn't).

So the power plants run harder when someone charges an EV somehow I doubt that. They also didn't take into the environmental impacts with oil, and how much energy is used to transport and refine it to usable gasoline! *It takes 4-7.5 kWh to refine one gallon of gasoline and a typical EV can travel 16 miles on 4kwh (20 miles on 7.5kwh) that figure alone is way better than the 10Mpg my SRT8 gets!

Dont get me wrong I'd love to live in a world were my SRT8 is cleaner to drive than EV's it's just not the case and wont be ever.

 

[Setec Astronomy]

I have never understood our negative stance on nuclear energy. I understand a meltdown could happen, but the amount of energy we would gain is crazy. I can't remember how many nuclear plants we have currently, I know it isn't many, but when you hear how many other countries have it is a big difference.

Oh boy...well, the nuclear power industry has done a poor job of protecting against accidents, and the results of the accidents can be so large (Chernobyl, F u kushima) that it's a calculated risk. As far as other countries, the Japanese accident has led Germany to phase out all their nuke plants, and probably that will happen in Japan, also (subject of some debate there right now I think).

I don't see why so many people don't use some type of solar power at home. I even saw an article a few years back where they made a completely solar power home. Solar cells were in the glass of the windows, the roof, and outside. The technology is there, but the cost is just too much for the average consumer.

Because you have to have the right conditions--direct southern exposure, no shade--if the panels were 10X cheaper or 10X higher efficiency, then it wouldn't matter and we'd plaster them everywhere.

 

[Setec Astronomy]

They also didn't take into the environmental impacts with oil, and how much energy is used to transport and refine it to usable gasoline! *It takes 4-7.5 kWh to refine one gallon of gasoline and a typical EV can travel 16 miles on 4kwh (20 miles on 7.5kwh) that figure alone is way better than the 10Mpg my SRT8 gets!

That was an interesting point that a relative made to me recently--that the infrastructure to transport the electricity for an EV is hanging there on the pole (passively), while the gasoline has to be actively transported to the gas station, and you have to drive there to get it.

I have to laugh at some of the whole discussion about this stuff--after the '73 oil embargo, when we (the US) embarked on the whole CAFE thing, while at the same time struggling under the full implementation of the Clean Air Act, we fell into the "dark days" and there was plenty of doom and gloom to go around, about how cars would never be fun again.

However, the technology developed to solve those problems resulted in the fantastic cars of the 90's, 00's, and today--with horsepower and drivability and yes, economy, undreamed of even in the muscle-car heyday of the 60's. Sure, part of what happened was that gas didn't get as expensive as predicted, so the efficiency gains were redirected to generate more power rather than more mileage.

We can already see some of the high performance car companies implementing hybrid and EV technologies in innovative ways, and down the road some of these approaches and technologies will simply become mainstream and unnoticed by the consumer.

 

[4u2nvinmtl]

Jeremy Clarkson pointed out that you have to consider ALL the steps in making an EV - from the batteries and the shipping all over the world to the disposal of the hazardous waste. I definitely think one should really look at all the aspects before running out to "save the planet" with an EV. If, you just compare prices for a small car, feature for feature then look at the bottom line, how long would it take you to start saving money due to higher mpg? I compared a few and it was 5+ years before you would. Add in the cost of battery replacement and it's longer. But, drive what you like and makes YOU happy, I don't own a single share of stock in any car company!

Are we talking about saving money or the environment? If we're talking about saving money a bicycle (or walking/jogging) is the cheapest form of efficient & acceptable transportation and it's good for the environment. The cheapest way to get around without using your own steam is a used motorcycle some of them are as efficient as 100MPG's. My old 300cc Honda ATV was very good on gas (~50mpg) and a blast to drive. If you have to get a car, an old used Carolla is probably the cheapest to run per mile in gas and repairs, etc.

Environmentally speaking hydrogen cars are the cleanest -IMHO- (depending on how the hydrogen is produced) because they emit O2 and H2O!

People never consider all the steps and energy needed to make gasoline when they do these types of calculations. I had read that it takes something like 4 gallons of crude oil to extract 5 gallons of crude oil (net profit of one gallon) and that's just crude oil extraction/transport not including refinement to gasoline...

 

[Ronkh]

However, the technology developed to solve those problems resulted in the fantastic cars of the 90's, 00's, and today--with horsepower and drivability and yes, economy, undreamed of even in the muscle-car heyday of the 60's. Sure, part of what happened was that gas didn't get as expensive as predicted, so the efficiency gains were redirected to generate more power rather than more mileage.

We can already see some of the high performance car companies implementing hybrid and EV technologies in innovative ways, and down the road some of these approaches and technologies will simply become mainstream and unnoticed by the consumer.

 

[4u2nvinmtl]

why should I consider all those steps before I buy such a vehicle?

Only if you're actively trying to be part of a solution...

Do I need to think before I put a plastic bottle into a recycling container in a fast food establishment?

I do, but most don't. I actually investigated and found out that my city put's over 66% of recyclables into the landfill because the recycling plant is way over capacity, so I save myself time (and subsequently money) by just tossing my recyclables into the trash.

Since you put it in consumer terms, if I keep my vehicles 10+ years, why shouldn't I, as a consumer, buy a hybrid vehicle that will result in lower fuel costs over the lifecycle of the vehicle?

You should.

Why should I as a consumer care about shipping and hazardous waste?

...I hope this was rhetorical but in case it wasn't; you should care because hazardous waste is bad for the environment and is a detriment to human life as are the resources consumed to transport goods consumed by consumers. Do you really think that capitalist driven oil company's and oil Sheik's are looking out for the environment? <- Rhetorical

 

[Setec Astronomy]

I hope this was rhetorical but in case it wasn't

I was making the point that arguments against EV/Hybrids typically rely on the consumer making distinctions that they make for no other purchases, and the double standard implied by that.