Another "Life Cycle" claim about EVs

Endless...Within 10 years, we'll still hear something alike...

 

Even the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers) has Turned green. They published the same arguments in the "IEEE Spectrum" magazine last month.

JeffD - Life Senior IEEE Member

 

Life cycle analysis is entirely appropriate. However, a crappy study is a crappy study, life cycle or not.
Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

 

You stated above "A recent report commissioned by the EPA on the life cycle analysis of lithium-ion batteries...", doesn't the Prius not have a lithium ion battery anyway?

In the second study, are they saying it is more damaging to the environment to recycle a hybrid car? I find it hard to believe the building and recycling of a hybrid car is that much worse for the environment that it overrides the benefits of the extra gallons of gas burned over time.
Sure they compare it to diesels, but I don't see many diesels at all in the US. Almost no one is paying up for TDi's.

 

I'd argue that EV's actually are more harmful in the production process due to the elements needed for their parts. If you're going to actually drive it though then it'll have a smaller "footprint" than a conventional petrol car though. I'm sick of the two viewpoints that EV's are either A. Not an impact on the environment or B. An environmental disaster.

 

Even walking has an environmental impact, you burn energy, eat more, it has to be grown and/or transported.

The question to ask is how much impact compared to the alternative and is the alternative available, affordable and safe?

 

Well, I suppose you could shoehorn one into the key fob. You'd be able to start your car from anywhere in town...

 

FYI, in case we missed you Jeff, I believe we had a long thread going on the IEEE Spectrum article.

Anyway my argument remains the same this month, no one in Congress really said EV was cleaner (which was the mistaken orig justification for ethanol) rather is gov't supported as an alternate fuel to gasoline, to reduce dependence on imported oil and of course to create US jobs in a new EV/PHEV/battery industry. Ethnaol justification has long since been changed over to reduce oil imports and create jobs also. It is hard to argue against those justifications, you can argue it, but it's a philosophic argument.

 

Looks like the anti-EV crowd is getting desperate........

 

Bob, where IS Art Spinella anyway ... shouldn't he be here to defend plug-in's over the Hummer? He sure gave it his best shot on your average run of the mill hybrid ... and folks still think his 'spin' is gospel even to this day. You think it's any coincidence the article fails to mention that (for example) Nissan boasts every element of the Leaf is re-cycled? ... and/or that many parts are manufactured out of recycled elements? I guess that's not what the author finds more important, or I'm SURE he'd of mentioned it.
.

 

I figure Spinella is keeping a low profile and in low demand, now that GM is trying sell the Volt.

 

Unless he has an outstanding job offer with Big Oil or Faux News.

 

Isn't one of the hidden goal of corn based ethanol is to starve our Mexicans neighbors? All the while we could have/should have bought Brazil's ethanol?

 

No

 

Well, if they did not do it by plan, they certainly did a good job doing it "without planning" just to pad US farmers' wallets. Corn used to be so cheap, now Mexicans complain they cannot make dinner at current prices.

 

As the now fattest nation, perhaps that's a good thing.

 

Wait... are you saying the poor Mexicans (ie. in Mexico) are fat? They survive on corn as part of their daily dietary needs. They don't go out to a fast food joint to eat pink slime.

 

They probably aren't, but Mexico did recently passed the US as the most obese nation.

 

I feel that he performed his disinformation work in a capable and highly professional manner. I assume that there is no shortage of potential customers for someone who can distort public opinion on command.