Green Cars Have a Dirty Little Secret...

right wing propaganda. drill more, export more oil and natural gas, profits go to oil companies. (who don't get any subsidies, correct?) what could be better for the future of our country?

 

Reading WSJ comments is depressing. Right-wingers are truly brainwashed.
Here is the reply I posted:

Wrong, Wrong, and Wrong. But what to expect from a half-baked global warming skeptic written in a right-wing rag like WSJ?

The fact is, even if you live in Kentucky or W. Virginia, your electric car will likely produce ZERO emissions if you CHARGE OVERNIGHT, which is what your supposed to do, and which most people do.

Fossil fuel plants DO NOT run at night.........the electricity you are using is "residual" energy in the grid because the plants still have their boilers warm and are dumping energy at night.......it's too costly to shut them down completely and "cold start" the next day.......so there you go, CO2-FREE energy.

Of course, this will start to change one there are MANY electric cars on the road, but the fact is, we already have enough NUKES - right now - to power 50 million EVs. We simply have to get a smart grid to shift their residual, overnight energy to places like Kentucky, W. Va, etc., so again, they won't be firing up their Coal/Gas plants just to fill your EV.

And finally, we are soon going to have as much wind capacity as nukes. And wind turbines tend to spin fastest at - surprise - NIGHT.

So, there you go, your EV is powered by Nukes and Wind..........NOT Coal and Gas......if you charge overnight.

Now, go back to the drawing board and re-do those CO2 calculations.

 

I am more in line with EV-advocate Chelsea Sexton who I think feels it may be mistake for EV-proponents to push too hard on the enviromental claims. The reason it may be a mistake is because the argument is weak for some of the reasons mentioned. Rather EV should be looked at as a quality driving experience and as a fuel-switching technology away from imported oil. Also it is a new technology that the USA can hopefully take a lead on, but I am ambivalent on the attempt by Congress to force a correct answer. EV is the low cost option for some, due to tax credits...so go for it, if it makes sense for you.

 

Source journal -

Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Electric Vehicles - Hawkins - 2012 - Journal of Industrial Ecology - Wiley Online Library

"Summary

Electric vehicles (EVs) coupled with low-carbon electricity sources offer the potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and exposure to tailpipe emissions from personal transportation. In considering these benefits, it is important to address concerns of problem-shifting. In addition, while many studies have focused on the use phase in comparing transportation options, vehicle production is also significant when comparing conventional and EVs. We develop and provide a transparent life cycle inventory of conventional and electric vehicles and apply our inventory to assess conventional and EVs over a range of impact categories. We find that EVs powered by the present European electricity mix offer a 10% to 24% decrease in global warming potential (GWP) relative to conventional diesel or gasoline vehicles assuming lifetimes of 150,000 km. However, EVs exhibit the potential for significant increases in human toxicity, freshwater eco-toxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and metal depletion impacts, largely emanating from the vehicle supply chain. Results are sensitive to assumptions regarding electricity source, use phase energy consumption, vehicle lifetime, and battery replacement schedules. Because production impacts are more significant for EVs than conventional vehicles, assuming a vehicle lifetime of 200,000 km exaggerates the GWP benefits of EVs to 27% to 29% relative to gasoline vehicles or 17% to 20% relative to diesel. An assumption of 100,000 km decreases the benefit of EVs to 9% to 14% with respect to gasoline vehicles and results in impacts indistinguishable from those of a diesel vehicle. Improving the environmental profile of EVs requires engagement around reducing vehicle production supply chain impacts and promoting clean electricity sources in decision making regarding electricity infrastructure."

 

That was written in the true spirit of the CNW article that claimed the hummer was greener than the prius.

Still some things are right. Al Gore and Leo Decaprio are not being very green in their fisker karmas. I did see one for the first time at lunch today, in my neighborhood. There was also a couple of bmw activehybrid 7s. SxSW interactive is going strong and gm has a fleet of volts taking people around down town, while to police have erected road blocks and are extorting overtime, and forcing cars to idle.

I did like this bit from the editorial

The first part is absolutely true. Even if we had 1 million plug ins by 2015, that is not even close to 1% of the fleet, it will take decades, but the second bit is really galling. Why does green energy need to be cheaper? Do we really think oil and coal should get subsidized? Natural gas and wind are cheaper than oil. We need to get to a point where we can run the fleet on these cleaner more plentiful resources. In a couple of decades solar may be cheaper than coal too, it is cheaper than oil.

 

This is why I say that Electric Cars are dirty. If everyone switched to electric cars, we would need 7 times the number of power plants we need now. We would be burning 7 times more coal or oil. Or we would be forced to use dangerous nuclear power plants.

It is far far more efficient to use a hybrid or clean-diesel car.

 

Sigh, see
Myth vs. Reality - Electric Vehicles - Sierra Club
.

Why oil? I don't see the connection between EVs and using more oil. Per How clean is the electricity I use? - Power Profiler | Clean Energy | US EPA, 1.1% of the electricity in the US comes from oil.

 

Investigate the source article, see if peer reviewed and credible.

From journal article -

"In contrast with ICEVs, almost half of an EV's life cycle GWP is associated with its production. We estimate the GWP from EV production to be 87 to 95 grams carbon dioxide equivalent per kilometer (g CO2-eq/km), which is roughly twice the 43 g CO2-eq/km associated with ICEV production. Battery production contributes 35% to 41% of the EV production phase GWP, whereas the electric engine contributes 7% to 8%. Other powertrain components, notably inverters and the passive battery cooling system with their high aluminum content, contribute 16% to 18% of the embodied GWP of EVs."

Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Electric Vehicles - Hawkins - 2012 - Journal of Industrial Ecology - Wiley Online Library

"For cleaner, renewable, and less carbon-intensive energy sources, such as wind energy, these benefits are intensified and accompanied by gains in terms of GWP and FDP. Wind power electricity would allow electric transportation with life cycle carbon footprints as low as 106 g CO2-eq/km. On the other hand, the use of electricity from lignite combustion leads to a life cycle GWP of 352 g CO2-eq/km, significantly worse than the comparable ICEV performance"

"Conversely, the combination of EVs with clean energy sources would potentially allow for drastic reductions of many transportation environmental impacts, especially in terms of climate change, air quality, and preservation of fossil fuels. The many potential advantages of EVs should therefore serve as a motivation for cleaning up regional electricity mixes, but their promotion should not precede commitment to grid improvement".

"On the one hand, EVs would aggregate emissions at a few point sources (power plants, mines, etc.) instead of millions of mobile sources, making it conceptually easier to control and optimize societies’ transportation systems (McKinsey & Company 2009). On the other hand, the indirect nature of these emissions—which are embodied in internationally traded commodities such as copper, nickel, and electricity—challenges us as a society. "

 

Let's face facts, plug-ins are going to still be less than 5% of the fleet in 2020. Think about it, the average age of a car is over 10 years old. To do cnw quality hit job, you need to pretend plug-in vehicles will die quickly. It seems though there are many old rav4 evs still on the road. Why would a leaf only go 100K km (60,000 miles) and then not have its parts recycled. Tesla is planning to retire old batteries to quick charging stations, buffering the grid demand.

As batteries progress, I would expect lower ghg energy intensity in their construction. We get some really screwy numbers like what if all the energy came from lignite coal. Who is building all these lignite power plants. If we look at retirements versus new construction, coal is decreasing in capacity as cleaner natural gas and wind increase. Note hydro and nuclear are also decreasing as energy consumption increases, but these plants do not change.

 

Conclusion
"We provide a new level of transparency and detail to the ongoing public discussion on the life cycle merits of EVs relative ICEVs. The production, use, and end of life of these two technologies were inventoried in a manner ensuring an appropriate comparison. The production phase of EVs proved substantially more environmentally intensive. Nonetheless, substantial overall improvements in regard to GWP, TAP, and other impacts may be achieved by EVs powered with appropriate energy sources relative to comparable ICEVs. However, it is counterproductive to promote EVs in regions where electricity is produced from oil, coal, and lignite combustion. The electrification of transportation should be accompanied by a sharpened policy focus with regard to life cycle management, and thus counter potential setbacks in terms of water pollution and toxicity. EVs are poised to link the personal transportation sector together with the electricity, the electronic, and the metal industry sectors in an unprecedented way. Therefore the developments of these sectors must be jointly and consistently addressed in order for EVs to contribute positively to pollution mitigation efforts."

Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Electric Vehicles - Hawkins - 2012 - Journal of Industrial Ecology - Wiley Online Library

 

Let's find the original author of this statement and fill up his fuel tank with "lignite." . . . Works for me.

I'm not in the market for an EV but they have the advantage of ultimate 'flex fuel.'

Bob Wilson

 

Yeah, seems like an attempt at pulling a CNW-type hit job.

My Nissan Leaf Forum • View topic - Most miles on a Leaf is at 70K miles on his Leaf at just shy of 2 years.

There's some discussion of the crap WSJ "article" at My Nissan Leaf Forum • View topic - Electric Vehicles :: FUD (Fear Uncertainty Doubt) Links.

 

The US has the lead in global plugin sales to date. We are up around 75k units sold, Japan is 2nd at 28k, France at 12k. Disappointing in China though - they have purchased, IRC only 6k plugins despite government incentives and the BYD cars produced.

This includes BEVs, PHEVs, anything that plugs in, all makes and models.

Countries with very high gas prices aren't gobbling up EVs though.

 

Bjorn Lomborg is an economist by trade who not only lacks a firm science and engineering background but he seems to be also is at odds with the scientific community and reportedly refuses to associate with them. In July 2012, the Danish government cut its funding of his center. His non profit group is now being funding by an undisclosed source... Reportedly Lomborg's global warming estimations are very optimistic assessment of the damage and it is limited to only in the next 300 years. Bjorn Lomborg has been widely discredited and disparaged by environmentalists.

After reading his WJS op - it seems to me that Lomborg either a simpleton or a liar. When Lomborg op suggested that BBC road test as reliable evidence/fact - he automatically registered himself as naive fool or someone who would knowingly advocate a falsehood. Lomborg is not a credible source and is not worth my time.

 

...I agree the article is lacking substance

 

...hmm, I thought the reason we were doing this was China is getting ahead of us? Maybe that was solar. But this sums it up, it is a US thing. I feel Japan might have been stronger partner except for the nuke set-back there.

 

Yawn...

Show me a critical article from a reputable newspaper, and I'll take the time to read it. Faux News and the WSJ are simply garbage.

AG is correct, all that is needed is to remove subsidies for fossil fuels, and tax externalities. If the right-wingers were true to their own propaganda of free markets this problem of inadequate clean energy would go away.

 

You lost my at Bjorn, aka the environmental skeptic. He is notorious for spewing garbage in the guise of science.

 

Please refrain from ad hominem or ad journalem attacks. Attack the idea, not the person or the medium. (NB: I did not invent these rules of argument, BTW.) Lots of fancy adjectives in this thread, which will NOT advance the cause of cleaner transport. Buuuut here we are on the Internet!

In fact, electric vehicles must be supported because in the long term, the sources of their power are the only ones that promise to be greener (phasing out fossil fuel plants in favor of more nuclear, supplemented by hydro, wind, solar, etc. But we don't want to think much about the long term in a country where the future ends at the next quarterly report.....