This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
"Electric Cars Are Doing More Harm Than Good" Professor Warns
"An electric car does not make you green... You’re better off filling up at the pump," if you live in Canada. According to a new study by professor Chris Kennedy, even if every driver in Canada made the switch - from gas to electric - the total emissions might not actually go down... since in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia, electric cars generate more carbon pollution over their lifetimes than gas-powered cars. Paging Al Gore...
As CBC reports, trying to go green by replacing your gas guzzler with an electric car? In some provinces, that may actually be worse for the environment, a University of Toronto researcher says.
In Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia, electric cars generate more carbon over their lifetimes than gas-powered cars, said Chris Kennedy, a professor of civil engineering at the University of Toronto, in an interview with CBC's The Current Tuesday.
That's because those provinces generate much of their electricity by burning coal, so consuming more electricity – by charging your electric car battery, for instance – significantly boosts carbon emissions.
"So… literally, if you're living in Alberta, Saskatchewan or Nova Scotia, an electric car does not make you green?" asked Anna Maria Tremonti, host of The Current. "You're better off filling up at the pump?"
"You're better off filling up at the pump," Kennedy agreed. "Or if you really want to go for something greener, you should be buying a conventional hybrid car."
However, in the rest of Canada, driving an electric car is the greener choice, he found.
He figured that out by looking at the carbon emissions generated by gas and electric cars over their entire life cycle, taking into account the source of electricity used to charge their batteries and how the gas used to fuel a conventional car is produced in different parts of the world.
The carbon emissions from electricity generation are measured in tonnes of CO2 emitted per gigawatt hour of electricity produced. That ranges from:
- Close to 0 for hydroelectric, nuclear and renewable energy.
- 500 to 600 for natural gas power plants.
- 1,000 for coal-fired power plants.
For a given country or province, if average emissions were under 600 tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt hour, then switching from conventional to electric cars, buses and trucks will lead to a reduction in carbon emissions, Kennedy reported in a study published in the journal Nature Climate Change earlier this month.
In some Canadian provinces, that reduction in emissions can be quite dramatic – B.C., Quebec, Manitoba, and Newfoundland all produce less than 20 tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt hour of electricity, so driving an electric car can reduce emissions to close to zero.
Ultimately, however, the study's goal isn't to help consumers make decisions about what car to buy, Kennedy said.
The take-home message is actually for governments in some Canadian provinces and other countries: That they need to get their average emissions below the 600-tonne threshold so they can benefit from technology like electric cars.
"Electrification," he said, "is the most pivotal strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions worldwide."
* * *
Just wait til China gets wind of this...
- 60538 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


Let me summarize:
If you live in Alberta, Saskatchewan or Nova Scotia driving an electric car is like stabbing Mother Nature in the face five times, while driving a gasoline-powered car is like stabbing Mother Nature in the face only four times.
If you live in the other provinces it's the reverse.
Get it?
I charge mine up with my solar panels. It works great for what I need it for. When the SHTF there will be no liquid fuel around.
I'll give you a ride on cloudy days. Or when your solar panels get dirty when you haven't cleaned them. Or when a hurricane blows them away. Or when it snows. Or winter.
And when you have to spend another $50,000 to get them replaced in ten years I'll provide you the loan.
I'll wave at you with your gas can sitting in line at the gas station. Remember those days? My solar panels will most likely outlive both of us. I can also make electricity with my wood gasifier system from wood chips, propane, biodiesel, kerosene, alcohol etc.. I'm not locked into the fossil fuel jive like most of the people on this planet. I'm sure that BP, and Haliburton will be thinking of all of you little folks when the SHTF. Obama will need all of your stuff to fight off the "bad guys". P.S. I have plenty of vehicles that run on the liquid stuff as well. The bottom line is that I can turn almost any type of fuel into electricity can you make gasoline out of oil?
Real issue here is the generation of electricity and power by means of burning coal - Canada has done an excellent job of moving away from the burning of this particular fossil fuel (compared to our American counterparts in the Western world) because of its monumental detrimental impact on Canadian ecosystems. This report is attempting to tackle the issue in terms of periphery pollution instead of attacking the real issue facing Canada - how can we reduce our carbon footprint at the outset of power generation as opposed to attempting to tackle the issue of environmental protection by attacking those products that are doing an excellent job of both supporting Canadian ecosystems as well as the Canadian economy. Given how much the value of our Loonie has plummeted, maybe it is time to move to aggressive investment of renewable energy technologies, in turn reducing the emissions created by electric vehicles as well as reducing the need for burning fossil fuels, as a means of backstopping our GDP.
From my personal propaganda department :
petrodollar, the light at the end of the tunnel is the electric car coming to run you over
or
petrodollar, look the electric car in the headlights and despair
Not only is CO2 not the problem - CO2 is essential for life.
Now that "they" have everyone using their fake Federal Reserve Notes and paying interest (i.e. slave labor) to the IRS in perpetuity, "they" will eventually tax your breathing out of CO2. Because, you know, CO2 is a killer gas...
Wait till the pig men realize that water vapor retains 60% more heat then C02. Then they can tax us for breathing AND using water.
For shits and giggles, could you tell us what the earths average temperature would be if non-condensing green house gases were somehow removed and roughly how long it would take to reach equilibrium??
No more bozo theories & doctored #s. Real science requires empirical proof. Where the fuck is it??? Show the positive results of the tested hypothesis. Show it is repeatable.
For example, abiotic oil hypothesis, as crazy it may seem, has been proven in a lab. Show this and there will be converts.
You only demonstrate that you are a moron or a liar with each and every additional post you make...
Abiotic oil, really? Do you also believe in Santa Claus?
As for CO2, I suggest you learn a little about empirical IR spectroscopy and absorption and get back to us in a few years...
You mean how the absorption of CO2 is logarithmic and once saturated there is no effect? Which means doubling CO2 has no effect?
Oh, would you like to point to a measure that suppors that statement?
After all that should be easily demonstrable in the lab with a glass tube of full C02 and a IR laser....
So it appears that you are easily fooled by liars smarter than you that just say things that makes you feel better...
Because you certainly have no idea what you are talking about...
Lets see you scale your lab created oil and create a few million barrels per day.
Even better question is to have a Greenie explain what the best stabalized earth temperature is.
Arguing about whether temperature changes is pointlesss as we know that we are still having normal increase in comming out of the last ice age.
Just answer the question and stop building strawmen...
Oh, but the question is clearly above your pay grade, sorry, my bad...
No. This is a serious question, not a strawman. If we are spending billions of taxpayer dollars to reduce CO2 emissions then there should be a goal as seen in the temperature, since this is the result we are fighting. What is the goal? When do we know we can stop paying taxes for it? What should the global average temperature be Flak? What is the optimal temperature? Who gets to decide that? How do I get the job, cause I loves me some San Diego weather, which averages about 10F higher than the global average.
Considering that the non-condensing gases comprise 3% of the GHG and the temperature increase in the last 50 years has been, generously, 0.6C then .03 * .6 = .018 C change in the last fifty years. Now, according to the EPA the amount of GHG that is man-made CO2 is .117% or .00117 * .6C = .000702C increase in temperature due to man-made CO2. OH THE WHOMANITY! Since the average temperature is approximately 59F I would guess that the average temperature would be approximately 59F, instantly.
You really ought to just give it up and just google up the answer...
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/la09300d.html
witht the following money plot:
https://chriscolose.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/lacis_etaal.jpg
You should change your avatar to "captain obvious". No shit, CO2 is essential for life. Now try breathing too much of it and see how your life goes. Because that is the point. Some good too much bad. Very simple. On your other topic...yes the g**mn Fed needs to be throughly audited and decommissioned.
Funny thing. NASA conducted this experiment where they put astronauts in a room and subjected them to increased levels of CO2. At 10,000 ppm there was no effect. Only at 14,000 ppm was there some light headedness. Don't worry, we won't get there.
Burn down every forest on Earth and we won't get anywhere near CO2 levels that would cause any harm whatsoever. You will die of the carbon soot much much faster.
You forgot the "and then they went out for lunch" part.
Speaking of Captain Obvious - breath any gas in qty and expect to die. CO2 is not the problem. Greenhouse effect is not the problem. Pollution - well - that may be a problem. Cancer agents in the gasoline - that may be a problem. Carcinogens and Mutagens in the Food - that may be a problem.
Never said anything about auditing the Fed - you must be delusional.
You sound so, um, sure. I see the problem is you changed, like magic, from "...THE problem; ...THE problem" to "...A problem; A problem."
tisk tisk
The real way to go green with automotive application would be to plug the car into an inverter and run your house on the electricity your car made during the commute. In the morning, the gas or preferably diesel engine gets you to work and recharges the battery so you can watch TeeVee at night.
Big mining of raw materials for Electric cars is just like emissions testing once you account for the lights in the building people driving to work in the building idling outside the building driving to the building air conditioning the building moving the materials from and to the build site computers electric to run them the forest cut down for the paper print out I can go on and on. Added to old cars go to the junk yard new ones have better emissions you do more harm testing for smog controls you only have to update new cars as the rate we buy them is enough.
Only a money grab or the police state is checking more than emissions when they plug the computer in.
This makes no sense at all. And for us not to stop it tells me something about Americans those being bombed by us already know.
Article only fights the CO2 crowd. Electric cars increase demand for nuke power. Simplifying nuke power greenness by only measuring CO2 is just as delusional as the Tesla owner who thinks he is doing environmental good.I'm a hybrid owner for past 10yrs and won't buy Tesla.
Thanks, as all you green liberals that think your saving the planet and oil.
Your making oil cheaper and more plentiful for my SUV and boat.
I'll try not to run over you with my big SUV.
I would recommend ZHs read the work of Dr. Tim Ball, 'The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science'.
I would bet ZHs read the work of Dr. Tim Ball, 'The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science'.
FIFY
p.s. Dr. Willy Soon too
Dr Tim Ball is a retired geography professor, funded by Exxon et al, and has never published anything peer-reviewed for his dubious climate claims I will bet he is in it for the grants. You know, like all the scientists.
Just a thing or two.
Fuel taxes to pay for roads. Tax evaision?
Battery recycling ? No.
Batteries suck in both hot and cold temps. Below 40f and above 100f. Heating and AC kill the effectivness of E cars big time.
Fancy batteries suck. Ask Boing.
They dont scale well. In any aspect.
Take away the government cheese and poof these cars vanish.
One more thing. VWs xl1 sets the bar far beyond anything one could hope to get out of an E car. Vw did not even make it as good as they could have. They use an electric regenerative brake system. If they did the regen thing with a flywheel system the car would end up at nearly 500 miles per gallon of diesel. Oh we could make some extreamly clean burning diesel fuel from trash and sewage rather cheaply if we had the will.
But you wont hear that from any experts.
jmo But what do I know.
One valcano eruption can produce more co2 than a year of autos
source, or your calculations ?
Making shit up is never a very good debating tactic...
Seems to work well in DC.
DC is playing in another league than ZH as far as average target audience goes.
Very true.
Going on 18 years of global satellite data showing virtually no detectable global change in temperature trend means that the good Prof's remarks merely inform me that the environmental temp of Earth was not altered by the billions of people driving cars during the past 18 years.
i.e. the entire thing is a red-herring based on a false axiom.
Well, except that he's fundamentally wrong about the economics as well, as it's actually vastly cheaper to refuel both hybrids, or full electric cars, as compared to refueling a conventional powered auto.
All in all a totally mindless article that was entirely misconceived and also totally wrong on the price signal.
You don;t mean the satellite that is known to have a decaying orbit and which everyone agrees that the data is flawed? Including the Christy and Spencer, two of the last credible academics that dispute AGW??? From Spencer
BTW, here is a quote from the scientist, Carl Mears, responsible for the analysis of the RSS data
After last weekend, I didn't expect to see you back til about... Father's Day.
You realize it takes me an hour to compose a reply on important topics, right? LOL
Slow saturday and I am feeling hornery...
Just hilarious flako!
I do not buy your simple denial-ism of satellite observations, as I've seen these same sorts of parsimonious discussions and denial attempts for two decades surrounding 3-D space based geodetic observation for similar reasons. Do you realize all satellites have a decaying orbit?
That systematic movement was recognized during the 1960s and had determined by the 1970s that the corrections to orbital altitude 'drift' was due to an unexplained secular cause, which was not an artifact of atmospheric drag. i.e. the 'error' it induced was not due to global warming of the atmosphere (above what normally occurs for solar variation, etc), as it turned out it was due to geodetic movement of the earth itself which VLBI then SAR and GPS have all since confirmed, that earth is expanding slowly at around 3 to 4 mm per year, when averaged globally over the absolute 3-D movement in the dataset with respect to the location of the physical geometric center of earth.
Which was something no one had expected the earth to be doing, but it is. So all satellites are getting systematically closer to earth's surface, over time, hence the secular decay of all orbits, of all satellites, unrelated to tenuous atmospheric drag whatsoever.
But if you had just made the mistake of continually correcting for that change in radial distance from the surface, and ignored that it was happening in the background at all times, you would simply fail to notice that secular trend already present in space based precision geodetic positioning data, showing that the distance to the center of earth had not changed for the satellite at all. In fact, it was just the distance to the surface an to the atmosphere above it that was changing with respect to the satellite.
Which meant the surface was getting higher. Which means satellite orbits are actually not secular decaying at all (as had been prior assumed), they were instead remaining constant! It was Earth's surface that was NET rising closer to the satellites every year in the signal.
Which to a receiver network on the surface it looked like the satellite was getting closer (which it was), and in a decaying orbit (which it wasn't with respect to the center of earth's location). It was actually the other way around from the presumption! The receiver network was what is moving higher, with respect to its distance from the center of earth.
So the satellites themselves and their measurements were good, the 'errors' had nothing to do with the satellites and their apparent orbital 'drift'.
The drift 'error' as it turned out was actually the scientifically valid signal, which told us so much more about the earth than we had ever imagined about its stunning geodynamic movements.
So if you had (like you apparently would) just assumed it was a change due to atmospheric drag from a warmer atmosphere, you would have completely missed the geodetic fact that it was earth and its atmosphere that was doing the changing and the satellites had been working as designed and telling the natural material truth of things all along.
It was the people who didn't like the data trend in the satellite signals who were claiming the satellites were recording an 'error' and that is must be ignored and corrected away, who were completely wrong and acting unscientifically, as this alleged error was a perfectly valid and correct signal, that opened up a whole new field of understanding about how earth really operates.
So no flako, I am not going to buy into your shallow hapless attempt to simply deny and denigrate and likewise ad-hoc cast away the observational scientific satellite temp observations that you object to which is by far the best record that science has available today, which just happens to show zero change in global heating for the past 18 years.
So please try some other lame idiotic denialism excuse approach.
--
As for the surface observations being more reliable, precise and representative of the temp trends of earth with time!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
You mean like the current BOM ACORN adjusted-to-oblivion dataset, which has been opaquely adjusted/interpolated/reviewed repeatedly, to the point of where it's now an a-scientific meaningless nonsense, and effectively the systematic rejection of the the whole concept of presenting a representative historical surface point-source record of the entire historical datasets?
Only a complete idiot would be so desperate and willfully daft, or else deliberately deceptive, as to tru to 'scientifically' assert that the surface point-source record, that has been interpolated across hundreds, and in the case of the extremely patchy BOM record, literally thousands of km between sites, is somehow superior to the non-point source and non interpolated datasets of satellites!
Like I said: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
lol ... good grief!
And yes, I can post literally hundreds of webpages of detailed analysis which prove that beyond any level of doubt. But you already know that, just as you also already actually know that your claim that the surface record is more accurate today than satellite data is absolutely hopelessly ludicrous a-scientific junk, at its worst.
But you asserted it anyway! Your credibility is zero and disinterested objectivity is non-existent within you. You are a hand-waving ideologue fighting against the measured reality and best instrumentation humanity has ever had.
But that's you all over dear flako.
PS: recommend you don't use GPS when driving, much too dodgy, full of thermal anomaly errors from heat-island effect! Dangerous stuff, might run you into a brick wall. Try reverting to compass and paper maps plus a slide-rule ... yeah, and better invest in an abacus ... at least then you might get lost with all your complete phoney bullshit!... :D
Wow...
Where did you find the above nonsense?
How can we trust the satellite data coming from the EVIL NASA data manipulators? ; )
So what do satellites measure? Well, surface temps, temps in the different layers of the atmosphere? And what are they showing for the last 18 years? yeah, no significant spikes, up or down.
What don't satellites measure? Temps below the ocean surface. What is the data on temps in the top two layers of the water column?
So here's a simple jpg showing the data for 1) land, atmosphere, and cryosphere COMBINED 2) ocean heat content from 0 down to 700 feet, and 3) ocean heat content from 700 feet down to 2000 feet.
jpg
This shows that there is a pause in 1) but it is dwarfed by the increases in 2 & 3.
Rational overall conclusion?
"There is no pause" Chris Field and Michelle Jarraud 31MAR14
false axiom? possibly, but it's also possible to die in a plane crash, or as Flak put it last weekend, 95% confidence level.
-----------------
what's on the platter tonight? : )
Actually the satellites measure the microwave "brilliance" arising from scattering off of oxygen...
I find it hilarious when the denialati try to use the most model dependent measurement of the global temperature as the basis of their argument...
Here are some of the important corrections (at least for UAH)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset#Correctio...
Thanks for the edu : ) I do the best I can as a stooopid farmer ; ) !!!
Denialati, with emphasis. Denier. Likened to holocost denier it is presumed. How I pity those who resort to using this term. This term is not offensive, for me, due to the connotations of holocaust denial – if that is really how or why the term was originally concocted, it is clearly enough to tell you that that someone feels very emotionally defensive about their beliefs in anthropogenic climate change. Rather, the term is much more offensive on a fundamentally intellectual and academic level: 1) the skeptic community of proper scientists has never denied the existence of climate change, 2) climate change is not synonymous with human influences, a-priori, 3) climate change is well-known to have always occurred in all time-scales and periods that humans have data for, 4) the only thing that one can actually deny about the climate is that it would be changing right now without human influence. The abuse and insult to logic by users of this term should be enough for any rational person to dismiss their claims out of hand, with no further justification necessary. A person simply cannot be a competent thinker and use this term with intention; nor could one have competent scientific values or principles in using this term while knowing what fraud it is. I can only conclude that the language and definitions and terms used in the swath of so-called climate change science has somehow degraded to a point where it is actually no longer possible to have any semblance of a rational and aware discourse at all.
Don't play with matches, given that strawman you just created you could easily self-immolate yourself..
Global Warming Denier is perfectly valid description, get over it...
The satellite data trend shows virtually zero global warming for 18 years.
You're "not even wrong" flako, there's simply nothing there in the data to deny.
You are apparently seeing figments of wild imaginings matey!
ROFL :D
Get back to us when something actually "changes", as per your pet serially failed IPCC GHG models.
haha! ... just too funny.
Jog or use a bicycle you fat fuckers out there.
electric bikes are really taking off in Belgium
Thats right about the limit of the scale that battery power works in. Also no heating or AC.
on a serious note, in the winter an e-bike might be preferable to a small motorcycle. On an ebike you are still exercising and working muscles generate heat. On a motorcycle you sit still and "freeze".
Wow, they will be needing another nuclear power station soon to plug them all into
or wind and solar. In the harbour of Antwerp they are going to put 100 additional windmills, these ones with a height of 150 meters each. Impressive to you Americans ?
Great and when the wind dont blow, the cycles dont flow. The Belgians will be re-inventing the candle before you know it
Can you cycle on a candle ?
Belgium, for the most part flat, also a tiny tiny little country, where whether you are in town village or city you are never far from all the amenities you need. Trouble is matey, Belgium is not like the rest of the world. What use is your shitty little electric bike if you live in the mountains, or you are a 100 miles from the nearrest store, no fucking use at all, that what, now fuck off and stop wasting our time here
"you are a 100 miles from the nearrest store"
You do realise urbanisation is one of the major global trends, or not ?
Yeh I know a lot of farmers who are chosing to live in the city on the whims of a trend lol, fucking silly cunt, go away and stop wasting my fucking time, limp wristed prick
very compelling
And that's why it never pays to argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
No, not impressive at all. Repulsive. EXTREME VISUAL BLIGHT !!! Bird choppers. Not environmentally friendly. Keep them in Antwerp. I don't want those hideous propellers anywhere here.
well, I do not know where you are from and what your alternatives are
You asked if Americans are impressed with windmills and I answered that I am not impressed. I like solar power but it has a long way to go. I can't afford it yet.
There's enough pig shit in Holland and Belgium to light up all of western Europe.
High Country News: "Annual bird kill in the US: wind turbines, 28,500; buildings, 550 million; power lines, 130 million; cats, 100 million; cars, 80 million; pesticides, 67 million."
emphasis mine
Listen, even the most radical eco-freaks do not want those things spoiling their views and introducing infrasonic thumping into their neigborhoods. Wind power may have a place, but it is not for populated areas. I repeat, wind farms are visual and sonic blights that are not worth the trouble.
Listen: sign sign everywhere a sign, blockin' up the scenery breakin' my mind...
Limo-liberal much NIMBY?
Save the birds!!!
After putting your Dutch shoulder out trying to pat yourself on the back...research China's rare earth mine tailings and how local babies are being born dead, and resident's are dying from rare cancers... because of the toxicity in their drinking water... China is providing the rare earth metals for your wind turbines and solar panels.
Rare earth metals in my wind turbines? whocouldaknOwd! Tanks gawd der nown in my car. Or ma tomahawks.
I'm probably wasting my time telling you this, but look up neodymium magnets and dysprosium in wind turbines.
I don't need to look it up. Our industrial economy strip mining the pale blue dot is a never-ending chain of ecological horror stories. Every community has a story to tell, know what I mean? These tragedies, heart-breaking as they are are NOTHING compared to what's coming down the tracks:
"Now we are at the point where some of the excuses which were used in Copenhagen 2009 for not taking action, which was basically some uncertainties on some of the questions, although there was a lot of evidence on many of them, now is no longer valid.
It's no longer tenable. Ignorance can no longer be used as an excuse for no action and this is a fundamental difference compared to 2009. Why? Because in 50 years from now, actually in 30 years from now, governments, but not only governments, decisions makers at all levels can be held accountable for the decisions which are not taken now. Because knowledge is there. WE KNOW. We have no excuse for no action. Thank You."
Dr. Michell Jarraud, Secretary General World Meteorological Organization, 02NOV14 in Copenhagen speaking at the IPCC AR5 WG4 press release.
Perhaps you haven't noticed but we're now talking in terms of runaway global warming precipitating catastrophic climate change resulting in The Sixth Mass Extinction
I suggest you read Radical Marijuana's comments to get a feel for what the most likely scenario is for humans in the run-up to the 6th ME and try to get a feel for what he means when he says "death insanities"
Look up Canfield Oceans and try to envision what that means for all higher forms of life on this planet, NOT JUST HUMANS.
My purpose in being facetious is to snap you out of your trance, have you try not to misconstrue what Jarraud said, and understand what is really going to go down in Paris this December at COP 21 / CMP 11. For all intents and purposes, we either change the way we do politics there, and that opens the door to changes for the better everywhere, or we kiss it ALL goodbye.
Save the birds? / facepalm
Yeah, and only eat lentils from now on you cow munching bastards.
Elephant in the room (Overpopulation)
(Debt) Solution in the room? (Elephant -size murder)
Step 1
Build Solar Powered Motorcycle Charging Station
Step 2
Build Solar Powered Electric Motorcycle
?
Profit
O wait, most Americans are 300 LB and cant balance on two wheels.
hmm
Step 1
Build Solar Powered Power Chair Motor Scooter Charging Stations
Step 2
Build Massive amounts of Walmart Motor Scooters
??
Profit
The highways of the future
http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/They_06cda2_156673.jpg
It always comes as a shock to cyclists when they realise that not everyone shares their passion for two wheels
I used to think an electric motorcyle might have a better range due to its light weight. But that's just not true. Motorcycles don't have enough space to carry enough batteries to produce a better range than a Tesla S.
electric cars are a scam
the batteries produce way more toxix waste than cars do
elon would be a hero if he invested all that time and money into producing algae fuels instead of electric cars for the Silicon Valley elite...
Chris Kennedy = Big Oil shill.
Many of the Tesla's driving around my parts would not be on the streets without the substantial tax incentives.
If your burning coal to make electricity it makes no sense to try and reduce emmisions. Its just not possible just like Ted Cruz and Steve Harper always said.
The argument above is certified Cruz crazy.
There's another aspect to this comparison of the carbon footprint between gasoline powered and electric, and that's the manufacture of both vehicles. The manufacture of the Lithium/ION battery alone creates a much larger carbon footprint than the manufacture of an internal combustion engine, and who is to say in 7-10 years of regular use, diminishing returns on the range may mean you'll need a new battery?
Add a clueless operator and that battery life thing gets bad fast. Screw up one time and you will know.
I can only imagine the problems starting an electrically powered vehicle at minus 40!
Hahahahahahah.
hmm, starting an engine is always electric I thought
Ever try to start a car at -40?
There are engine heating systems so there should be similar systems for the battery.
There is no good solution thats practical. Keeping a 600 lb battery warm over night is no small trick. The batteries are set up to shed heat because they must be. Catch 22.
Also, heat efficiency of even fossil-fuel power plants approaches 50%, while typical cars are probably about 25%. Then transmission losses average 10% or so. There may be efficiences there to be had, the limiting factor remains batteries.
I've never really looked at battery efficiency, apparently not too good at full charge, curious. Maybe supercapacitors are better there ... if only they were a tad safer.
I still say we're ignoring the elephant in the room.
There are 4000 to 5000 alternate-energy patents declared "classified" for reasons of national security (elitist insecurity). http://www.siriusdisclosure.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Energy-Suppre...
Even within publicly available technology we should all have hybrid electric / bloom energy cell cars http://notpetroleum.com/2010/02/27/bloom-energy-and-the-electric-car/
This is not a "global warming" crisis.
This is not an "energy" crisis.
This is a technology suppression crisis.
All three are indeed crisis'. All three are derivatives of the POLITICAL SCIENCE crisis.
(+1 for elitist insecurity!)
I see the ad hominem attacks and internet scientists are out in force once again at ZH.
japan's 'hydrogen fuel cell'...
I found this somewhere. It was on a forum and I saved it.
"Currently 65-70% of all electricity generated in the US is from fossil fuels.
A vast majority of those fossil fuel electric power plants are about 35-38% thermal efficient. The balance of the fuel's energy is wasted.
Electricity is wasted during the distribution in the power lines, charging the battery, vampire battery losses, and discharge losses when operating the vehicle.
The net result is that a Tesla uses about 20-23% of the energy value in the fuel.
On the other hand, a Prius hybrid vehicle uses about 40% of the energy in the fuel.
So, a hybrid is almost twice as energy efficient as a pure EV. PLUS, the EV is much heavier which further decreases energy efficiency.
Yes, an electric motor is about 95-98% energy efficient, but that is the smallest part of the equation.
When you can assure me that all EV's will not use electric grid power and will only use self generated non-fossil fuel I will start listening to your biased nonsense which, at this time, is not supported by any back of the envelope scientific analysis. "
it might be better to work out the grams CO2/KM travelled.
An EV looks pretty good, that way because gasoline refining is an energy intensive business.
Oh, I'm sure it would be. But only because AGW activist politics has unilaterally changed the coordinate system of the problem from energy/thermodynamic efficiency as the goal (which is now apparently a grievous act of climate 'changing' sabotage) to any number of ratios, take your pick, as long as it has atmospheric CO2 concentration in the numerator.
Studies show that C02 from nuclear is closer to a natural gas plant if you take the full fuel cycle into account.
Seems electric cars are more about where the polution is created, rather than preventing it. Additionally, the battery problem is perhaps bigger than the emisssions problem. Whatever keeps California thinking of itself as forward thinking though...
Apart from the fact that trilobites once drove very polluting cars, Earth's "average" temperature, (not its median;)) appears to saturate at 25C. Equatorial weather here we come! Again!
Must have been a Koch or Heritage Foundation study.
In that case it must have been the BEST collaborative work.
Total horseshit, I know a few people that are TOTALLY off the grid . using solar, and thats in Northern Europe. They pay ZERO to recharge their electric cars.
It's possible to kickstart and maintain any fairyland in isolation. But first use an abundance of products that could only originate and be produced ON the grid.
Here is an electric car that does not use masssive batteries. It uses a salt water flow batery. Tested and approved for use on European roads:
Source:
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/09/27/salt-water-powered-car-gets-approval-in-europe-yes-its-real/
Here is a Water powered truck:
http://pesn.com/2010/08/10/9501686_Future_Energy_runs_truck_on_100_Percent_Hydroxy/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3n0HmpgGz8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjqkHhWUKOU
Based on improvements to the Stan Meyer water car patent 4936961
Here is a Tesla coil which can provide free electricity for home or electric car:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xUjJjBUdwE
And don't forget, these things don't burn jet fuel:
http:tiny.cc/USAF-ETV
They have their own self-contained energy source that will work in your home or automobile.
Source: http://www.DisclosureProject.org