Skeptic's view re: Why EV is Not the way

So buy a Volt and you're saving the planet? Buy a Leaf and you're wasting your time?

Hmmm.

 

Did he consider that battery can be recycled? Once burn the fossil fuel, it is gone and emit carbon.

 

Electric vehicles can be recharged using photovoltaic panels. Oil is a finite hydrocarbon that ends up in the atmosphere. We need EVs as the transition to walking & bicycle routes, light and high speed rail. Every vehicle generates particulate matter, with bicycles and trains being the cleanest.

 

No. Right. In particular large batteries can be recycled at high rates because they are in a nice container in something that's part of a widespread salvage infrastructure. It's the small ones that are the problem.

He also present a list of quantities without any reference to required amounts and consumption. He also ignored that the fact that rare earths are quite new in their intensive use and therefore haven't been heavily prospected.

Plus he ignore external petroleum costs and the fundamental issue that even with efficiency improvements we don't have enough to last a billion years and that the use for plastics is more important than personal transportation.

He also presented cost arguments using A123, who happen to be make expensive batteries (although they are good). Incidentally their focus is now heavily shifting to cost reduction instead of production volume.

There are arguments for focusing money on ICE improvements rather than cost support for production EVs right now but discarding them is short-sighted.

 

Recycling rates could and should be increased. Current low rates are not sufficient reason to conclude that more mining is the better way.

Metals in batteries are a small percentage of the metals in a car. If they're such a problem, why isn't the author more concerned about using alternative materials, instead of insisting that EVs are a bad idea?

Yet again, it looks like somebody started with a conclusion, and wrote a biased article to support it.

 

Here is the real challenge: Start with a sensible concept of 'sustainable', namely able to be continued indefinitely, and design from there.

Any car run on Gasoline is not going to be sustainable. It matters not whether it is a hybrid or not.

A car that isn't 100% recyclable and 100% recycled is not sustainable.

Anything which is not sustainable is just another way of saying "I want to ruin the lives of my grandchildren"

 

HHHHUUUHHHH said the AFLAC duck. Both Lee Iaocca and T Boon Pickens said a few years ago, they were wrong about using oil to power vehicles in this country. The choices Electric, Hydrogen or Purified water. Oh crap i said purified water that was joint development honda/toyota that the U. S. government wants to disappear. Here come the boys from Langley again...

 

There are a lot of good arguments against EVs, but this is not a valid one. The author used flawed reasoning and flawed facts to arrive at a flawed conclusion.

Tom

 

EV isn't the answer...(yet, maybe) but I'm pretty happy that there is an effort underway to make it part of the answer...fanatics and all.
Just like light rail, solar, wind, all of them.

This isn't Tesla and Edison....
Gee...now that I think about it....maybe MAC, PC, and Linux?
There isn't going to be ONE standard.....at least not anytime soon.

 

His conclusion would indicate that killing off the Prius should be the followup action after killing the EV.....since all the same logic applies.

 

:crazy:this is an investment article people! he doesn't believe short term investment in ev's is going to pay off. he may be right. we're thinking long term, wall street is thinking day trading.

 

He does have a valid point. Full hybrid save the most gasoline per pound of rare metal.

 

In the end, the best thing would be to simply end the era of personal automobiles. There is no solution involving that much energy and resources with our population being what it is. A personal bicycle with efficient public transportation and high speed rail is likely where we'll end up.

 

Maybe someday....but probably not until looooog after I'm gone.
Bicycles are cool in urban areas. I have one myself. However (comma!) most of America is a pretty spread out place. I live 9 miles from work, and would never consider bicycling to and from. Not because I'm fat and lazy, but because unless you have a bicycle friendly road system, it simply does not work out so well. It's bad enough on a 620-pound motorcycle! You also have to consider that the other 90-percent of the nation does not enjoy the 12 months of non-weather that SOCAL is blessed with. Light rail??? Yeah, RIGHT. Our government can't even deliver mail efficiently. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them to puzzle out a national light rail system...

 

EVs in present form are not competitive when compared to Prius due to limited range, lack of infrastructure and long charge times. All that while not providing much in savings (less $50/mo). This is a pragmatic's point of view, no ideology involved.

 

The major flaw in this guys perspective is a lack there-of. The automotive industry didn't come into existence fully developed overnight, with gas stations on every corner and supertankers sailing from port to port. It took years and years to go from the Model A to the technology of today. To even pretend that the Electric Vehicle is ready to replace today's transportation network TODAY is laughable. Give it X number of years however, and the situation can change dramatically.

His contention is that, not only can't the EV replace today's transportation network, but that it can NEVER do it due to resource limitations. He makes no allowance for innovation and market forces. Make the price of a commodity high enough and the technology and market for recycling will be developed.

If we still had to depend on whaling ships for our petroleum needs, where would we be now?