Apr 19

Study Calls Environmental Benefits of Electric Cars ‘Fiction’

 

There are two major reason why people want electric cars. To achieve energy independence, to help the environment, or both.

While the first benefit can’t be disputed, a newly publicized study suggests that electric car use may actually be worse for the environment.

The study was performed by the group Transport Watch and found that diesel cars produce half as much CO2 as electric cars when the fossil fuel required to make the electricity is taken into account.

The study concludes “We conclude that the notion that electric cars will reduce emissions is a fiction.”

The study also took into account electrical energy leaked lost between the powerplant and the point where the vehicle would be charged. This leakage was estimated to be an astounding 76%. Diesels on the other hand achieve a 45% efficiency.

The research was done in the UK where only 20% of electricity is generated by renewable energy. It was estimated that in China, for example, where most electricity comes from coal, a change from diesel to electric vehicles would double CO2 emissions.

The research implies that burning fuel within the vehicle produces less emissions than creating electricity and sending it down the grid.

A conclusion drawn from this research by Philip Gomm, of the RAC Foundation is; “Electric vehicles are not a panacea. They are good for generating headlines but not necessarily at saving the planet, at least not in the short term. For today and tomorrow, a lot more attention needs to be paid to refining existing petrol and diesel technology, and making cars smaller and lighter as a way of saving fuel – something recognized by the Committee on Climate Change. These are proven solutions to an immediate problem.”

You can check out the details of the study here and draw your own conclusions.

Source (Telegraph)

This entry was posted on Sunday, April 19th, 2009 at 6:44 am and is filed under Climate, Environment, Research. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

COMMENTS: 147


  1. 1
    Nathan

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Nathan
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (7:04 am)

    First FIRST!

    To call this study slanted is an understatement! At every step the use the worst numbers possible for EVs, and the best possible for diesel. First, they use a relatively low efficiency for generating electricity, only 30% when most coal plants are much better than that. Then it applies additional loses beyond that. It also assumes 100% of the energy comes from coal, both unrealistic and unfair.

    For diesel it ignores any CO2 emitted during refining or transport and it assumes very good efficiencies for diesel and virtually no losses in the transmission. Finally, it ignores things like regenerative breaking until the end and says that diesel could benefit from that, but forgets to mention that the only way diesel could benefit from that is via electrification of the car!

    Sounds like someone just trying to push diesel rather than advance the debate.


  2. 2
    Alex S

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Alex S
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (7:06 am)

    That’s a lie.
    Transport Watch was payed by Big Oil to write that, and electricity can be obtained in many ways that don’t necesarly harm the enviroment. Wind, solar don’t really harm it in no way.
    Also if you switch cars to electric it’s easier to reduce carbon emissions, because its only up to the electricity companies to switch to greener technologies, you no longer have to make people buy new cars for that. Once you got electric you can generate the electricity in a million ways!


  3. 3
    andrino.aa

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    andrino.aa
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (7:08 am)

    Surely, if ever there was a short sighted conclusion, this is it. I accept that in the SHORT term, they may have a case, but to just dismiss electric cars outright is purely agenda driven. Who actually paid for the conclusion? I could easily say petrol engined cars are dead end technology and still be right. Oh well, somebody has to make money providing the customer with what they want to read, ha ha ha.


  4. 4
    statik

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    statik
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (7:10 am)

    Who doesn’t love fiction?

    Well, this study starts out by assuming very specific fact from a very specific source…and doesn’t not theorize about the trends of power or where we are heading the future.

    However, the biggest flaw is in the numbers themselves…specifically that 95% of the usage of power for EVs is overnight charging. And the grid system we have now has huge excess capacity build in overnight…and that power when not used is wasted. The power EVs take overnight should actually be considered a double positive.


  5. 5
    Brad G

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Brad G
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (7:15 am)

    Gee, if we had more nuclear generated power LIKE ALL THE OTHER ADVANCED COUNTRIES ON THE EARTH then this would be a moot point…


  6. 6
    Shawn Marshall

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Shawn Marshall
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (7:20 am)

    Preposterous claims. There is no way anything like 76% of electrical energy is lost in transmission as is implied. I suppose they are saying the generator is only X efficiency and then the motor is Y efficiency and these two items would comprise the bulk of the losses. The electrical system losses may be 10%(guessing) on the high side.
    If the Volt in the US is 50% coal powered and 20% nuclear powered then one may legitimately wonder about all the eco-greenie twitterpation. More rational beings, of which there are probably 20 who post to this site, realize that nuclear power and electric cars free our economy from domination by hostile foreign governments. And there is the added effect of muting the CO2 argument, perhaps a specious and emotional petard for use by eco-socialist freaks and government entities who desire to broaden their control over the air we breathe and the energy we use.

    As CDAVIS and others have said for years here;
    Nukes + X(EV)s = the dawn of a new age in US


  7. 7
    old man

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    old man
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (7:28 am)

    Agree with all posters!!! This has to be the most one sided [paid for] study ever done. It assumes the power companys will be increasing their output every time a car is plugged in and as static said, there is much excess of electricity produced each night.
    And as others stated it doesn’t account for all the home supplied [solar or wind] electricity. I think that in a few years a large percentage of users will have a home based power system for their electric cars.
    Now having said all this, I am in favor of research to improve the ICE which I fear will be with us for a very long time and if diesel is the way to for that then fine.


  8. 8
    monkeyh8r

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    monkeyh8r
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (7:41 am)

    You know what I hate? Monkeys. It wasn’t always this way – in fact I used to be quite fond of them. It’s funny how just one bad relationship can ruin your outlook on an entire species. I can tell I’m now much more cautious about committment with jungle animals in general. It will take a lot of convincing for me to finally pull the trigger again, unless I’m looking down the barrel at a fully grown Chacma baboon


  9. 9
    Joe

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Joe
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (7:44 am)

    Why don’t we just ignore these stupid shitty stories. These people just thrive on the feedback!!


  10. 10
    Vincent

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Vincent
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (7:50 am)

    I agree, we should not give visibility to those biaised studies.

    the site calscar.org answer all those questions. In fact, if electric car are recharged at night, some studies showed that we will be able to use energy that is actually lost when the coal plant cool down when the demand is low…


  11. 11
    Jim I

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jim I
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (7:51 am)

    I guess that big oil has finally taken a look and decided it is time to smack down electrification of transportation before it becomes a real threat to them. The cheapest way is to use bad science to try to influence public opinion.

    If that doesn’t work, they could either buy up the manufacturers of batteries or the electric plants.

    There is a lot of money at stake here people….

    Which is why we need the Volt and other models of BEVs and E-REVs on the road as soon as possible!!!


  12. 12
    statik

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    statik
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (7:56 am)

    #9 Joe said:

    Why don’t we just ignore these stupid shitty stories. These people just thrive on the feedback!!

    ======================

    That might be good idea…but annoy our benefactor Lyle, lol. I’m sure it has been pretty tough putting up interesting threads during this 6+ months we’ve had of Volt darkness

    Side note: Posting is hard on portable devices, sigh. (and annoys the wife). As a point of interest…Downtown Disney has wifi! Huzzah!


  13. 13
    Carl Covey

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Carl Covey
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (7:59 am)

    Hello Lyle,

    What a bunch of baloney (bologna)!

    Oil interests are beginning to behave like tobacco companies.

    We all know that the ultimate is to generate electricity at the home to power your car. We HAVE to get the car first. Three cheers for the courageous at GM for even trying to buck Big Oil. Seeing a Volt in my garage can’t come soon enough.

    NPNS =D~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~”My Volt”


  14. 14
    Dave G

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave G
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (7:59 am)

    From the recent Nova “Car of the Future” program:
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs/ht/tm/3507.html?site=22&pl=wmp&rate=hi&ch=5
    NARRATOR: Skeptics say that all plug-ins do is shift the pollution source from the tailpipe to the smokestack, but studies show that powering cars with electricity from today’s mix of power plants could reduce greenhouse emissions by about 40 percent.

    So it’s clear that there are other studies that disagree with this one.

    The Nova program goes on to say:
    Further reductions are possible if electric power gets cleaner.

    TOM MAGLIOZZI: Even if you have to build power plants, you’re not using any gasoline.

    ANDY FRANK: That’s right. That’s the whole point.

    TOM MAGLIOZZI: The whole point.

    ANDY FRANK: You’re shifting off of gasoline onto an electric society, and that, once you walk into the electric society window, you open the door to the possibility of direct renewable energy…


  15. 15
    Scott B

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Scott B
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (8:02 am)

    Is it possible that these people are related to those that said ” the automobile will never replace the horse”?

    The nice thing about electricity is that it is generated by technology as compared to fuels that generated by limited resources.


  16. 16
    Zach

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Zach
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (8:15 am)

    What bull shit.

    I wonder if they considered all the energy required to go from oil wells to the pump. Ugh.. so much crap!


  17. 17
    Jim Avery

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jim Avery
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (8:17 am)

    Although there’s some truth in the report, it’s a blatantly one-sided argument and seems to ignore the obvious fact that diesel is a finite resource whereas wind, hydro, geothermal and solar aren’t!

    The local government here in my neighbouring town, Chippenham are discussing the possibility of installing a hydro turbine in the river. The power that genearate won’t help anyone who drives a diesel car!


  18. 18
    GeorgeB

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    GeorgeB
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (8:18 am)

    The most glaring flaw in this ridiculous report (which sounds like a high school physics class paper):

    “The Energy used in mining fuels and transporting them to refineries or power stations is not included here but the proportions may be relatively small and similar.”

    So, let’s not consider the cost of producing and delivering the diesel…..Oh my God!!!!


  19. 19
    Dave G

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave G
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (8:20 am)

    From the article: The study also took into account electrical energy leaked lost between the powerplant and the point where the vehicle would be charged. This leakage was estimated to be an astounding 76%. Diesels on the other hand achieve a 45% efficiency.
    ————————————————————————————–
    This is total crap.

    First, when you compare efficiency, you need to compare apples to apples. If they look at the well-to-wheel efficiency of electric cars, then they need to do that for diesel as well. In other words, they just provide an efficiency number for the diesel engine itself, and don’t talk about the efficiency losses of shipping oil 1/2 way across the globe, refining oil into diesel, trucking diesel across the country, and consumers driving to/from gas stations.

    Second, our current electric mix is roughly:
    • 50% coal
    • 20% natural gas
    • 20% nuclear
    • 10% renewables (mostly hydro-electric dams)
    So any U.S. carbon output calculations need to figure that 30% of the electricity produced today is carbon-free.

    Third, the numbers they use for coal electric power plant efficiency seem like the worst they could find. These are not typical for modern power plants.

    Fourth, we will NEVER solve the climate change problem by using fossil fuels more efficiently. It’s a losing battle. The only solution is renewable energy, and converting our entire transportation system to bio-diesel is not practical.


  20. 20
    Russ

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Russ
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (8:27 am)

    The Volt will get 50 miles a gallon while in the ICE mode. This is equal to or better than any other ICE type vehicle, including diesel. I am amazed at all the bad press the Volt is generating. Is BIG OIL mounting a smear campaign?


  21. 21
    Dave G

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave G
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (8:54 am)

    I think selling the Volt simply as a green car misses the point. Our national security is directly tied to foreign oil.

    A suicide bomber knows their family will be financially set for life. This is oil money.

    Iran is building nukes. Their parliament is shouting “Death to America”.
    http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/10/31/iran.nuclear/index.html
    Iran is the world’s third largest oil exporter.
    https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2176rank.html

    Osama bin Laden’s money came from oil.

    Every dollar spent on foreign oil weakens our national defense. What’s most ironic is that you see all these SUVs with bumper stickers that say “support our troops”. When will people get it?


  22. 22
    Tagamet

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tagamet
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (9:06 am)

    The authors of this study are clearly

    “Unfair, unbalanced, and Unmedicated”

    Be well,
    Tag

    LJGTVWOTR********NPNS********Independence (from oil) Day 7/4/2010


  23. 23
    BillR

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    BillR
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (9:10 am)

    Well, I’m going to dismiss his diesel efficiency of 40% as BS, because although a diesel may see this at peak efficiency, a diesel at idle in traffic provides 0 mpg. I will therefore default to the Volkswagon Jetta diesel with a 2L engine and 6 speed manual. It is rated 30/41 city/hwy. Composite mileage is ~ 35 mpg.

    http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm

    One gallon of diesel fuel (weighing a little over 7 lbs) will produce 22 lbs of CO2. Therefore, emissions are 22/35 = 0.63 lb/mile (or about 180 g/km).

    In the US, the AVERAGE coal plant CO2 emissions are 2249 lb/MWH.

    Le’t assume a 20% loss for both transmission and battery charging, so that the Volt needs 10 kWh generated at the power station in order to get 8 kWh into its batteries. With this energy, the Volt travels 40 miles.

    Therefore, even if all this power comes from the AVERAGE US coal plant (even though nukes run 24/7 at full power), the 10 kWh’s represent 1/100th of a MWH, so the CO2 associated with this energy is 22.5 lbs.

    Therefore, the Volt’s CO2 emissions are 22.5/40 = 0.56 lbs/mile.

    So in conclusion, the Volt will provide lower CO2 emissions than a comparable diesel, even if all of its energy comes from a moderately aged coal fleet.

    Congratulations to the study group in the UK who have just proved what complete idiots they are.


  24. 24
    Biodieseljeep

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Biodieseljeep
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (9:13 am)

    As a diesel guy (fanatically), and a biofuels guy (professionally), I can safely say that I’ve read a plethora of studies on Energy lifecycle on vehicles.

    And, without question, in new vehicles purchases, electric vehicles are the winner in terms of energy efficiency and CO2 output of operation year-to-year over lifespan IF you opperate the battery over a long lifespan (assume a 15+ year lifespan). Again, this assumes night-charging, improving electrical grid efficiency, European generation mix (more nukes).

    Now, using the more vague term “environmental impact” (lifecycle energy use and vague disposal/waste chemical impact factors) the clear winner is….wait for it….any car that is 20 years old. The energy of manufacture and environmental impact of manufature/disposal is a HUGE factor in the overall impact of a vehicle. The fuel used is actually a rather small sized part of the energy “used” in a car’s life. For instance, the Jeep Wranger is often on the top of “green” car lists. Hideous gas mileage (Ever see an “aerodywhat?” bumpersticker on a Cherokee?) BUT since they are hella-durrable and generally are kept on the road (or off) for so long, they amortize their manufacture and disposal costs very well.

    Diesels have mythically long lives (not the modern ones, though), so they tend do do well in these types of studies, but any old car will do. Don’t tell my diesel friends, I’ll be banished for public heretical statements. And even biofuels can’t outweigh the manufacture/disposal impacts (sorry, boss).

    A rough rule of thumb: environmental impact is proportional to the cost of the vehicle.

    Wanna really go green? By a old, $500 car and keep it out of the dump.

    For the record, I am a biofuels guy more for nationalistic/economic reasons…which is where electrics also can win BUT only if make the cars/batteries HERE.


  25. 25
    solo

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    solo
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (9:13 am)

    I have heard this (conclusion) before and I don’t think we should dismiss it outright as a grand oil company conspiracy.

    In the United States, most of our energy comes from fossil fuels. The biggest percentage that doesn’t is nuclear and hydro, both bad apples as far as the green movement is concerned. The idea that solar and wind are going to be a big chunk of the energy mix let alone all of it in my lifetime is silly. We will be burning coal and nat gas for a long time to produce electricity.

    Given that, the calculation comparing gas cars to electric ones should be relatively simple for the engineers involved in the study.

    The amount coal/nat gas burned to produce a DELIVERED TO YOUR HOUSE kilowatt is a known number. Any large utility could tell you it down to the 3rd decimal.

    The amount of energy in gasoline or diesel is also a known number. Calculating which produces the most pollution, be it hydrocarbons, nitorgen oxide, or CO2 should be a very easy calculation given the same size car/truck.

    I”m all for electric cars because I would MUCH rather burn U.S. coal than middle east oil. But realistically, you have to consider how much pollution each delivery system produces.

    I bet if a NON BIASED organization looked at the numbers, I bet it would be a wash (In the United States). In France where they generate 80% of their power with nuclear power, the numbers would favor electric cars.

    The U.S. will never get to 80% nuclear. From what I read in the paper with environmental groups now fighting to keep solar energy from being built in the desert, I’m guessing we will be burning coal for a long time.


  26. 26
    ronr64

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    ronr64
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (9:25 am)

    Another point to consider is the losses in transmission rates that they use. Electric vehicles will ideally be recharged at night when grid usage is low. The primary losses in transmission come from what is called “I squared R” (i*i*r). Which means the current (i) in the line muptiplied by itself and then multiplied with the resistance (r) in the line. As the current increases in the line since this is squared the total losses go up very fast. Double the current then you quadruple the losses. What this all means is at night when the current is low the losses will be much lower than whatever average you might be able to find for the electrical industry.


  27. 27
    zipdrive

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    zipdrive
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (9:29 am)

    monkeyh8r @8 :

    For me it’s FLYING monkeys that are the worst. UGH!

    The entire boomer generation was mentally scarred for life, having watched “The Wizard of Oz” on TV when we were kids.


  28. 28
    Mike756

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Mike756
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (9:30 am)

    Absurd on its face; not even worth reading.


  29. 29
    PLJ

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    PLJ
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (9:36 am)

    Another missed point in this article is air pollution in the big cities.

    In Los Angeles, during rush hour (which is all day long on some freeways) tens of thousands of cars sit there idling away on the freeways, burning expensive fuel, spewing pollutants into the air, AND BARELY GET ANYWHERE.

    Electrics would solve this inefficiency.


  30. 30
    Dave G

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave G
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (9:37 am)

    #25 solo Says: The amount coal/nat gas burned to produce a DELIVERED TO YOUR HOUSE kilowatt is a known number…
    The amount of energy in gasoline or diesel is also a known number.

    ————————————————————————————–
    Again, this is an unfair comparison. To be fair, you have to include the fossil fuel required to get from oil in Saudi Arabia to gasoline or diesel DELIVERED TO YOUR HOUSE. In other words, you have to include shipping oil 1/2 way across the globe, refining oil into diesel, trucking diesel across the country, and consumers driving to/from gas stations.

    All of your other conclusions I agree with.


  31. 31
    Keith

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Keith
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (9:41 am)

    Dave G #21

    What do you think the bumper sticker should say ?
    “I am responsible for your sons or daughters death .”
    I wonder what they are thinking while they are standing there pouring the blood of our nation into their Hugh gas guzzlers .
    They are worse than common criminals , and they know that we know who they are by sight and the vehicle they drive by choice .
    We cant tell who a common criminal is just by looking at him or her .
    Only the criminals know for sure that they are criminals in their minds .
    Everybody who drives a Hugh SUV knows that they are saying screw you America every time that they drive it and every time that they fill it up with gas .


  32. 32
    E

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    E
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (9:44 am)

    Regardless if its fact or fiction, I’d lay pipe into that babe pluggin’ in her car and that my friend is environmentally friendly! :)


  33. 33
    Dave G

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave G
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (9:48 am)

    #29 PLJ Says: In Los Angeles, during rush hour (which is all day long on some freeways) tens of thousands of cars sit there idling away on the freeways, burning expensive fuel, spewing pollutants into the air, AND BARELY GET ANYWHERE.

    Electrics would solve this.
    ————————————————————————————–
    Good point. Even without traffic jams, typical driving in urban and suburban roads is much worse for diesels than for hybrid and electric drive.

    For example, looking at the VW site:
    http://www.vw.com/
    Their most efficient diesel gets 30 MPG city, 41 MPG highway.

    The current Prius gets 48 MPG city and 45 MPG highway, and the next model is supposed to be even better.

    For stop and go driving, diesel sucks.


  34. 34
    Dave G

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave G
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (9:50 am)

    #31 Keith,

    Hopefully they won’t say anything, but they will get it, and stop buying gas guzzling off-road vehicles that they don’t need.


  35. 35
    Dave G

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave G
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (9:58 am)

    One thing to note about diesel engines – they are dirty. The CO2 emissions may be lower, but pollution and soot are higher. In the U.S., strict emission standards on passenger vehicles keep diesel engines from getting anywhere near 45% efficient.


  36. 36
    harrier1970

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    harrier1970
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (10:02 am)

    …and for my next trick I will disprove gravity!


  37. 37
    Bernie Kerr

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Bernie Kerr
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (10:12 am)

    I did not read everyone’s comments, but the study is dead wrong in my individual case. First I generate electricity on site with photovoltaic cells so there is no transmission loss and 2nd all the power generated is totally carbon free once the making of PV cells manufacturing is equaled by generated electric which takes about 18 months of solar. These guys were obviously paid be the oil companies IMHO.


  38. 38
    OhmExcited

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    OhmExcited
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (10:13 am)

    I’ve performed detailed calculations on CO2 output from electric vehicles. You can see it again below, and I believe it is well vetted.

    http://ohmexcited.googlepages.com/CO2.htm


  39. 39
    Mark

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Mark
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (10:15 am)

    How obvious can Big Oil sponsoring get?


  40. 40
    Arch

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Arch
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (10:15 am)

    Look I do not care about all of this crap. I want a car that saves me money. I am retired and living on a pension. I want to reduce my energy costs. I am sorry but a $40,000 car does nothing for me. Right now the best thing I can see for me is the Geothermal Heat Pump for my house. Heck the feds will even pay for 1/3 of it. JMHO

    Take Care
    Arch


  41. 41
    Brian

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Brian
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (10:30 am)

    For every one of these there are 10 studies that back up the obvious benefits of electrics. You just have to go with the consensus. Just like 1 of 5 dentists recommend…. There is always 1 dentist thats paid off by someone.

    Some groups still try to claim smoking isn’t proven to be bad for you.


  42. 42
    CorvetteGuy

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    CorvetteGuy
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (10:38 am)

    Why would anyone worry about stories like this? Just last month, his majesty Obama waived his twelve-trillion-dollar magic wand and commanded, “thou shalt build more solar, nuclear, and geo-thermal sources of energy” that would make us energy independant.

    He will solve the carbon emissions problem too with a few more speeches about “Hope” and “Change”.

    Have no fear people.


  43. 43
    TALLPALL

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    TALLPALL
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (10:39 am)

    This study was paid for by BIG OIL. And the RAC in th UK are only on business because ice cars break down. Both are sweating on the EV revolution.

    Let the games begin.


  44. 44
    Starcast

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Starcast
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (10:50 am)

    The bigggest thing I take from this story is the need for more Nuke Power.

    Even though the story doesn’t say that. If the Electicity comes from a Nuke Plant then it changes everything.


  45. 45
    Dave G

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave G
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (10:52 am)

    #40 Arch Says: Look I do not care about all of this crap. I want a car that saves me money. I am retired and living on a pension.
    ————————————————————————————–
    If money is your prime concern, buy a Toyota Corolla for $15,000.

    If you would like to eliminate most of your gasoline consumption, then buy a Volt for less than $30,000 after tax credits. Yes, you will get the full $7500 tax credit even if you pay little or no taxes.


  46. 46
    JEC

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    JEC
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (10:53 am)

    This report does seem lame. I am not sure though where people are finding the link to big oil. Can someone post a link that shows that the RAC is somehow in bed with the oil companies?

    From the RAC website, it appears this is an independent group, but are they really independent?

    FROM RAC:
    “The RAC Foundation explores the economic, mobility, safety and environmental issues relating to roads and the use of motor vehicles, and campaigns to secure a fair deal for responsible road users. Independent and authoritative research for the public benefit and informed debate are central to the RAC Foundation’s standing.”

    PS: Statik, unplug yourself from the net and enjoy Disney. I would side with your wife that you need to unplug and look at the real world and people, around you (ok, so maybe Disney may not qualify as “real”)


  47. 47
    Guy Incognito

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Guy Incognito
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (10:55 am)

    Studies like this, that call into question the environmental benefits of Pure Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV’s) & Plug-In Hybrids are known as ‘longer tailpipe’ arguments.
    Those studies are all baloney.

    Pure BEV’s & Plug-In Hybrids really do have a much smaller environmental impact, and this has been proven over & over.

    It seems to me, that there is a push to discredit Pure BEV’s & Plug-In Hybrids like the Volt, but where its coming from I don’t know.

    Yesterday, we had the article about the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) with their on-record skepticism about BEV’s & Plug-In Hybrids.
    Today, we have yet another incorrect & invalid ‘longer tailpipe’ study being issued.

    Don’t they know who we are?
    That the average gm-volt.com member is more knowledgeable & informed than the average industry stooge who opposes BEV’s & Plug-In Hybrids?
    That when they try to argue with us, we run circles around them and make them look like the idiots they are because they have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about?

    I hope some of those types read this.


  48. 48
    kgurnsey

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    kgurnsey
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (11:10 am)

    Obviously this study is crap, for the reasons mentioned ad nauseum above. The two things I noticed right of the bat were the fact that the diesel was not a well to wheel comparison, which is typical, and the transmission losses were astronomically out of whack.

    However, as a point of clarification, modern diesels (like the new Jetta TDI) with advanced emissions controls are very clean.

    Sitting in traffic is still not a diesel’s strong suit though. There are two major problems with running any ICE in congested traffic in urban areas:

    1. Your average mpg (or L/100km) effectively goes to 0, as was mentioned above.

    2. Even the cleanest ICE vehicles still emit air pollutants. I’m am not referring to the green house/climate change gasses, but the smog generating/detrimental to human health kinds of gasses. If all that EVs did was to transfer these pollutants from congested downtown cores to some minimally populated area, then I would say that’s a step in the right direction, from a human health perspective.

    The main advantage of EVs is that they allow us to take control of, and change if necessary, where, and with what source, we generate the energy we need to drive our vehicles. That is a major long term advantage, regardless of the current environmental benefits.


  49. 49
    Texas

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Texas
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (11:10 am)

    How about we all just ditch the cars and use bikes and our own two feet? OK, not as much fun or as practical but even those guys couldn’t argue that the small diesel is better for the environment, even though they would try like hell! lol.

    RAC Foundation is concerned mostly about funding transportation infrastructure. There are deep pockets here folks. Deep pockets usually produce arguments that defy logic. Just like the above study. Pure horseshit.


  50. 50
    Dave G

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave G
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (11:31 am)

    Most renewable energy is captured in the form of electricity:

    Renewable Source ……… Captured as
    Solar photo voltaic ………. DC electricity
    Solar thermal …………….. AC electricity
    Wind ………………………. AC electricity
    Hydro power ……………… AC electricity
    Ocean waves, tides ……… AC electricity
    Geothermal ……………….. AC electricity
    Biomass, organic waste …. AC electricity, bio-fuels

    In addition, nuclear power is captured in the form of electricity.

    So it is obvious to me that any sustainable system of transportation must run principally on electricity, and supplement that with bio-fuels where necessary.


  51. 51
    unni

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    unni
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (11:36 am)

    Green electricity ?
    Depends on the place you live

    http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/mar09/7928

    ex: Canada is overall green.

    Second advantage is govt can bring in regulations and co2 emissions reductions and need to be implemented only on power plants.

    Another battery technology (Virus-Enabled Lithium-Ion Batteries)

    http://blogs.spectrum.ieee.org/tech_talk/2009/04/nanotechnologys_promise_of_vir.html


  52. 52
    Dave G

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave G
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (11:40 am)

    #49 Texas Says: How about we all just ditch the cars and use bikes …
    ————————————————————————————–
    Zero-S Electric Motorcycle
    • 60 miles per hour top speed
    • 60 mile electric range
    • Under $10,000
    http://www.zeromotorcycles.com/zero-s.php


  53. 53
    kent beuchert

    +1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    kent beuchert
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (11:41 am)

    Disregarding potential errors in his energy production figures, one of the article’s more glaring errors is that the study compares
    energy efficiencies. To do so is to claim that a diesel car makes use of that wheel energy equal to an electric vehicle. It
    clearly does not – much of the ICE power is used simply to keep the engine running – the car’s not going anywhere during
    those times although carbon is being emitted. There is also the issue of auto trans equipped ICE vehicle (which is not 100
    efficient in transfer of power, unlike the electric car).
    There is also the huge issue of recoverability of kinetic energy, which the EV does as a matter of course, but which a diesel
    poweered car is not capable of. That capability alone can easily double city mileages. Another instance of where “energy to the
    wheels” arguments are totally invalid when applied to different auto technologies. The correct procedure is to compare carbon emissions from both electric and diesel as they perform their typical duties thruout the year, under varying conditions (miles logges, type of driving, etc.)

    There is also even vagueness about the claim “energy delivered to the drivetrain.” I’m unsure whether this constitutes simply the
    amount of energy extracted from the diesel fuel by burning, or the actual kinetic energy produced. If the former, than the argument
    once again stumbles over the issues of incompatible auto technologies – a lot of the energy released by burning diesel in the engine is in the form of heat, not propulsion, and has little value.
    In sum, this article makes the invalid assumption that once one can calculate “energy delivered to the drivetrain” then
    statements can be made about carbon emissions of the technologies being compared. That’s a huge error, and one consistently made by those who approach the issue by only dealing in energy efficiency/emissions factors.

    The other giant error, of course, is to assume continuation of carbon emissions. Since widespread use of electric cars is not
    around the corner, while governments are moving rapidly to reduce carbon emissions from powerplants, under the assumption that
    there is some value in doing so, then an article like this is pretty moot.
    Oil avoidance is the number one issue with respect to electric cars. It wasn’t high electric prices that sparked such interest in electric cars, nor carbon emissions either. That interest will grow a whole lot faster if battery prices come down.


  54. 54
    Bud

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Bud
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (11:51 am)

    Best debate I’ve seen on this site from very knowledgeable folks. Thanks.


  55. 55
    RB

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    RB
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (11:56 am)

    #24 biodieseljeep –>
    Thanks for the very interesting post about the advantages of keeping cars a long time.


  56. 56
    Dave G

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave G
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (12:06 pm)

    #44 Starcast Says: The biggest thing I take from this story is the need for more Nuke Power.
    ————————————————————————————–
    Yes. More nuclear power would be a good thing.

    But nuclear by itself won’t solve our problems. To be cost effective, nuclear power plants need to have a fairly constant output. Nuclear isn’t cost effective for supplying electricity during peak use. Nuclear power plants are good at “baseline” electrical production, which is the minimum amount of power used, typically in the small hours of the morning.

    By contrast, solar power is great at supplying peak electrical use during the day, but doesn’t provide anything at night.

    So I believe a combination of nuclear and solar power is the best solution. Solar works best during hot sunny days, which is when everyone turns on their air conditioners. Nuclear works great at night and also for baseline power during the day.


  57. 57
    Lurtz

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Lurtz
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (12:07 pm)

    Proper economic analysis includes the comparison with the “most likely alternative.” Comparing environmental benefits should do the same. And this requires considering the source of electricity for the potential customer.

    In California, the largest source of electricity is natural gas; the next two are nuclear and ‘large hydroelectric’. The rest of the sources are in single digits. Of renewables, the largest was geothermal. (Sorry — I tried looking up the exact numbers but I don’t have the google juju today.) Plus, California is increasing the proportion of renewables in the next few decades.

    So in *my* case, comparing gasoline vs. electricity generated by coal is utterly useless. If you’re living in China where all your electricity is from coal, then all right…


  58. 58
    Daniel Ortega

    -1

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Daniel Ortega
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (12:43 pm)

    Finally THE TRUTH comes out. I knew this whole EV idea was a scam !
    The truth will set you free.
    At least the EV lies are not as bad as those Global Warming lies propagated by people with their own agendas (can you says Al Gore ?)


  59. 59
    CorvetteGuy

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    CorvetteGuy
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (1:03 pm)

    I don’t believe it really matters right now how ‘green’ electric/hybrids are. What really matters is GM survives long enough to build the VOLT and other EREV vehicles. Over time the technology will catch up to our desires for clean and efficient engines. What matters now is that all car makers are trying to come up with the solution.


  60. 60
    PLJ

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    PLJ
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (1:04 pm)

    Dave G @ 45 says:
    “…buy a Volt for less than $30,000 after tax credits. Yes, you will get the full $7500 tax credit even if you pay little or no taxes.

    ———————————————————————————-

    I’ve been wondering about this. My wife and I probably don’t pay $7500 in taxes, so how will this work for us? Will we get money from the government to total up to $7500? I don’t have the details, but it sure is an important consideration.


  61. 61
    fas

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    fas
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (1:32 pm)

    That car in the picture is the G-Wiz. Made by a Indian company, its sold in India as the Reva and hardly sells, because Indians are not that environmental friendly.


  62. 62
    Adrian

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Adrian
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (1:34 pm)

    Just a little research would have born this information. This still doesn’t take into account the enviromental impact of creating batteries does. Maybe we should have not let the EPA shut down nuclear plant production using government legal manuevering after all. Isn’t a wise federal government great… (touch firmly planted in cheek)


  63. 63
    Dave G

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave G
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (1:49 pm)

    #60 PLJ Says: My wife and I probably don’t pay $7500 in taxes, so how will this work for us? Will we get money from the government to total up to $7500?
    ————————————————————————————–
    Yes, I believe so. I’m certain that the child tax credit that works like this. The credit works as if you already paid that amount in taxes, so you get it back as a refund whether you actually paid that much or not.


  64. 64
    omnimoeish

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    omnimoeish
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (1:51 pm)

    Planning on fixing our global warming problem (if you believe in that) by building smaller diesel cars is like some obese person who eats nothing but twinkies trying to get in better shape by eating less twinkies. The person needs a complete change of diet and needs to exercise more. To fix our energy problem, people need to walk more, bike more, and we need to build electric vehicles with renewable electricity. Nearly half of the electricity produced in Oregon is renewable from hydro electric, wind, geothermal etc. All of these are producing 100% full power day or night. That’s basically to say that if Oregon were to completely switch to electric vehicles, half of those would be powered completely pollution free, then with a smart grid, we could have our cars charged from hydroelectric power during the night, and then use that juice during the day when we are more coal reliant, we could put a serious dent in fossil fuel usage just like that!

    I don’t know if I believe in global warming, but what I do know is that smog from millions of cars driving to work running on fossil fuels IS a huge problem and is getting worse all the time. I also know that our economy is highly dependent on the price of oil, I also know that we are literally funding our enemies with our oil addiction. Electric cars solve all of those problems. Even if we are dependent on Boliva for our batteries for a while, it’s a lot better than Iran!


  65. 65
    statik

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    statik
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (2:03 pm)

    #60 PLJ Says: My wife and I probably don’t pay $7500 in taxes, so how will this work for us? Will we get money from the government to total up to $7500?
    ———————————
    #63 DaveG said:
    Yes, I believe so. I’m certain that the child tax credit that works like this. The credit works as if you already paid that amount in taxes, so you get it back as a refund whether you actually paid that much or not.
    =========================
    Dave is right, this is a credit that if you qualify (as in you buy a 16kWh EV) you get thefull $7,500 regardless of earning income. So if you made nothing…or paid nothing, you get it.

    The credit is meant to incentivitize the product, not to subsidize the individual based on social/income class.


  66. 66
    canehdian

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    canehdian
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (2:04 pm)

    They can say what they want, but my next car will be electric.

    Let’s see.. what generates power around me…

    Niagara falls – hydroelectric. Zero pollution.
    Darlington and Pickering – Nuclear. Zero Pollution, just spent nuclear storage. (No air pollution, at least.)
    Little further north – Bruce Nuclear. See above.
    Pickering – Wind turbine (pretty much nothing in terms of the population served, but it’s still there!)
    Probable installation of more wind turbines out on the lake in the future, too.

    Local by-laws allow for installation of personal solar and/or wind generation facilities.

    The ONLY polluting plant around here is the single coal plant, mandated to be shut down by 2010, I believe?
    Gee, sounds like a lot of pollution to run MY car.


  67. 67
    Dave G

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave G
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (2:17 pm)

    #64 omnimoeish Says: …fixing our global warming problem by building smaller diesel cars is like some obese person who eats nothing but twinkies trying to get in better shape by eating less twinkies.
    ————————————————————————————–
    Excellent analogy! We will never solve our problems just by using fossil fuels more efficiently. It’s a losing battle. We need other fuel sources, like a complete change in diet.


  68. 68
    PLJ

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    PLJ
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (2:19 pm)

    Thanks Dave G and statik. That is great news.


  69. 69
    Bill Marsh

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Bill Marsh
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (2:39 pm)

    and if the electricity used by the ERev is from Windmill, nuclear, Geo, Solar?

    Not to mention the fact that the ERev, while running on electricity will not be dumping CO, benzene, and the other delightful output that diesel and gas put out. Almost not mentioned was the reality that the particulates produced by the gas/diesel engines are spread all over, while the particulates produced by the coal plant are restricted to an area around the plant.

    Maybe the generator part of the ERev should be powered by one of these 0 emissions diesels.

    This looks to be a prime example of ‘pre-decisional science’. They could have written the conclusion for the study prior to beginning the actual study.


  70. 70
    Jason The Saj

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jason The Saj
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (3:13 pm)

    Hey STUPID GLOBAL WARMING MORONS….

    Are you aware to the fact that there is more to the environment and environmentalism than CO2. And that it’s easier to scrub and/or reclaim a single smoke stack of waste products than thousands of separate tail pipes.

    Second, have you factored in the fact that plug-in electric vehicles will make the implementation of solar panels on homes more economical. As now such an installation will not just reduce your electric bill but eliminate your gasoline bill as well. Thus making it a more valuable investment.

    With recent advances in solar technology and reduction in prices, combined with electric and plug-in vehicles. We will likely see a surge in the installation of solar panels.

    But I am sure you global warming alarmists ignored all these facts and a lot more in order to hype your CO2. Oh, you do realize that we’ve seen a cooling trend for a few years now, including record cold temperatures across the globe on both northern and southern hemispheres. Antarctic ice is growing. And we just found another 200,000 square miles of ice in the Arctic.


  71. 71
    Todd

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Todd
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (3:23 pm)

    Short sighted short term solution to a long term problem. Electric’s will eventually polute less as other non-poluting power sources become available. Also not taken into account is the cost of purchase of fosil fuels. The more expensive they are the less funding their is for non-poluting sources of energy. How much extra polution does that dump into the world?

    I already have my photo voltaic cells up. Last months electric bill? Try $49.37 for a 1500sqft house. That’s with a $20.00 privlidge fee for having the meter on my house. Slightly more a day to run my house than the Volt will cost to drive to and from work.


  72. 72
    Dave G

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dave G
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (3:34 pm)

    #71 Todd Says: Also not taken into account is the cost of purchase of fossil fuels. The more expensive they are the less funding their is for non-polluting sources of energy.
    ————————————————————————————–
    Actually, more expensive fossil fuels will make non-polluting sources of energy more cost-competitive, which will make them more attractive to investors. This is why many here have proposed various forms of increased gas and oil taxes.

    In fact, GM’s former CEO supported a $4/gallon minimum price for gasoline:
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/18/gm-chief-says-gas-tax-hike-worth-considering/


  73. 73
    Florin

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Florin
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (3:48 pm)

    This kind of bad publicity reminds me of the dark past of GM, and of the end of EV1′s, the same two inexistent problems were rised then:

    1. Won’t sell (although many people in the US would buy this car and even from less developed countries such as Romania including myself)

    2. It polutes more than the conventional diesel engines (like the single way of obtaining electricity is from coal).

    These “problems” were debated in the documentary “Who killed the electric car” a short presentation can be seen here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsJAlrYjGz8&hl=ro

    P.S. This is my first comment I hope I’m allowed to post links to another sites and sorry for my bad english


  74. 74
    Jason M. Hendler

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jason M. Hendler
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (3:53 pm)

    Lyle,

    Well put. Energy independence is the only justification required to support alternative fuel vehicles. Energy independence is indisputable.

    Environmental reason are always based on mere theories, not facts.


  75. 75
    T1 Rex

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    T1 Rex
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (4:18 pm)

    This points out the need to take a systems view of energy. Electric cars are only half of the equation, along with electric heat pumps, water heating, and so on. To solve the greenhouse gas problem, we have to stop burning things for heat and propulsion. That means switching the energy sources to solar, wind, tidal, wave, and geothermal as quickly as we are changing the nature of the energy usage. Just switching to electric cars and keeping the same old dirty coal power plants is only moving around the deck chairs on the Titanic.


  76. 76
    David L

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    David L
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (4:49 pm)

    Hmmm … I live in British Columbia (Canada) where 80% of the electricity is generated from renewable hydro-electric power. The remainder is primarily generated from natural gas (through steam generation). I think that it is more than obvious that this will produce much lower emissions that shipping oil/gas 1000′s (or 10,000′s) of miles so that I can burn it inefficiently in my gas tank.

    I wonder who funded the study in Transport Watch? Big oil?!

    List of countries by electricity production from renewable sources
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable_electricity_production


  77. 77
    BlackSun

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    BlackSun
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (5:21 pm)

    This is UTTER CRAP. The fossil fuel industries see the writing on the wall and are working overtime to delay the INEVITABLE TRANSITION.

    The reason why electric cars pollute at all is because they use fossil generated power, which also has to be eliminated. The change will not happen all at once.

    But people are not morons. They know that driving on coal-powered electricity is only a little bit better than driving on gasoline. Which is why we will be implementing cap and trade and shutting down the coal plants over the next 30 years.

    Here’s a paper from 2005:

    http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/339.pdf

    It’s over 200 pages. Actually studying this issue gives a logical and common sense answer. But the fossil fuel thugs are just looking for yet another quick headline like “clean coal” to spread more FUD about renewables and delay their INEVITABLE DEMISE.


  78. 78
    Tom H

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tom H
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (5:28 pm)

    #4 statik Says:
    April 19th, 2009 at 7:10 am

    And the grid system we have now has huge excess capacity build in overnight…and that power when not used is wasted. The power EVs take overnight should actually be considered a double positive.
    ————————————————————————————-
    I agree that the study is flawed, and probably intentionally flawed.

    But I need to quibble with the above post, which reflects a common misunderstanding of how power plants work. It is true that the grid is underutilized at night. But using previously unused capacity is not the same as getting free electricity. Any additional load placed on the grid at night will require an equivalent energy input at the power station. In short, if you start charging cars at night, you will need to burn more coal.

    It is true that if we were tapping into previously idle nuclear power generating capacity, the electricity would be virtually free. This is because almost all of the costs of nuclear power are fixed. Because the energy content of nuclear fuel is so high, the cost of fuel per kWH is close to zero.

    Unfortuanately , there is little or no usable idle nuclear generating capacity, even at night. At night, operators reduce the load on fossil fuel plants, and keep the nuclear plants at high power.

    The reason electric cars save lots of money, energy and CO2 is that generating electricity in a large stationary power station is 2-3 times as efficient as producing power with an ICE.


  79. 79
    Tom H

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tom H
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (5:37 pm)

    Alex S Says:
    April 19th, 2009 at 7:06 am

    That’s a lie.
    Transport Watch was payed by Big Oil to write that,
    —————————————————————————
    Alex S, do you have any facts to back up your assertion that Transport Watch was paid (not payed) by “Big Oil”? Or did you just make it up?

    A few seconds of research would have shown you that Transport Watch is an agenda driven site dedicated to promoting rail transportation in the UK. It seems very unlikely that Big Oil would be supporting a site which promotes a form of transport which uses much less petroleum than autos.


  80. 80
    DonC

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    DonC
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (5:49 pm)

    If you compare the pollution you’d create charging an EV to the pollution you know you’d get from a gasoline or diesel vehicle, it’s hard not to question the report’s conclusions.

    We know the pollution created by ICEs because of the limits imposed on them.

    Euro IV limits on gasoline vehicles:
    CO: 1.0 g/km
    HC: 0.1 g/km
    NOx: 0.08 g/km

    Euro IV limits on diesel vehicles:
    CO: 0.5 g/km
    NOx: 0.25 g/km
    HC+NOx: 0.3 g/km
    PM10: 0.025 g/km

    We also know that CO2 for a car that gets 50 mpg is about 110 g/km.

    Now look at the emissions attributable to electricity produced in London, where coal is the primary source fuel (http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/envir…003_manual.rtf):
    CO: 0.093 g/kWh
    NOx: 1.69 g/kWh
    HC: 0.070 g/kWh
    CO2: 588 g/kWh
    All PM combined: 0.26 g/kWh

    An EV that uses 200 wh/mile would compare as follows:
    CO2 – 70 g/km which is less than 2/3rds that of a 50 mpg car, 1/3rd that of a 25 mpg car, and 1/6th that of a 12 mpg car.
    CO – .01 g/km which is approximately 1.5% of the limit for gasoline vehicles and 2.5% of the limit for diesel vehicles
    NOx – .2 g/km which is 250% of the limit for gasoline vehicles but 80% for diesel vehicles
    HC – 0.0036 g/km which is 8.25% of the limit for gasoline vehicles
    PM – 0.014 g/km for all particulates which is about 125% of the limit on diesels for PM10 ONLY

    Difficult to understand how the report comes up with its conclusion. This is the worst case for an EV and the pollution is generally less. Moreover, the pollution from the EV is displaced away from population centers, and, critically, the pollution from the coal plant is point source, which makes it much easier to control and clean up.

    Seems like a relative slam dunk.


  81. 81
    stopcrazypp

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    stopcrazypp
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (5:50 pm)

    I’m impressed most of the regular commenters here cut through the BS so quickly in this study. Anyone who regularly follows plug-ins can see the multiple flaws and manipulations in this study. If this gets widely posted I’m sure a few plug-in experts in the field will chime in (don’t know if UK has that many, but I know the US has a lot).

    First of all, the headline making claim that EVs on coal are half as efficient as Diesels (24% vs 45%) is made by using the ideal efficiency of a Diesel engine and comparing it with an EV with all the losses figured in. This is classic cherry-picking and doing an unequal/unfair comparison. Not to mention this only applies to nonrenewable sources.

    Moving on to the finding on the average UK emissions: They found, using their ideal numbers for the diesel, that a Diesel pollutes 10% less using 20% battery/motor losses for the EV and 1.4% more using 10% losses.

    This points to another big flaw in their study: their assumption that drivetrain losses in a diesel & an EV are the same. A simple look comparing the combined fuel efficiency of an automatic MINI Diesel (5L/100km) and a manual MINI Diesel (3.9L/100km), which is already a staggering 22% difference, already makes the point that you can’t make this assumption (as a side-note the MINI E is more similar to the auto since no shifting is involved, but it’s also more efficient than the manual drivetrain-wise since no shifting is involved, but rather a direct gear reduction, the most efficient transmission possible). That 22% difference is already enough to throw off the 10% advantage they got using their assumptions. Which means if they want to reach an accurate conclusion they will have to work out the differences in drive-train losses.
    http://www.mini.com/com/en/ecom_rfi/_download/MINI_Cooper_D_September2007.pdf

    They also were optimistic about the refining and transportation losses for the diesel fuel, going from 45% to 40% (a 88% efficiency). My sources say the efficiency is 83%, not 88%. http://www.epa.gov/EPA-IMPACT/2000/June/Day-12/i14446.htm.
    The 88% is actually diesel refining alone & doesn’t include fuel transport:
    http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/epact/pdfs/ftd_docket/wang_ftd_pres.pdf

    A final conclusion on why this study is bunk. They are trying to draw accurate conclusions on emissions using efficiency numbers. The problem is efficiency numbers can only give ball park numbers and don’t show the real picture on emissions. For example, a natural gas plant and a coal plant of similar efficiency has vastly different amounts of pollution (natural gas tends to pollute half as much).

    To reach a real conclusion on emissions, they need to compare emissions on two directly comparable cars (same size, type) not just use efficiency numbers and assumptions which may skew the conclusions completely.


  82. 82
    N Riley

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    N Riley
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (5:50 pm)

    I am not an expert in these matters. Time will tell who is right or wrong. It will be terrible to be wrong and be down the wrong path before finding out we are doing more damage than good. But, my “gut” feeling is that electric cars are the right way to go. Having very fuel effient ICE vehicles will certainly help matters also.


  83. 83
    ccombs

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    ccombs
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (6:11 pm)

    Their numbers are different than all the other ones I’ve seen in any academic study (and I’ve read quite a few). Of course academics usually have a strong agenda (my profs sometimes sound more like environmentalism preachers than scientists), but at least on the whole they have better methodology and data than this study. Ironically, studies are beginning to be skeptical of the benefits of light rail, at least in the US, due to low ridership. It appears this study was done by rail supporters in the UK. While certainly benefits of EVs can be overblown by some pop-environmentalists, even with entirely coal-based power generation I would still argue the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. IC engines are near their thermodynamic limits, and us engineers can only eke out a bit more performance from them. Power plants, however, offer a myriad of options and much room for improvement. The power generation mix is getting greener by the day, while diesel is about as green as its gonna get. And I for one don’t want to be breathing PM 2.5. And besides, EVs will mostly be introduced into areas with relatively green power generation first (like my home state of CA), and won’t penetrate other regions en masse until after the power generation gets greener. Besides this, EVs will be plugged in at night, using excess capacity, and will not require new power plants. Gracious, I am annoyed at this study.


  84. 84
    Dan Petit

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Dan Petit
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (6:50 pm)

    The figure of 76 percent energy loss between the source and your Volt is
    **********************************************************************
    absolutely absurd and false by an entire decimal point.
    **********************************************************************
    Line-losses from the Wind Electric Turbines out in West Texas all the way into the city of Austin is never above 7%!!!!!
    Spelled S-E-V-E-N P-E-R-C-E-N-T.
    Once again, some “baffle-em with BS” that “no-one will be able to catch”:
    *****************
    NOT.
    ****************
    And, as far as the efficiencies of diesel, well, let us not leave out the carbon dioxide that comes from the refining process as well as the carbon dioxide from the transportation process. While we are at it, lets also figure in the carbon dioxide from the many oil changes needed and the reprocessing of old diesel oil changes, as well as the carbon dioxide from the trucking of the diesel fuel, as well as the carbon dioxide from the running of the utilities feeding the air conditioning and etc. at the filling station and the pump needed to pump it into your tank, (we could go on for another 8 or so items, but lets just not.).
    **********************************************************
    TOTAL CARBON ACCOUNTING
    **********************************************************
    for diesel or anything else that is lower than dirt that supposedly is stated as a “study” to be somehow “better than Voltec” is where the fiction is. This is a classic case of something in psychology called a “conversion reaction”, where, something that someone or something is responsible for (guilty of) is fabricated and contorted-oppositely into a “study” that an opposing superior set of technologies is “the inferior situation”. It is what is known as a “maladaptive coping strategy”, and you can certainly count on a lot more of this stuff from fossil-interest-investors from now on.
    Voltec is coming, and there is nothing that is going to stop it.
    By the way, here in Austin, we can actually select the type of energy mix within our billing statement. If I want to spend more on natural gas at night for my night time charging instead of my energy mix at all proportionately from coal, I can nix the coal energy and pay more for natural gas if I want to.
    (Natural Gas interests; pay attention to this one and relax).
    So, yes, I can call for all Wind energy at night, and, when there is not as much, I can then call secondarily for lowered-carbon-dioxide natural gas as my secondary energy source for my Voltec vehicle.
    (And pay only about 12 cents more for the natural-gas-less-carbon-dioxide charge). (Not a big financial deal whatsoever all month for the exceptional advantage of natural gas over any sort of coal power).
    (And also between 3 and 6 pm when I have the house AC on a wall-switch-type-”off”-timer, I can select natural gas over coal energy).
    Is not Austin Energy the smartest publicly-owned utility in the nation?
    I think so.
    Dan Petit Austin TX.


  85. 85
    MarkinWI

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    MarkinWI
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (7:02 pm)

    Wow. I’ve never seen so many posts where we all (well, nearly all) agree.

    Namecaller @#70 – Uh DUH YEAH, environmentalists figured out the whole 1 smokestack v. numerous tailpipes thing years ago.


  86. 86
    Tom H

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Tom H
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (7:04 pm)

    This kind of bad publicity reminds me of the dark past of GM, and of the end of EV1’s, the same two inexistent problems were rised then:

    1. Won’t sell (although many people in the US would buy this car and even from less developed countries such as Romania including myself)

    2. It polutes more than the conventional diesel engines (like the single way of obtaining electricity is from coal).

    sorry for my bad english
    ——————————————————————-
    Welcome to the board, and congrats on your English. Very good for a non-native speaker.

    But the idea that the EV-1 wouldn’t sell is not a myth. It is very well founded. The EV-1 cost over $80k to make and is only a two seater. I dont know about Romania, but in the US, no middle class family could buy a car like that. If you do not want to believe that the EV-1 was that expensive, look at the biggest selling EV car today, the Tesla Roadster. It sells for over $80k, even with the advantage of a decade’s advances in battery technology.

    In short, high costs killed the electric car, not bad men in suits.


  87. 87
    Bill Marsh

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Bill Marsh
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (7:11 pm)

    To add to my previous comment.

    Did the study account for the energy use/pollution in refining the diesel and transporting it to the gas station or did they assume the diesel magically appears in the tank? I think if you add the pollution/energy use from the refinery and the tankers used to ship the diesel to the station, you might end up with a different outcome.


  88. 88
    Guy Incognito

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Guy Incognito
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (7:27 pm)

    #81 stopcrazypp Thank you
    Your first paragraph says it all


  89. 89
    JEC

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    JEC
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (7:55 pm)

    Did anyone notice the cord that the babe in the picture is using?

    Looks like this bad boy would be made up of maybe 3 22 awg conductors. Good for about 4 amps. (looks more like a phone cord, then a serious power cable!).

    Anyway, at 115 Vac, you talking 4 X 115 = 460 Watt-hour charge rate. So, for Volt with a 16Kw-hr battery at 1/2 charge, it would take about 8000/460 = 17.4 hours. I would think that little car she is plugging in must have at least a 4 Kw-hr battery, so now your down to about 8.5 hours (assuming this cars battery uses 100% of the charge).


  90. 90
    DonC

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    DonC
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (8:02 pm)

    #84 Dan Petit says “Line-losses from the Wind Electric Turbines out in West Texas all the way into the city of Austin is never above 7%!!!!!”

    Your 7% Austin number is the one I’ve always seen used for electrical transmission losses. I’ve never seen anything like 25%.


  91. 91
    Paul

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Paul
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (8:02 pm)

    Lets see how their “study” goes if they use REAL numbers! Straight off the bat a Diesel is not 45% energy efficient! That’s the theoretic maximum possible AT THE FLYWHEEL! If energy efficiency is measured at the wheels (where the work is actually being done) a Diesel is only 30% and a petrol car is 15%. When a Diesel is idling it’s less than 3% energy efficient.

    And why is it the only way these arguments can ever be won against EVs is by including the energy used in electricity generation when the ICE side of the argument never gets beyond the fuel bowser? I have never once heard one of these “studies” include 1) refining 2) transportation 3) evaporation 4) oil drilling & exploration! Are we expected to believe none of these steps creates ANY pollution?

    An incredibly simple way to measure the energy efficiency of a vehicle is the “cost” of energy needed to run it. There is an incredibly logical reason why EVs are 1/10th the cost of running ICEs, they use 1/10th the energy to do the same work. A kw/hr cost approx the same for petrol or electricity, the big difference is the ICEs inability to convert 85% of it into anything but waste heat.

    All these bozos need to include in their “study” is that your typical petrol ICE is 15% energy efficient at the wheels…. and no amount of “attention paid to refining existing petrol and diesel technology” will ever make any significant difference to that!


  92. 92
    Ted in Fort Myers

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Ted in Fort Myers
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (8:05 pm)

    Which oil company does this author work for?
    Take Care,
    TED


  93. 93
    Gary

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Gary
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (8:08 pm)

    45% efficiency for diesel? I know gas is less efficient than diesel, but even that seems high to me.


  94. 94
    Gary

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Gary
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (8:15 pm)

    Oops I’m on my blackberry. I meant to imply that gas and diesel combustion creates more heat than go.


  95. 95
    xed

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    xed
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (8:45 pm)

    “We conclude that the notion that electric cars will reduce emissions is a fiction.”

    I conclude that your study blows goats. That is all.

    - xed


  96. 96
    statik

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    statik
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (8:56 pm)

    #4 statik Says:
    April 19th, 2009 at 7:10 am

    And the grid system we have now has huge excess capacity build in overnight…and that power when not used is wasted. The power EVs take overnight should actually be considered a double positive.
    ————————————————————————————-
    #78 Tom H said:
    I agree that the study is flawed, and probably intentionally flawed.

    But I need to quibble with the above post, which reflects a common misunderstanding of how power plants work. It is true that the grid is underutilized at night. But using previously unused capacity is not the same as getting free electricity. Any additional load placed on the grid at night will require an equivalent energy input at the power station. In short, if you start charging cars at night, you will need to burn more coal.

    It is true that if we were tapping into previously idle nuclear power generating capacity, the electricity would be virtually free. This is because almost all of the costs of nuclear power are fixed. Because the energy content of nuclear fuel is so high, the cost of fuel per kWH is close to zero.

    Unfortuanately , there is little or no usable idle nuclear generating capacity, even at night. At night, operators reduce the load on fossil fuel plants, and keep the nuclear plants at high power.

    The reason electric cars save lots of money, energy and CO2 is that generating electricity in a large stationary power station is 2-3 times as efficient as producing power with an ICE.
    ===================
    This can be true from location to location…a good deal of areas have some component of overnight capacity that is ‘use it or lose it’… outside the US, which is where my perspective is from.

    However, a gallon saved in Canada still translate to a gallons less pollution to the environment…the environment doesn’t recognize the 49th parallel.

    Where I live and for (#66 canehdian) in the Toronto area, we only used 10% coal, 11% nat gas and some oil, but 52% nuclear, 23hydro

    http://www.theweathernetwork.com/index.php?product=power&pagecontent=monthly-supply-demand

    Our breakdown of plants are:

    3 nuclear generating stations
    5 fossil generating stations
    64 hydroelectric generating stations

    As I write this right now the breakdown of power generated this moment is:

    Nuclear 4829 MW
    Hydro 4587 MW
    Fossil 205 MW

    …and we are ‘supposed’ to be fossil fuel fuel/coal free by 2014 and unbelievably enough we are well ahead of that, we ‘could’ be coal free by next year

    http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/584841

    Basically I’m saying, we should get all the EVs…every last one, hehe.


  97. 97
    canehdian

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    canehdian
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (11:07 pm)

    “Basically I’m saying, we should get all the EVs…every last one, hehe.”

    I agree. ;D

    Lol, I’m looking at the IESO site.. the hourly electricity rate is 0.01 c/kWh.
    Wonder If I can sign up for the raw rates.. :p
    Buy a huge bank of batteries to power the house during the day and charge up for like 10 cents.


  98. 98
    Patrick (Montreal)

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Patrick (Montreal)
     Says

     

    Apr 19th, 2009 (11:29 pm)

    My province uses 94% hydro power and 2% wind, 0% coal or gas
    (Canada)

    This study is junk


  99. 99
    Timaaayyy!!!

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Timaaayyy!!!
     Says

     

    Apr 20th, 2009 (12:24 am)

    Off-Topic news:

    “GM said Sunday it plans to start selling the plug-in electric hybrid Chevy Volt in China in 2011 after launching the vehicle in the U.S. in late 2010.”

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124011142338932255.html?ru=yahoo&mod=yahoo_hs

    Taking the battle to the source–oh baby!


  100. 100
    omegaman66

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    omegaman66
     Says

     

    Apr 20th, 2009 (2:19 am)

    CO2 isn’t a pollutant and is required for life. The greenhouse gas aspects of it are now being shown to be way over blown.

    Plus I can generate my own electricity a lot easier than I can gasoline.


  101. 101
    kubel

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    kubel
     Says

     

    Apr 20th, 2009 (2:35 am)

    This coming from the same one-man-organization that produced a similar study suggesting that all the rails in the UK should be replaced with buses. His study was discredited then, and people soon forgot about him. Now he’s at it again…


  102. 102
    Darius

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Darius
     Says

     

    Apr 20th, 2009 (3:18 am)

    I would say fake numbers and fake conclusions. The credibility of such study makers is under big question mark. Researchers completely avoided city polution issue and fuel distribution enviromental costs. Hysteric focus on the global warming.


  103. 103
    tim-the-dreamer

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    tim-the-dreamer
     Says

     

    Apr 20th, 2009 (4:07 am)

    Tree humpers in my view are completely anti-everything and would prefer we lived in caves and then bitch about that so I don’t listen to them at all. Recently the U.S. Navy (of all people) says that they have confirmed that neutrons are generated in cold Fusion, to which the science community are screamming wrong (nothing new there). If it can be scaled up to provide sufficiant power; fission plants could be transferred over. Aside from removing nuke waste problems, it can, maybe, knock down co2 emmisions. The tree humpers will still cry evil anyway, like I give a damn. There was a comment made against gas guzzling suv’s, well, I hate to tell ya but Razor Tech has completed converting an H3 into a series hybride with 33mpg city and 100mpg highway with no loss of capabilities. Still in innitial road testing of course. So the full sized suv and truck drivers can now join the club as well.

    So, solar, wind, geo, hydro, hot (and cold?) nuke, plus all auto companies stateside making the transition to various hybrides,…hmmm. Possible national security benifits with side effects of benifiting the environment and human health. Man, are we monsters or what for supporting something that requires actuall intelligence and real data? (buuurrrrrrp)


  104. 104
    Thomas

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Thomas
     Says

     

    Apr 20th, 2009 (8:30 am)

    I’m thinking that they should put some referances into their article about where they came up with this bogus info! (Not to say things like China… etc…) Name some of these places, and back them up with published facts. We all know there’s line loss in the electric grid, but it’s not that bad! Hum, just think of all the CO2 from people using block heaters – that don’t even move the car! Sometimes for days between trips in the winter – that won’t be needed any more when the electric car replaces the internal combustion junk.


  105. 105
    Jon

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jon
     Says

     

    Apr 20th, 2009 (8:55 am)

    >>But the idea that the EV-1 wouldn’t sell is not a myth. It is very well founded. The EV-1 cost over $80k to make and is only a two seater. I dont know about Romania, but in the US, no middle class family could buy a car like that. If you do not want to believe that the EV-1 was that expensive, look at the biggest selling EV car today, the Tesla Roadster. It sells for over $80k, even with the advantage of a decade’s advances in battery technology.

    In short, high costs killed the electric car, not bad men in suits.<<

    Obviously the first generation EV-1 was too expensive for wide adoption. That doesn’t mean the technology is dead end. Costs will come down. They had no reason to completely end the program and forget everything they learned. If cost really is the reason can you explain why they continue to waste millions on fuel cells? Care to say which one is cheaper and more practical?

    And dont cite range anxiety as the reason either. Did you know they made a range extended version of the EV-1? Not many do know that. It had a gas turbine in the trunk and got 60-100mpg on gas. But of course, that technology is going no where…


  106. 106
    SteveK

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    SteveK
     Says

     

    Apr 20th, 2009 (9:06 am)

    #56 Dave G

    The point is to do a lot of car charging at night, during off-peak, which is a perfect match to a nuclear plant.

    There is a lot of good information (load curves, etc.) here,

    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/electricity_cars_inf120.html

    Although on the WNA website, there is no real mention of nuclear in this article. It’s a great summary of the current state of electric vehicles (prepared in April) as well.


  107. 107
    Electric Vehicle Owner

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Electric Vehicle Owner
     Says

     

    Apr 20th, 2009 (9:57 am)

    I read the study.

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    My electric vehicle is 100% wind powered, at home and at work, thanks to wind power subscription plans available with my regional power company, at prices less than coal in most states.


  108. 108
    stas peterson

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    stas peterson
     Says

     

    Apr 20th, 2009 (10:03 am)

    Electric cars have an obvious benefit of shifting from a particular fossil fuel in limited supply, to a more extensive range of prime generator, alternatives.

    The Electric generation pattern here in the USA is is about 1/3 totally clean hydro and nuclear; and about 17% natural gas and a trace of green renewables that have many pollution problems that go by unoticed as yet.

    So about 50% comes from coal, at various stages of cleanliness. Some of the new coal plants are to all intents and purposes clean. But the majority of the coal plants in the USA are very old and grandfathered in with relatively poor toxic emission profiles. Thank your local Green for that. Once again they work at cross purposes to what they purport to seek,as their obstructions have prevented the building of clean replacements.

    The replacement plants much cleaner have faced all kinds of obstacles from Greens so we get to keep the old smokers instead.

    But still that is clean compared to the auto fleets.

    From a toxic emission standpoints we can and do build zero emissions ICE cars and in growing numbers. They are not diesels, but refined Otto cycle cars. It is possible to build zero pollution diesels but no standard for such exists,as the toughest in the world is the T2B5 standards in the USA, is still a clean but not zero polluter.

    The prime reason to electrify the auto flee is to provide a valid substitute for Petroleum and no other reason. As all the other reasons don’t really exist, or have been solved.

    This study is not applicable to the USA nor worth the paper its printed on here in the USA.


  109. 109
    Patrick

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Patrick
     Says

     

    Apr 20th, 2009 (10:28 am)

    My idiot neighbor has a Prius.

    On it, he has a bumer sticker that says, “I’m saving the Planet”.
    (which he’s not)

    He also has an “Obama ’08″ sticker and one of those “Gay Rainbow” bumper stickers.

    He is the most arrogant Liberal Retard I’ve ever met.

    He has no concept of reality.
    He lives in a fantisy world, as shown by his 3 stickers.


  110. 110
    stas peterson

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    stas peterson
     Says

     

    Apr 20th, 2009 (10:31 am)

    Your windpower is a very poor polluter. You just believe the balogna from the ignorant Greens.w ho don’rt know any better.

    There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch! TANSTAAFL ! Nor “free” power. You are extracting energy from the planet’s attempt to equalize temperatures by moving heat from hot spots to cold spots.

    That is the source and purtpose of Wind. To the degree that you inhibit and prevent that that, you are perptuating hot spots, call it Global Warming if you like, the greens do. And you are perpetuating cold spots, likewise call it Global Cooling.

    That equalization cannot be prevented, by the Laws of Thermodyanmics, It will eventually manifest itself in more severe storms, and you are creating them.

    It would help if yout wind power extraction were at least efficient,but Alas it is not. Factor in the relative cost of high tech products steel, cement and copper and other materials that go into the poor conversion efficiency of your windmiil, so you waste resources with your pathetic wind turbine. Its a lose-lose proposition all the way around.

    But at least you don’t alter the planetary Albedo and create REAL Global Warming, like the Solar nuts do. Your windmill efficiency still is superior to all the waste heat they create. And that Thermal Pollution is really severe, when you are supposed to be preventing Global Warming.


  111. 111
    Brent

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Brent
     Says

     

    Apr 20th, 2009 (10:35 am)

    We will never be free of foreign interests – who can name where most of the lithium for our batteries will come from? It’s not the US!


  112. 112
    hermant

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    hermant
     Says

     

    Apr 20th, 2009 (10:42 am)

    I knew it! I knew it! This report is just what I’ve been waiting for. Finally my coal powered car gets the break it has always needed. It suffers very little from distribution grid losses (just a bit between the dynamo and the cigarette lighter). And the flame box is “totally stoked”, by you of course or it begins to slow down. Of course I can only offer it in black for obvious reasons but, what the heck, that worked for Ford. Keep watching your local “previously Oldsmobile” dealership for your chance to get into one soon. Good luck!


  113. 113
    Brian

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Brian
     Says

     

    Apr 20th, 2009 (11:21 am)

    What seems to be left out of the equation is how much energy is used to create a gallon of gas. Moral of the story!! “You can make numbers say what ever it is you would like them to say”.


  114. 114
    Jim in PA

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jim in PA
     Says

     

    Apr 20th, 2009 (11:23 am)

    #109 Stas Peterson – I hope GM can buy enough lithium for their batteries before you use it all up in your prescription medication. Wind turbines are bad for the earth because they block the wind? Sure, if every turbine is 10 miles tall, 2000 miles across, and has the permeability of a brick wall. Otherwise… not so much.

    Here’s a quick antidote to your junk science. The highest theoretical efficiency of wind turbine blades (measured in terms of how much wind it translates to energy) is about 59% as governed by Betz’s law. Anything lower and your system isn’t as efficient as it could be, and any more and you are stopping too much wind to keep your system moving. (A system that stops all wind is known in technical terms as a “wall”, and doesn’t generate electricity very well.) Actual maximum blade efficiency is closer to 35%. That means that 65% of the wind goes through the turbine without losing its power.

    So assume you cover EVERY square inch of the US with 100-ft tall wind turbines. Very unlikely, but let’s tip the numbers to your advantage as much as possible. That 100-ft vertical extent is only 1/60 into the 6,000 ft section of the atmosphere that contains most of the low level wind patterns. Congrats! You’ve just succeeded in impeding 0.6% of the wind over the United States (1/60 x 0.35).

    So other than the 99.4% of the unimpeded wind still ripping around the world, your argument is rock solid (not).


  115. 115
    stas peterson

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    stas peterson
     Says

     

    Apr 20th, 2009 (11:57 am)

    # 25 solo,

    The worst actors in all this are the mostly ignorant greens, and their constantly tripping over the Law of Unintended Consequences,through toalt lack of foresight and inherent stupidity. They push for new polluting sources that they call “renewables”; not recognizing the substantial pollution aspects of both Wind and Solar,whiel banin gthe only true clean, workable renewable, hydropower.

    They prevent the construction of modern clean alternatives, be it hydropower damns, low level hydro, or nuclear power plants or even modern, highly efficient and clean replacement Coal plants.

    They are the worst contributors, inadvertently, through their ignorance and stupidity, of any of the players. Still, if the Clueless One does not continue to throw throw a monkey wrench in the works, as he unthinkingly did for a few votes for Harry Reid, there WILL BE 35 new nuclear power plants working by 2017 or so, in the USA, displacing lots of fossil generation, and providing the electricity to power our coming fleets of electric cars. And do it inexpensively enough to provide an attractive financial choice for the electric car adopter.

    But Clueless One’s present Cap & Trade taxes, and love for inefficient and ten times as costly, so-called renewable alternatives would make electricity more dear, than high-priced gasoline; thus killing electric cars. But what should you expect from the Clueless One and his mindless Green cohorts?

    Those new plants would raise clean sources to moe than 50% of our electricity sources. To 34% nuclear, 17% natural gas, and 10% hydroand renewables. So Coal would fall to about 40% of our electric power production, from the slightly over 50% position it holds today. Better still, the worst polluting examples of Coal would be gone.

    So many very old polluting coal stations would be closed, finally. The ones with little or no pollution abating equipment, grandfathered-in by the loony “Unintended Consequence” actions of the Carter so-called green, “best available” regulations. Closed, as they were meant to be in the 1980s, but were forced to soldier on by the Green Loons killing ALL nuclear power, not just the poor implementations, as they should have.

    These new nuclear power stations are great replacements for those old smoker coal plants. They answer almost every reservation that genuine, not mindless, critics had of the first generation of nuclear power stations. They are passive; you can walk away from them, and they will shut themselves down in an orderly fashion without reliance on impatient harried operators or outside resources. They are much more economical to build, and operate. They are much safer, than the safe ones running today, with much greater margins of safety.

    They can and will incinerate hundreds or thousands of uneeded nuclear weapons, making the world safer, and also some portion of the nuclear waste that they create, through partial “Actinide Burning”. Follow on Fusion stations in the 2040s, with more powerful neutrons, will crack the remaining odd-numbered waste atoms, and will “actinide burn” the balance of long lived nuclear waste, solving the entire long lived nuclear waste problem.


  116. 116
    CS Guy

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    CS Guy
     Says

     

    Apr 20th, 2009 (12:00 pm)

    Add my comment to the “this study is just more oil company bunk.”

    It just goes to show you, you can find a study that says ANYTHING, especially if there is enough money on the table.

    Attention big oil, please contact me with several million dollars cash offer to come up with a piece of crap study that will (surprise) find that using oil is really great. To my friends on this board, please do not listen to me when my study comes out; it’ll be 100% lies.

    Failing that, I’ll just keep adding my voice to the growing multitudes who see each gallon of gas or diesel used as one more nail in our collective coffins.

    Once I get an all-electric car to drive I can then turn my focus on using greener power. My electric utility has an option to buy all my power from renewables. I’d start there. Then I’ll start saving my pennies while at the same time waiting for solar and wind to get cheap enough for average people to afford. Pretty soon the two will converge: I’ll have enough saved or renewables will be that much cheaper — look for 2010 to see huge changes in costs for solar.

    If I was building a house the first thing in the plan would be solar panels with a molten salt energy store for nightly energy needs and geothermal heating and cooling.

    ==NoPlugNoSale== All-Electric Vehicles is the only way + we gotta get more Nuke Plants, just ask the former head of Greenpeace


  117. 117
    Chaim

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Chaim
     Says

     

    Apr 20th, 2009 (12:39 pm)

    We really need to follow the money in order to understand those conclusions.


  118. 118
    Voltair

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Voltair
     Says

     

    Apr 20th, 2009 (12:54 pm)

    The only useful thing about the study is that it reinforces the utterly obvious fact that how the electricity is generated is important to the environment and important to calculating the benefit/cost. Note: In my part of Illinois, we’re over 60% nuclear.


  119. 119
    sparks

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    sparks
     Says

     

    Apr 20th, 2009 (1:10 pm)

    BillR #23

    “So in conclusion, the Volt will provide lower CO2 emissions than a comparable diesel, even if all of its energy comes from a moderately aged coal fleet.”
    _____________________________________________________

    Your numbers tell the whole story. The Volt benefits the environment even using your worst-case assumptions (which also imply daytime charging, rather than exploiting unused baseload at night).

    QED.

    Thanks for that posting. End of discussion.


  120. 120
    noel park

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    noel park
     Says

     

    Apr 20th, 2009 (2:34 pm)

    I can only agrre with MarkinWI at #85. Dumb study, great comments. Rock on bloggers!

    Of course old stas could get my goat with his comments about “ignorant greens” if I would let him. But, as we always say here at GM-Volt.com, “consider the source”.

    #24 Biodieseljeep:

    I second the motion on thanking you for the “lifecycle” comments. Does this mean that we get some green cred for finishing up our 1917 Chevrolet restoration? 92 years old and runs like a sewing machine, LOL. Plus it sat in a barn from about 1940 until we bought it in 2007, so I guess the average yearly fuel consumption has been pretty low!

    # 77BlackSun:

    FUD. Says it all. Next case.


  121. 121
    Chris

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Chris
     Says

     

    Apr 20th, 2009 (3:16 pm)

    Let the market decided. Idealogy does not drive markets, basic economics do. As much as I think that electric vehicles are a neat idea, they are not the solution to our transportation problems. Right now petro-fuels are what our world runs on and the engineering focus should be to make the technology more efficient.

    The world is not ready for electric cars on a grand scale and to force it is not wise. Look at the history of all civilizations and their technologies and methods. Take small technolgies for example. What if MP3 music files were forced upon us 20 or 30 years ago – or even CD music? Consumer technology has to evolve naturally. Just because a bunch of eco nuts think something is a good idea, doesn’t mean it is the best idea at the best time.

    Taking a responsible approach to caring for our environment is what we should all be doing. But as we dream up solutions for tomorrow, we need to be realistic about what is best for today.


  122. 122
    Jim in PA

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Jim in PA
     Says

     

    Apr 20th, 2009 (3:29 pm)

    It is simultaneously funny and alarming how years of listening to AM radio has eliminated the powers of observation and critical thought for so many of my countrymen. They have been so trained to fear the liberal bogeyman, that they actually attribute this paper to environmentalists, rather than easily seeing this as the work of oil industry shills. In fact a visit to this organization’s website shows that their fear of the electric car is second only to their fear of mass transit and trains in general. So to anyone who has posted an anti-environmentalist comment here… you’ve been HAD; hook, line, and sinker. What a shame…


  123. 123
    Electric Vehicle Owner

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Electric Vehicle Owner
     Says

     

    Apr 20th, 2009 (4:05 pm)

    Jim in PA 113

    Here’s the level of silliness that this blog thread has descended to.

    You forgot to also take out the opposite direction wind from the motion that using wind power at the consumer end creates (prevailing winds in US are west to east and slightly more than 50% of all traffic is westward, due to gradual westward expansion of populations in the US), so your 99.4% may be a little high. Just crack open your car window when at speed for an empirical test that energy use in transportation creates wind.

    In reality, most of the transporation wind effect from electric vehicles using wind power occurs close in geography and time to the original wind turbine interaction with wind. Now compare that to the time and geography shift that occurs with last century’s oil based transportation and you can see that oil tampers with worldwide wind far more, both in time and in place, than wind turbines do. Most oil use that creates wind through rapid transportation occurs far away from where the oil was created long ago.

    The study cited and the anti-vehicle-efficiency posters here really are purveying classic FUD as well as pure misleading information and false comparisons.

    If you really want an inefficient vehicle, may I suggest bull riding? It gets three broken bones per mile or something like that.


  124. 124
    Electric Vehicle Owner

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Electric Vehicle Owner
     Says

     

    Apr 20th, 2009 (4:21 pm)

    stranger and stranger…

    Based on Jim in PA’s analysis, stas peterson appears to be advocating knocking down tall buildings (stas’s excuse being their miniscule interaction with worldwide wind patterns). Wasn’t that already tried in 2001 to disasterous results?


  125. 125
    Electric Vehicle Owner

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Electric Vehicle Owner
     Says

     

    Apr 20th, 2009 (4:36 pm)

    Part of the premise of this article is dubious. Electric drive (including vehicles) demand is driven by many factors, which include:

    Individual consumer:
    * It can be used indoors. (see pole position raceways)
    * It offers superior off the line performance.
    * It has lower maintenance costs, including time bringing it to and from and in the shop, which saves the consumer money that they can spend on after market bling and customizing at the dealership, including aftermarket sounds.
    * It sounds really, really cool (no, it’s not totally silent and yes, you can muffle the sound for special ops).
    * It’s much cleaner, quieter, easier to clean and maintain.
    * Fuel costs are lower.
    * Fueling is easier and more convenient (hundreds of millions of outlets to thousands of gas stations and you can use a timer to charge when you’re not there).
    * Long term economics of electric drive can save the consumer money.

    Societal
    * Lowers health care costs, increases life span, less hearing damage.
    * Lowers food prices.
    * Long term economics of electric drive efficiency can save society money for use on real domestic social needs, like more electric vehicle optimized indoor race courses for teenagers.

    I suspect that the tree hugging aspect is the least important to most folks, although environment protection is ultimately more about save the people than save the planet (the latter helpd with the former). I also suspect, however, that improved national security, which electric drive provides and which the article mentions, is indeed something we all agree on.


  126. 126
    Bob G

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Bob G
     Says

     

    Apr 20th, 2009 (4:44 pm)

    #120 Chris says, “… As much as I think that electric vehicles are a neat idea, they are not the solution to our transportation problems. Right now petro-fuels are what our world runs on and the engineering focus should be to make the technology more efficient.”

    You say that “they are not the solution” as if it were a fact. Without credible sources, a counter-intuitive statement like that just gets dismissed as another misinformed opinion.

    Perhaps your oil company paycheck is clouding your vision. If we expend our engineering resources to make ICE technology more efficient, instead of on making electric vehicles more cost-effective, then we are just delaying our liberation from our oil addiction. Considering the unsustainable economic, environmental, and national security costs of fossil fuels, I would contend that continuing on the current path is irresponsible and short-sighted..


  127. 127
    jdsv

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    jdsv
     Says

     

    Apr 20th, 2009 (7:41 pm)

    Yes, that report is hugely flawed. Just to let you guys know, though… total electrical losses in generation (yes, you already knew that) and distribution are staggering.

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec2_3.pdf

    Check out the parent website http://www.eia.doe.gov for tons of great info.

    NPNS!! =D~~~


  128. 128
    LazP

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    LazP
     Says

     

    Apr 20th, 2009 (11:26 pm)

    This is the most idiotic conclusion I have read in a long time. I will not repeat my objection but many in this thread already stated the objection this stupidity. This matches the alarms raised by global warming which was raised just a short time ago and now more scientists are objecting to some of the conclusions. Electrification of transportation is the future and nothing will stop this.


  129. 129
    CO2 Emissions: EV vs Diesel - Tesla Motors Club Forum

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    CO2 Emissions: EV vs Diesel - Tesla Motors Club Forum
     Says

     

    Apr 20th, 2009 (11:47 pm)

    [...] by some knowledgeable people. (Though there are some anti-EV people taking this study as fact). http://gm-volt.com/2009/04/19/study-…-cars-fiction/ __________________ Because there are tons of crazy people in this world… Last edited by [...]


  130. 130
    ERP

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    ERP
     Says

     

    Apr 21st, 2009 (4:52 am)

    I have always wondered about how much carbon foot print we will be making by manufacturing tons of Volts (with their batteries and all), trashing old petrol cars, and generating jigawatts of electricity to power them. How about hydrogen fuel cell powered cars? There is no electricity to be generated except within the car. Still, to produce the hydrogen and to build the filling station infrastructure I am sure is no small carbon foot print. It is hard to do a good study looking at these things let alone having it be unbiased.


  131. 131
    BBHY

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    BBHY
     Says

     

    Apr 21st, 2009 (7:43 am)

    This “study” is so bad it must have been written by Ed Wood. Electricity distribution loses are ‘estimated” at 75% (!). I guess anyone can come up with an “estimate”. I ‘estimate” that the writer of the study pulled that one out of somewhere quite unpleasant.

    Try this more reasonable study instead, showing a 7.4% loss in the UK.
    http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/energy/graham.asp
    Wow, someone who actually took the time to seriously look into it found the number is ten times smaller!

    I am also wondering how those coal fired power plants produce no CO2 when powering homes, offices and factories, but when we plug in an electric car then they suddenly start belching out vast quantities of the stuff. How does the power plant know?

    Because if the power plant produces CO2 all the time, then the power plant is the problem, not the electric car. If you care about CO2 emissions, then you need to fix the power plant anyway, If you don’t then you don’t care how much the electric car produces.

    We have lots of alternatives to coal, but just try powering your diesel car from a solar panel or windmill.


  132. 132
    Electric Vehicle Owner

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Electric Vehicle Owner
     Says

     

    Apr 21st, 2009 (10:17 am)

    jdsv 127

    “total electrical losses in generation (yes, you already knew that) and distribution are staggering.”

    1. Solution: decentralized power generation (wind power) and aggregated power generation in high population density areas (solar on existing rooftops and as shade awnings on building sides – uses no new land). Cheap and easy.

    2. Those losses are far less staggering that the even more staggering losses on maintaining a cheap supply of foreign oil in volatile parts of the world. Time for electric drive, now.


  133. 133
    Electric Vehicle Owner

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Electric Vehicle Owner
     Says

     

    Apr 21st, 2009 (10:24 am)

    @ Laz P 128

    “Electrification of transportation is the future .”

    Er, no, it’s the past (consider freight trains), but this time (starting in 1997 with the Prius) it’s really getting meaningful market penetration in private cars (and other vehicles) as it’s the end game based on physics in this universe. Ding! It’s ready.


  134. 134
    Electric Vehicle Owner

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Electric Vehicle Owner
     Says

     

    Apr 21st, 2009 (10:53 am)

    @ Bob G 126
    “If we expend our engineering resources to make ICE technology more efficient, instead of on making electric vehicles more cost-effective, then we are just delaying our liberation from our oil addiction.”

    ummm, we can actually do both at the same time, which will only speed up our liberation from our oil addiction. There are appropriate places in the human world for fuel efficient gas engines, just as there still are for horses.

    Your logical fallacy is formally called “supression of alternatives.”


  135. 135
    Electric Vehicle Owner

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Electric Vehicle Owner
     Says

     

    Apr 21st, 2009 (11:00 am)

    I suppose you could call it a false dichotomy, too.


  136. 136
    Mark Z

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Mark Z
     Says

     

    Apr 21st, 2009 (5:28 pm)

    The oil industry will do all in its power to slow the acceptance of EV. Their negative ads during the EV-1 days are just a hint of whats to come.

    Owners of EV and E-REV vehicles can turn the news media around with positive messages about successful use and enjoyment of electric cars.

    To GM: If you build it, they will come and buy it.


  137. 137
    jdsv

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    jdsv
     Says

     

    Apr 21st, 2009 (6:06 pm)

    Hey, hey, 132 (Owner), you’re preaching to the choir! I just wanted to stop proliferation of the utter guesstimations made by many above. It’s a joke that the original report ignored the ALL pre-intended-use lifespan of combustible fuels.. which are extensive even for something as short-lived as french-fry biodiesel (which rocks!). Even the single act of shipping oil with diesel tankers is unsustainable..

    My goals : own a house and have voltaics installed by the time gen II hits the streets.

    NPNS!! =D~~


  138. 138
    Bob G

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Bob G
     Says

     

    Apr 21st, 2009 (6:25 pm)

    #134 Electric Vehicle Owner Says, “… we can actually do both at the same time, which will only speed up our liberation from our oil addiction.”

    Good point. I stand corrected.


  139. 139
    Mark Wagner

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Mark Wagner
     Says

     

    Apr 21st, 2009 (7:00 pm)

    After reading the source article, it does not appear to me that they took into account that an electric vehicle is inherantly far more efficient than an internal combustion engine car. (For example the Tesla roadster gets 2.18 km/MJ, while a VW Jetta Diesel gets .53 km/MJ, making the Tesla vehicle efficiency 4.1 times more efficient than the Jetta.) It is very important that EVs are inherently more efficient vehicles.

    With regards to the other assumptions, I find it very hard to believe the study’s finding that the eletric grid is only 24% efficient (i.e. 76% inefficient) or that a deisel engine car is as high as 45% efficient. This sounds to me like a theoretically perfect disel engine car.

    In the end I challenge every finding and assumption in this study.


  140. 140
    FreemonSandlewould

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    FreemonSandlewould
     Says

     

    Apr 21st, 2009 (9:09 pm)

    O gee golly willacres nasty old big oil paid for them to write this! …. pathetic liberal losers with liberal arts degrees here.

    How about energy independence is enough ?!

    The USA is on the verge of collapse and these ninny environmentalists still can not get over their fetishes.


  141. 141
    Electric Vehicle Owner

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Electric Vehicle Owner
     Says

     

    Apr 22nd, 2009 (5:51 pm)

    @ BobG 138

    oh, except that the ICE is already a mature technology. We’ve already squeezed about as much as we can out of them in theory and all that’s left to do is for the less advanced automakers to start using last century’s post 1940′s technology, such as direct fuel injection, pretty standard on most 17 year olds cheap crotch rockets.

    So, I guess that leaves electric drive related systems to work on for the engineers. My silly guess is the MOST important system left for development is the sound system with external speaker for interesting noises that the electric car owner can broadcast. Perhaps the Terminator shouting “Get out of my way! Here I come!” at 140 decibals to the the traffic in front, the modern day equivalent to the servant walking in front with a lantern?


  142. 142
    Earl

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Earl
     Says

     

    Apr 23rd, 2009 (10:31 am)

    They forgot one other big reason for going electric.
    Better performance. Oh yes, I forgot: Without impact to fuel economy.
    Go Tesla!


  143. 143
    Herman

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Herman
     Says

     

    Apr 24th, 2009 (2:32 am)

    Where is the study: ” How much C02 would it take to generate 1 liter of diesel or 1 litere of gasoline??? Before it’s in your gastank??”

    I never see those studies arround.. for fuck sake!!

    We have a gasplant generator that has efficiency of 55%.
    And here in holland we only make 30% of our total electricity out of coal.

    And i have never seen a diesel car with efficiency of 45%. I DO know that there is higher energy per litres in a liter diesel.

    I know diesels with high efficiency, but they are not inside a car. They have a fixed RPM all set to 1 RPM for max efficiency. And also timing and air/fuel mixture optimized and turbo optimized.
    Mostly used for generating electricity.


  144. 144
    Steve G

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Steve G
     Says

     

    Apr 24th, 2009 (1:21 pm)

    @127

    10 quadrillion BTU loss per year. Uhm. Big deal. The US grid capacity is somewhere around 3 Terawatt. That means your grid efficiency is still above 90% (i think, if i did my math right, and my general assumptions on usage are correct)

    Also: In ontario, there is actually excess power supply being dumped out from our nuclear plants at night these days. At one point the ontario spot price for electricity was negative for 19 hours of the day. Free power for New York i guess? Charging at night would produce absolutely 0g/km of CO2. Eat that. … I want my volt now. Please?

    Also: We don’t need to focus on making a more efficient ICE, but on making a more fuel efficient car. THey aren’t the same thing. A diesel smart car and an F-250 have similarly efficiency ICE’s. We need to make light aerodynamic vehicles.


  145. 145
    jdsv

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    jdsv
     Says

     

    Apr 25th, 2009 (11:53 pm)

    Yes, transmission and distribution are currently greater than 90% efficient, somewhere between 7 and 8%. I provided the links to stop the layman approximations and to be used as tools supporting the EV side of the argument. The data is _all_ there, no more need for approximations.

    One more thing that needs to happen : federally mandate to allow for electricity sellback. Could there be flaws in that? Sure, but they wouldn’t outweigh the positive gains.

    Recap : this was not an attack, so no need to try and argue against information that can serve to help our case. Good? Good!

    NPNS.. =D-


  146. 146
    Ken Grubb

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Ken Grubb
     Says

     

    Apr 29th, 2009 (11:44 am)

    EPRI has studied the issue. Plugins won’t bring down the grid and will improve air quality.

    http://www.epri-reports.org

    Should cleaner sources of electricity be pursued? Absolutely. More renewables is good. More nuclear power, IMHO, is essential for the near term–say the next 40-60 years. Retire the oldest, dirtiest plants and bring online newer cleaner plants.

    As for vehicles, EVs are a no-brainer. They are technologically far simpler than ICEs, HEVs, PHEVs, hydrogen powered unicorns, diesels, or diesel hybrid unicorns. EVs have fewer moving parts so fewer things to wear out.

    Since EVs will last longer, I suspect car makers will have to evolve. Eventually, fewer cars will be produced in any given year, and car makers will be able to improve things by offering existing owners upgrades. Better chargers, better batteries, etc.

    The issues of powerplants and vehicles are intertwined, to be sure, but pursuit of something better doesn’t mean we have to wait for a panacea.


  147. 147
    Electric Vehicle Solution - Forums

     

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    Electric Vehicle Solution - Forums
     Says

     

    Nov 3rd, 2009 (7:22 pm)

    [...] a conventional, inefficient (20mpg) car. I just came across this study verifying my contention: GM-VOLT : Chevy Volt Electric Car Site Blog Archive Study Calls Environmental Benefits of Electric C… "The study was performed by the group Transport Watch and found that diesel cars produce half [...]