The not-so-green electric car

[Master Shake]

ELECTRIC cars could produce higher emissions over their lifetimes than petrol equivalents because of the energy consumed in making their batteries, a study has found.

An electric car owner would have to drive at least 129,000km before producing a net saving in CO2. Many electric cars will not travel that far in their lifetime because they typically have a range of less than 145km on a single charge and are unsuitable for long trips. Even those driven 160,000km would save only about a tonne of CO2 over their lifetimes.

The British study, which is the first analysis of the full lifetime emissions of electric cars covering manufacturing, driving and disposal, undermines the case for tackling climate change by the rapid introduction of electric cars.

Rest here.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1226073103576

[peakishmael]

Re: The not-so-green electric car

An electric car owner would have to drive at least 129,000km before producing a net saving in CO2. Many electric cars will not travel that far in their lifetime because they typically have a range of less than 145km on a single charge and are unsuitable for long trips. Even those driven 160,000km would save only about a tonne of CO2 over their lifetimes.

This seems very confused; not too unusual for a newspaper I guess.

OK, let's accept that electric cars will only and ever have a range of 145km/charge.

Then let's hypothesize that someone, on an average day, drives half that (72km).

So, according to the article itself, they will save a ton of CO2 in (160,000/72) = 2250 days, or about 6.2 years. Are they alleging that the average electric car is incapable of lasting 6 years, or 160,000 km? If not, then what's so bad about saving a ton of CO2 in 6 years?

Plus, the figures probably assume the grid electricity is supplied primarily by burning fossil fuels (i.e., present mix); other sources are capable of providing cleaner energy. That has got to be a huge factor in the analysis.

I am NOT saying that electric cars are a panacea. Just that this article seems a bit biased. Don't know about the study itself - anybody got a link?

[dropthatcash]

Re: The not-so-green electric car

This seems very confused; not too unusual for a newspaper I guess.

OK, let's accept that electric cars will only and ever have a range of 145km/charge.

Then let's hypothesize that someone, on an average day, drives half that (72km).

So, according to the article itself, they will save a ton of CO2 in (160,000/72) = 2250 days, or about 6.2 years. Are they alleging that the average electric car is incapable of lasting 6 years, or 160,000 km? If not, then what's so bad about saving a ton of CO2 in 6 years?

Plus, the figures probably assume the grid electricity is supplied primarily by burning fossil fuels (i.e., present mix); other sources are capable of providing cleaner energy. That has got to be a huge factor in the analysis.

I am NOT saying that electric cars are a panacea. Just that this article seems a bit biased. Don't know about the study itself - anybody got a link?

So many negative variables to factor and so few unbiased accountants to figure.

Here's a few energy costs I don't see mentioned;

A percentage of the energy risk devoted to failed projects. In other words, out of 10 engineered projects be-they cars, MP3 players, Cell phones or even movies, at least 10% will have been wastes of money and the energy inputs they required to produce.

Another cost that isn't factored are the federal government inputs of finance (and the inevitable energy expended to produce the supporting taxes) that subsidize the seemingly endless parade of failed energy miracle projects.

As for the solar/wind replacements of fossils, they too have this green spin of ignoring all the obvious and not so obvious energy inputs to bring them on line and keep them online. I'm confident that both of these green sources are net energy losers when a true accounting is done and that doesn't even figure the unreliability of these sources.

Even the extra man hours needed to construct these cars/windmills/solar panels needs to be factored in. Every extra labor-hour has an energy intensive lifestyle behind it.

The only solution that is guaranteed to work is the solution that the U.S. government has never used; increase the tax on fuel till demand falls to a targeted level. Let the consumer decide how to alter lifestyles to afford this increased cost. I imagine SUV's will rapidly be replaced with Hondas and bored drivers going nowhere will disappear. Carpooling and living closer to ones work won't be such oddities. Driving with a gentile foot and saving fuel will become the norm. This is the way we should have always been treating such a rare and valuable prize as fossil fuels.

[Starving Steve]

Re: The not-so-green electric car

This seems very confused; not too unusual for a newspaper I guess.

OK, let's accept that electric cars will only and ever have a range of 145km/charge.

Then let's hypothesize that someone, on an average day, drives half that (72km).

So, according to the article itself, they will save a ton of CO2 in (160,000/72) = 2250 days, or about 6.2 years. Are they alleging that the average electric car is incapable of lasting 6 years, or 160,000 km? If not, then what's so bad about saving a ton of CO2 in 6 years?

Plus, the figures probably assume the grid electricity is supplied primarily by burning fossil fuels (i.e., present mix); other sources are capable of providing cleaner energy. That has got to be a huge factor in the analysis.

I am NOT saying that electric cars are a panacea. Just that this article seems a bit biased. Don't know about the study itself - anybody got a link?

Being the moron here, it would seem to me that if the eco-frauds push the world to go back to coal for generating electricity, then the vast tonnages of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere by coal-fired power plants would have to be considered, especially in the purchase of an electric car.

I would have thought that mankind had some common-sense and would have chosen atomic-energy to generate electricity. But, apparently the world is going back to coal for generating electricity. Half of America's power already is generated by coal-fired electric power-plants. Henderson, Nevada's conversion of its power plant away from nuclear to coal in the early 1980s was just the beginning of a long-term trend back to coal.

That haze over the Grand Canyon National Park? That's mostly from Henderson, Nevada, but we won't get into that issue right now.

If the world just stays where it is now and doesn't do anything (which it may well do) then there isn't enough electric energy to keep the lights on, worldwide..... No small issue to be sure! In fact, the lights are going-out and the air-conditioners are going-off right now in Japan.

Which is it ecologists: coal or nuclear or hydro-electric or natural gas? Or maybe some combination of all of the four fuels to generate electricity, to keep the lights on, keep the inside temperature bearable, and to proceed with electric cars?

But then the eco-bunch don't like the ugliness of power-lines. They don't like the fracking of rocks to drill for gas and oil. They don't want tar sand development........ Let's be more blunt: What the eco-bunch really doesn't like is the welfare of humanity, especially the welfare of people of modest means.

So with the self-serving environmentalists, we really have another fundamentalist religion of hypocrites, just like with the religious-right in America, but even worse!

[iyamwutiam]

Re: The not-so-green electric car

@Starvin -are you still on your pedantic nonsense filled rants? What part of Fukishima did you not understand? ORr Chernobyl? Going by the debacle of 2008 -where the 'so-called' finest minds of our nations are attracted too -would you even dare to risk that on the legacy of our children, our children's children -not to mention us. You (despite whatever success (monetary) you may have/had or acquire -shows that we are surrounded by a surfeit of selfish fools wh would compromise wisdom for knowledge, sanctity for profit and of course the future for the present.

Really -your ability to type out posts with no fore thought is only eclipsed by your zeal to project foolishness and short term thinking upon the world.

[shiny!]

Re: The not-so-green electric car

ASU's Metal Air Ionic Liquid (MAIL) battery could be a game changer. Using common earth minerals available in the United States, offering up to 400-500 miles between charges and charging for a fraction of what it costs to fill up with a tank of gasoline, the cost of the battery will be only slightly more than the lead-acid batteries used today:

Metal Air Battery Dream Gets Traction: http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2010/12/14/a-metal-air-battery-dream-gets-traction/


Arcimoto in Eugene, OR has an intriguing 2-seater electric commuter vehicle now in development. Arcimoto's car will be battery technology-neutral and could take advantage of the MAIL battery:

http://www.arcimoto.com/journey/arcimoto-story-so-far

I think we're getting very close to good solutions.

[yourfather]

Re: The not-so-green electric car

@Starvin -are you still on your pedantic nonsense filled rants? What part of Fukishima did you not understand? ORr Chernobyl? Going by the debacle of 2008 -where the 'so-called' finest minds of our nations are attracted too -would you even dare to risk that on the legacy of our children, our children's children -not to mention us. You (despite whatever success (monetary) you may have/had or acquire -shows that we are surrounded by a surfeit of selfish fools wh would compromise wisdom for knowledge, sanctity for profit and of course the future for the present.

Really -your ability to type out posts with no fore thought is only eclipsed by your zeal to project foolishness and short term thinking upon the world.

While I understand your enthusiasm, nuclear meltdowns in soviet designed plants, or in 50 year old Japanese plants that encountered both an earthquake and a Tsunami, are generally not going to kill as many people as the continued abatement of carbon into the atmosphere, putting many island nations underwater.

The 80% of the planet who aspire to have a lifestyle like us also have a right to electricity and coal will kill millions.

Sure, there may mutant bunnies because of Fukushima - but lets put this into perspective, how many people die from legal things that do damage like cigarettes, alcohol compared to nuclear meltdown.

[Starving Steve]

Re: The not-so-green electric car

@Starvin -are you still on your pedantic nonsense filled rants? What part of Fukishima did you not understand? ORr Chernobyl? Going by the debacle of 2008 -where the 'so-called' finest minds of our nations are attracted too -would you even dare to risk that on the legacy of our children, our children's children -not to mention us. You (despite whatever success (monetary) you may have/had or acquire -shows that we are surrounded by a surfeit of selfish fools wh would compromise wisdom for knowledge, sanctity for profit and of course the future for the present.

Really -your ability to type out posts with no fore thought is only eclipsed by your zeal to project foolishness and short term thinking upon the world.

As I have alluded to before: How sustainable is living in poverty, inflation, and starvation? Putting food onto the table and keeping-up with the bills is more important near-term than worrying about life on Earth, thousands of years from now.... Take that worry about long-term sustainability to your environmentalist church, wherever it may be.

You look kids in the face and tell them that their lives don't count because the world is over-populated. Do that, but I won't.
Tell those kids that they can't have the blessing of a high standard of living because the world is over-populated.... I won't.

Tell those kids that they have to live in slums because the city can't expand. Tell them that urban sprawl threatens the San Francisco County rare and endangered field-mouse. .... I won't.

Tell those kids that they have to pay $500,000 for a house and go deep into debt because the city can't grow outward any longer. The gentry have to have their lovely green space, their lovely university endowments and their lovely church dedicated-lands..... I won't.

Tell those kids that they have to carry groceries on foot, in all kinds of weather, in order to preserve habitat for small birds.... I won't.

Tell the elderly in British Columbia that they can't drive their car any longer because it is better for the environment and better for public safety if they walked everywhere..... I won't.

Tell the elderly that they can live with solar panels on their roof and windmills turning a thousand miles away in Wyoming.... I won't.

Tell the elderly at Victoria General Hospital in Victoria, BC that they are too old to go back to their homes and to live their lives the way they used to.... Tell them that they are too old to deserve proper medical care because the Province is broke and can't hire more doctors. Tell them the hospital is short-staffed because Gordon Campbell's government has other more important priorities, with the environment, etc......... Tell the elderly that they have to go into a nursing home downtown....... You do that. I won't.

[aaron]

Re: The not-so-green electric car

Long term, humans have liberated millions of years worth of life-giving carbon. It is a benefit to the planet. Humanity will probably carry on in much fewer numbers, but the planet will still be here, greener than ever.

[aaron]

Re: The not-so-green electric car

I put a deposit down on a Tesla Model S. It is expensive, probably not environmentally friendly, and awesome looking. I think of it is an "investment". I used my silver to buy "refined" aluminum and lithium. http://www.tesla.com/models

[flintlock]

Re: The not-so-green electric car

So many negative variables to factor and so few unbiased accountants to figure.

Here's a few energy costs I don't see mentioned;

A percentage of the energy risk devoted to failed projects. In other words, out of 10 engineered projects be-they cars, MP3 players, Cell phones or even movies, at least 10% will have been wastes of money and the energy inputs they required to produce.

Another cost that isn't factored are the federal government inputs of finance (and the inevitable energy expended to produce the supporting taxes) that subsidize the seemingly endless parade of failed energy miracle projects.

As for the solar/wind replacements of fossils, they too have this green spin of ignoring all the obvious and not so obvious energy inputs to bring them on line and keep them online. I'm confident that both of these green sources are net energy losers when a true accounting is done and that doesn't even figure the unreliability of these sources.

Even the extra man hours needed to construct these cars/windmills/solar panels needs to be factored in. Every extra labor-hour has an energy intensive lifestyle behind it.

The only solution that is guaranteed to work is the solution that the U.S. government has never used; increase the tax on fuel till demand falls to a targeted level. Let the consumer decide how to alter lifestyles to afford this increased cost. I imagine SUV's will rapidly be replaced with Hondas and bored drivers going nowhere will disappear. Carpooling and living closer to ones work won't be such oddities. Driving with a gentile foot and saving fuel will become the norm. This is the way we should have always been treating such a rare and valuable prize as fossil fuels.

I am still a little bit amazed that the big SUVs are rolling off the assembly line in numbers. Just recently I've had two friends buy brand new Suburbans. I don't get it. I mean, I just sold my big SUV, but I bought it 8 years ago when gas was around $1.50.( My wife only drove about 8000 miles a year anyway) One friend drives his vehicle 25k miles a year, mostly city. That's almost $7000 year for gas! What about when it goes to $5 gallon? Only $9600 year! I mean, there are large cars that get twice that mileage now. Yeah, some people still "need" one I guess. I'm just surprised how many people can't do the math. These are not wealthy people by any means. Cutting those numbers in half adds up to big savings over time.

Obviously the higher price of gas has not stopped everyone, but I can say that after recently shopping for a new car, the manufacturers that offer a nice vehicle AND high MPG are selling very well. People who are used to quality and comfort but don't want a box on wheels now have some options they didn't used to have. 4 cylinders put out high HP and still sip fuel. 4cylinders go into 90% of all Midsize cars now. They really know how to make an internal combustion engine these days. We could easily improve our national energy use, without having to resort to Smart cars and overpriced electric cars.

One thing I'll say about Hybrids. If you are in the market, the prices have come down to where they make sense, but also the options for high MPG gas or diesel cars has gotten much better. So much so that some traditional motors are competitive with the Hybrids. At least the larger ones. VW is coming out with a Passat that is supposed to get 31 city/43 hwy.( the one in the Super Bowl commercial) Those are Hybrid numbers. And under $30k! My guess is the uber SUV will go out of style sooner than later. If just for the appearance of being green as any financial reason. Slowly, the idea of conserving is creeping into the American psyche.

[flintlock]

Re: The not-so-green electric car

I put a deposit down on a Tesla Model S. It is expensive, probably not environmentally friendly, and awesome looking. I think of it is an "investment". I used my silver to buy "refined" aluminum and lithium. http://www.tesla.com/models

That has to be a little strange driving that fast with no engine noise to go along with it.

Sweet looking car!

[Glenn Black]

Re: The not-so-green electric car

Lead acid batteries typically have a life of 5 years, or 3,000 charge-recharge cycles if treated very well. If abused (ie. run batteries to deep discharge, leave discharged for extended periods, etc.), they could last only 10% of the optimum life. Lithium-ion are still somewhat unknown how well they will last in this severe service (ie. daily charge-recharge to >20% DOD [Depth of Discharge]. If abused, or worn out, you need to buy a new set of batteries, recycle the old ones, and incur the environmental charge associated with the battery replacement.

Hence, the slim advantage may exist if everything works perfectly.

[GRG55]

Re: The not-so-green electric car

The primary purpose behind using electricity to power an automobile is to convert a stationary energy source [coal, hydro, nuclear, wind, solar, biomass, whatever] into energy for a mobile application. We already have commercially viable electric trolley cars and electric long distance trains [overhead wire or third rail], so this would seem a logical extension.

To the degree that we believe that the current major source of mobile energy, crude oil, is likely to become more expensive or scarcer - regardless of whether that is driven by peak cheap oil dynamics or the decline of USA global military hegemony which secures access to the supply - the development of electric cars might make good policy sense...

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: The not-so-green electric car

...We already have commercially viable electric trolley cars and electric long distance trains [overhead wire or third rail], so this would seem a logical extension...

They work well -clean, reliable, quiet. Unfortunately that overhead wire is wildly expensive.
It's been 20 years since I worked professionally in transit, but back then we figured a million dollars a mile for a trolly bus line, not including the rolling stock.