You are operating under the mistaken assumption that, first, all electricity is generated from coal(57% is ) and that more coal is used for added electric car charging. Coal is burned 24 hrs a day, and unlike oil, if you ever had a coal stove, you don’t turn it down and back up depending on needs. To meet the needs of maximum generation during the day, with coal, there is always potential surplus heat during off peak hours with both coal as well as other non reusable sources and renewable sources. That’s when most EVs are charged. Very little if any additional coal (or nuclear) is used beyond what is made now for EVs and certainly not for the foreseeable future given how few EVs are on the road. Not only that, but as EVs become more prevalent and battery storage makes it worthwhile, buyers of EVs in sun states will easily be willing to invest in a couple of grand (after matching funds) of solar assisted power generation. The advantage then, further escalates.
Absolutely no study by reputable, has ever concluded anything other then EVs are so efficient to begin with, the pollution generated by plants alreaded producing the necessary electricity is worth e trade off of that by the cars they replace. Just start Googling independent studies instead.
The reason that EVs are so expensive is two fold. First, EV makers are forced to use expensive lithium battery technology and secondly, car companies need to recover the profits lost by producing EVs when they require minimal service after the sale. The average service of an EV looks like this. Check to see if anything is broken, check the air pressure and fill the washer fluid…that’s why both oil and ICE automotive makers are so reluctant to endorse and produce EVs. You have also quoted studies affiliated with industries dependent upon auto parts manufacturing and related energy sources.
Instead, use studies by organizations like the AAAS, the worlds largest organization of general scientist to get facts from those who actually know, who promote the development of the electric car for obvious reasons.
Nope. I cited only independent studies. About 45% of Americans will emit less CO2 with EVs compared to a Prius, about 35% the same amount, and 20% will emit LESS CO2 with a Prius. So it’s no advantage for the majority of us. Is it cheaper to charge? Yes, no road taxes are paid.
Believe me, I’ve researched this carefully. Read the links.
I took a look at the links. I did not go dig into the IEEE study. I do know this, however. None of them can “prove” any of it or answer it definitively. There is a ton of estimation and assumption that has to be done. There’s no way around it. If I really cared that much I would dig into it, and I promise you that, as a methodologist I could tear it apart. I know that because there is a no such thing as a study that isn’t full of flaws and able to be dismantled, especially for questions as large and ambiguous as this one. Arguing about the ups and downs is actually just a normal part of moving scientific and technical knowledge forward.
I also didn’t bring up the Union of Concerned Scientists report on it because I just wasn’t feeling like having an in depth discussion about it. Perhaps dagosa will - or someone else.
My own perusal of the strings of evidence and discussion says that cars are dirty. And it doesn’t matter which cars. They are all dirty. But over the long term, the “cleanest” stuff will come from getting off of the ICE, and right now electric holds the highest promise, especially to the extent that electricity generation is getting less and less dirty. On the other end, I’m much less up on what may or may not be around the corner on batteries. I do not ever cling to a single source and call it definitive. It’s just not the way complex questions work.
As for charging cars making no difference, that’s only true for an insignificant number of EVs. Once there’s a significant number they’ll make a significant impact on power demand, changing the base load and increasing the fuel used.
You need to research in more and use independent educational, governent and scientific organizations and not professional organizations with paid advertising in unrelated fields and are not independent. You have no clue what they are payed to say. Right now, you are grasping any tail that agrees with you. Just go directly to the studies done in major education, government and scientific communities. If you really want and understanding of the world around you…
Go to the AAAS web site, the largest organization of general scientist…type in EVs and you will see a plethora of studies and reports on EVs, global warming and everything else that paid lackies are against.
I never knew that Scientific American was “paid lackies”. And the statistics I quoted was from an EV booster web site.
If batteries were free EVs would be a great idea. Putting major resources behind them, to no good end, is a waste of our limited economic strength.
Solar city, a company that installs solar power systems, has a deal with Tesla to use their batteries in systems that require back-up power…Solar City is the largest installer of solar power systems in the country…The price of Tesla and Solar City stock seem to move in unison…
The next generation of Lithium batteries have amazing storage capacity. And they are reasonably light weight…
So, where is the link to the Scientific American article ? Did I miss it or did you just say you read an article ? WHen you said links, I expected to see them.
Here as a link to publications from the AAAS. If you want to do any research, here would be an excellent place to start to either reinforce or contrdict your beliefs. A good researcher will do both. If you don’t use publications from here and major universities, like MIT etc. and the US govt. ., you are doing yourself a disservice.
BTW, your quotes are very misleading on the percentages of EV users benefiting. 35% are neutral but 45% compared to 20% leaves a net gain of 25 % . That is substantial and i assume it is dependent upon where they get their electricity. It also complete negates the future ability to better control on site pollution then that from millions of cars.
I’m thinking we may have another oil glut coming with the price falling to under $50/barrel…That would cause the EV and hybrid people to fold their tent…
As far as the use of EVs is concerned, we can come up with all sorts of studies to prove or disprove our points. I value those done by major universities and the scientific community in general. It is never an intend to do anything but show which groups support the use of EVs.
Scientific American (I didn’t see any ref to that earlier either) is fine, but it’s still a magazine and not a scientific journal. It provides “newsed-up” versions of very narrow slices of the world of research. The “reporting” is normally done by the people doing the actual research so its pretty solid. But its always a cleaned-up version of the real complexity involved in any given field. And its got a somewhat naive scientistic orientation more reminiscent of textbooks than of science-in-the-making, which is always a lot messier than the textbooks. And while it has always been a worshiper of technological change as well, it always does so in a very conservative, technocratic sort of a way. Historically, my subscription to it comes has come and gone with my mood. It’s certainly way better than Discover which used to be better but has gotten very “USA Today”
Let me add that there are more then a few that make the case for EVs too from SA.
Peer reviewed publications from AAAS are more worth noting.
I think the thing that often gets on my nerves is that an actual anti-electric car thing has become more popular as a proxy for anti-environmentalism. Mark my words. The world will have functional and successful electric cars. U.S. business involvement in that can be resisted by short-sighted ideological games. Or U.S. business involvement in that can be encouraged by consumers and state incentives alike. I’ll choose the latter.
Absolutely no study by reputable, has ever concluded anything other then EVs are so efficient to begin with, the pollution generated by plants alreaded producing the necessary electricity is worth e trade off of that by the cars they replace. Just start Googling independent studies instead.//// @dagosa: A typical EV gets around 100 eMPG, right? Meaning the energy required to move it 100 miles is equal to the energy contained in a gallon of gas. Sounds good, BUT…isn’t e- generation and distribution around 36% efficient on average? That means, on an “equi-BTUs-of-burned-stuff” basis, an EV is around 36 MPG: decent, but hardly setting the world on fire.
Tesla’s current batteries are arrays of laptop batteries, effectively. They don’t share much packaging or control electronics. They really weren’t designed to be used in such large arrays so cooling is difficult.
The Tesla batteries will be better in all these respects. A pack with the same charge and power will likely be physically more compact, lighter, have cells of optimal size, and not have as many duplicated electronic components. Cooling will be simpler with housings built for it.
I’m sure they’ve kept next generation battery technologies in mind and already have ideas about producing them in this plant. Smart people at Tesla, and smart backers in Toyota. A next Gen Prius using Tesla lithium batteries might be very nice. It could certainly have a useful electric range or a smaller ice due to more powerful batteries and motors. We’ll see.
you get a pretty good idea how efficient an electric car is every time you plug it in then drive it 100 miles. Look at the increase in your electric bill compared to the cost of your fuel. It’s not rocket science. You some how think electric companies give you electricity for free, power at a discount so they can pollute the environment ?
If you own a well and amortize the cost over twenty years and compare it to city water in your area, you find they are spot on. Economics and capitalism has if figured out for you. EVs are not different.
An entire economy is driven on the maintenance and sale of a gas powered cars. If ever anyone bothered to count, both hybrids and EVs are a minuscule part of that economy. Automakers and energy companies would like to keep it that way. There is very little money to be made in the sales and service of EVs and why that also isn’t apparent to anyone who has owned a twenty year old refrigerator…is way beyond me.
They pose little threat to modern cars as the car maker is happy to make each ICE more and more complicated with more and more moving parts while gasoline is sold for $4 a gallon instead of three. A twenty percent gain in fuel efficiency while they keep slowly jacking up the price is no threat. Higher profit on less fuel ? EVs are a threat only if produced on a large scale. There is no worry of that. Politics are against it for years and years to come.
Hybrids are a cash cow because they make everyone happy. The maintenance intervals are the same, the parts are greater and the govt. helps foot the bill. Car companies love them. Petro companies could care less as there is still no free market for fuel at the pump as they keep jacking up he price, regardless of what you drive.
Having you drive a car with power directly from sunlight, instead of going through the "everybody gets a cut " process, is very close for many people. Capitalism will forstall that for many, many years.
I’m talking about CO2 emissions, I agree it takes less energy to run an EV. But given the extra cost (so far) of an EV, those fuel savings aren’t enough.
Here’s a plot from the US DOE that make my point clearly, that as far as CO2 emissions go, EVs are not significantly better than the MUCH cheaper hybrids:
It’s referenced by the EV boosting web site
Your chart reinforces my argument for the EV replacing the ICE, not hybrids. That is another issue for the following reasons. The issue gets really blurred when you compare hybrids with EVs. That is a redundancy that car makers love. I agree, a good temporary solution is a plug in hybrid with a decent range. But, count the number of hybrids on the road, the complexity and unwillingness on most manufacturers except Toyota to make them reliable, and the slant again goes to electric power. It’s the electric motor part of the car that will make the hybrid a Closer, but never equal to the EV in emissions. You will have an even greater argument in the not too distant future when some cars might reach 60 to 80 mpg, close to the break even point of EVs in energy use. What has to happen and what WILL happen when EVs become more prevelant, is the use of alternate LOCAL and dedicated power generation. There is no measure that can account for the efficiency of an EV then over any iCE. You are arguing for complexity over simplicity to achieve a number in a vehicle. That perpetuates our dependency on fossil fuels. You are arguing for the make up to remain constant. The EV needs to be developed as we move away from coal, which we have, from 53% to 49% in the last decade. That will accelerate.
The EV costs extra, only as a response to the loss of revenue to maintenance, parts and complicated R and D needed to perpetuate the continued use of the ICE. If a functional battery were ready today (which it is) to give an EV a range of 200 miles, cost would still be a factor because of the displacement factor where the ICE is concerned.
From my understanding in earlier reports I read…Tesla expects to reduce the cost of the battery by streamlining the manufacturing process. That plus shipping costs they say will reduce the cost by two thirds.
For the buyer ? It won’t translate into that much savings, but that would be great of it did. !