Bloomberg: Electric Cars Said to `Plunder' Governments, Stifle Carbon Cuts

Gee, if you follow the money trail ... who's paying for them to do the research ... could it be ...

 

This is another example of a long-running disagreement within the environmentalist political community:

Is it better to improve or penalize bad practices (e.g., improving gas/diesel mileage; taxing carbon emissions) or to abandon bad practices in favor of good (e.g., require or subsidize EV's)?

I remember when hybrids came out there were a number of environmental folks who said that they would just delay moving to non-fossil fuel transportation (hydrogen or electricity).

It's a really complicated problem:
For example, you can encourage EV's either by subsidizing them or by heavily taxing fossil fuel transportation (so that EV's look better).
But of course how much better EV's are depends a lot on what we use to generate electricity.

I don't pretend to understand what will work best in the end. I suspect it will turn out to be a combination of everything.

 

EV's like the leaf will be a very small part of the market for a while, so I doubt it will stop efforts to get ICE vehicles more efficient and greener! I think we can handle doing both.

 

Eventually, the EV #'s HAVE to grow, simply because of depletion of world fossil fuel supplies. But I guess this group of 'experts' have to discount that, in order to make any sence of their latest 'findings'.

 

It makes more interesting reading at the Deutsche Umwelthilfe website (with translation- high school German was a very long time ago!). There seems to be a lot of anger at the German auto industry and at the government's target of 20% EVs by 2020. While they make the claim that EVs are worse for the environment they don't provide any data to support their claim. What they want is better tax incentives for ICEs that pollute little and a heavy tax for higher polluting vehicles. That part sounds like a good idea.
They also want more money for public transport. As an American its hard to imagine how they could spend more money on that but it does raise the question about EVs in a country where public transport is readily available, inexpensive (for the commuter), and socially accepted. Will EVs be used for commuting when public transport is less convenient?

 

I'm with 'robbry2' on this, the lack of credible data. For example, the carbon impact of these electrical sources:

Or other non-fossil fuel, electric power plants.

This reads like an European version of CNW Marketing.

Bob Wilson

 

What they want is better tax incentives for ICEs that pollute less

Fixed that for you ;-)

 

Tax carbon. Everything else (and I mean everything) is pissing in the wind

 

Sorry, but this isn't "complicated" - if you want substantial change across the board, you have to legislate it. Enforcing tougher standards on all vehicles would be FAR more effective than providing incentives on a tiny percentage of clean cars.

But the big car manufacturers love these rebates - it's really money in THEIR pockets, not ours.

 

Understand I have no interest in government subsidies by either carrot or stick. It is the German group's claim about carbon rates per mile that I have a problem. Like CNW Marketing's claim that a Hummer was 'greener' than a Prius, there are some claims that on the face of it should be laughed at ... out loud.

Bob Wilson

 

BTW: if you read the article, you might get their point:
The amount of carbon which will be emitted by these cars (given current electrical sources in Germany - one of the cleanest countries in the world) is WORSE than many high-efficiency gas/diesel cars.

So WHY subsidize them?!? Especially here in America, where we have dirtier electricity?!?

 

I read this one.

Granted, it reads like a 'Readers Digest' summary but a couple of things jump out:

• Were those CO{2} per mile at highway or mixed driving for those vehicles?
• What happens when 'urban' cycle miles are used?
• Was there any consideration of carbon sequestration?
• How were well-to-wheel numbers calculated?
• What factors were used for wind-farm, hydro, and nuclear power?
• Was synthetic diesel/gas, mine-to-wheel included?

Where CNW Marketing fell down is they 'cherry picked' data and in the absence of empirical facts, 'made sh*t up.' Without seeing a peer reviewed paper that backs up their reported claims, I remain skeptical. Understand I also noticed the reports of the CNW Marketing claims were all out of proportion to the refutable facts and data in the original report.

Bob Wilson

 

I'm on the same page as you Tom, but I have to say that the EV argument is even worse than what you write, because the clean energy is *already* being used; additional marginal electricity demand is all fossil fuel sourced. Well, except for Darrell and the handful of people who source their EV cars with home PV. Although even in Darrell's case, I could be petty and point out that his PV production *could* have been returned to the grid ..

I completely agree that electric transport is the future; I simply refute the notion that subsidizing it's delivery to a handful of consumers is going to increase clean energy production, or result in decreases in fossil fuel use.

Tax, baby, tax. Spend the money on solar and wind production.

 

+1

Those whacky German "expert's" study fail to account for life lost in the Persian Gulf ... as we (saying it laughingly) 'protect freedom' ... aka keep the crack addicted oil flowing.

Make fossil fuel cars more efficient. Great. Cars with 500mpg ... yet no fuel in sight. What a great conclusion.

 

Checking around the internet, it looks like the German environmental group might be right if (a big one) Germany's electrical production mix does not achieve the significant changes its supposed to make by 2020. Although Germany is cleaner than the US as a whole, we're making changes. By the time we get to 20% EVs, I think our mix will have changed too.

 

You can not say that EV's are worse in America because America's electricity energy mix is dirtier. Our cars also produce more co2 on a per car, per mile or per person basis then most of Europe. In the USA EV's will produce less pollution on average AND for all but the dirtiest most inefficient power plants in the USA.

As America's energy sources become greener electric cars will only continue to look better.

 

^^
However, the converse is not true: EV's on the road will not result in CO2 decreases. Not until the energy demand from the EV can be supplied by clean energy not already being consumed.

For now, EVs are a shell game. This will change when clean energy production matches general energy demand.

 

Even over looking the fact that some electric power is generated via wind/solar/hydro ... I respectfully disagree. It's MUCH easier to scrub/filter just one power plant's smoke stack, than it is to deal with 1,000's & 1,000's of tail pipes.

 

Hill,
I agree with you wrt to pollutants other than CO2.