Electric cars...environmentally unfriendly?

[billc]

Well, just when you thought electric cars were good for the environment a stooge for big oil comes in and ruins the day...er...perhaps this guy isn't a stooge for big oil?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324128504578346913994914472.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

A 2012 comprehensive life-cycle analysis in Journal of Industrial Ecology shows that almost half the lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions from an electric car come from the energy used to produce the car, especially the battery. The mining of lithium, for instance, is a less than green activity. By contrast, the manufacture of a gas-powered car accounts for 17% of its lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions. When an electric car rolls off the production line, it has already been responsible for 30,000 pounds of carbon-dioxide emission. The amount for making a conventional car: 14,000 pounds.

While electric-car owners may cruise around feeling virtuous, they still recharge using electricity overwhelmingly produced with fossil fuels. Thus, the life-cycle analysis shows that for every mile driven, the average electric car indirectly emits about six ounces of carbon-dioxide. This is still a lot better than a similar-size conventional car, which emits about 12 ounces per mile. But remember, the production of the electric car has already resulted in sizeable emissions—the equivalent of 80,000 miles of travel in the vehicle.

So unless the electric car is driven a lot, it will never get ahead environmentally. And that turns out to be a challenge. Consider the Nissan Leaf. It has only a 73-mile range per charge. Drivers attempting long road trips, as in one BBC test drive, have reported that recharging takes so long that the average speed is close to six miles per hour—a bit faster than your average jogger.

To make matters worse, the batteries in electric cars fade with time, just as they do in a cellphone. Nissan estimates that after five years, the less effective batteries in a typical Leaf bring the range down to 55 miles. As the MIT Technology Review cautioned last year: "Don't Drive Your Nissan Leaf Too Much."

If a typical electric car is driven 50,000 miles over its lifetime, the huge initial emissions from its manufacture means the car will actually have put more carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere than a similar-size gasoline-powered car driven the same number of miles. Similarly, if the energy used to recharge the electric car comes mostly from coal-fired power plants, it will be responsible for the emission of almost 15 ounces of carbon-dioxide for every one of the 50,000 miles it is driven—three ounces more than a similar gas-powered car.

Even if the electric car is driven for 90,000 miles and the owner stays away from coal-powered electricity, the car will cause just 24% less carbon-dioxide emission than its gas-powered cousin. This is a far cry from "zero emissions." Over its entire lifetime, the electric car will be responsible for 8.7 tons of carbon dioxide less than the average conventional car.

 

[Sukerkin]

That's not news mate :lol:. I've been saying all along that the Green Case for electric cars was based on a faulty analysis of what pollution they actually cause - same thing with wind turbines (they never operationally pay back the pollution cost of their manufacture and installation).

But you can't take these things in isolation. We need an alternative to fossil fuel for transport so that we can stop wasting petrochemicals to do it. That's the argument that the pro-electric brigade should be making - the environmental one is a side issue.

 

[Steve]

This is the same old BS. There are threads on this forum already which go into these issues in detail. I'll try to sum up so that this thread can die, as they always do.

1: Less than 50% (closer to 40%) of all electricity in the USA is produced using coal. In some areas, such as in Washington where I live, very little is coal generated. 0% of the energy I use is derived from coal. It's mostly bio-electric and nuclear.

2: Somewhere close to 100% of the electricity used to generate energy in America is made in America. This includes coal. We sell far more coal to other countries (Canada) than we import. So, from an energy independence standpoint, electricity is, IMO, patriotic. It's certainly my primary reason for purchasing an EV.

3: Well to wheel energy production has to be considered in context. It takes electricity to run an electric car. It also takes electricity to make gasoline. It takes gasoline to make gasoline, as well. If you look at the production chain for gasoline as it is being considered by people who are drumming up arguments against EVs, there is no comparison.

4: Battery technology is progressing. Gasoline technology is not. In other words, there are a million different ways to generate electricity, but the way we refine oil is pretty much the same way we've done it since forever. The advances in gasoline have been in getting to places previously unreachable to get to the oil.

5: Competition is good for the market. Isn't it? With viable EVs on the market, we've already seen major improvements in ICE/Hybrid performance. Without the competition, there would be no incentive for auto manufacturers to push higher MPG automobiles onto the market.

6: This is one of those articles that presumes that everyone who drives an EV is a treehugging, smug, liberal hippy, and really argues primarily against this. Frankly, it's insulting. I'm none of those things, and can't understand why "conservatives" would ever campaign actively against the technology. There are so many aspects to EVs that an actual conservative should be championing. Until I realize that the folks doing this are not actually conservative. They're Republicans.

7: Many people, particularly in this economy, are looking for ways to save some cash in the household budget. I've got close to 20,000 miles on an actual electric car that I've driven in all kinds of weather. I've saved well over $3,000 in that time on fuel.

 

[billc]

Welllll...Bjorn Lomborg is hardly a conservative...and he sides more with the tree hugging, smug, liberal hippy types on global warming issues.

 

[Steve]

Welllll...Bjorn Lomborg is hardly a conservative...and he sides more with the tree hugging, smug, liberal hippy types on global warming issues.

So, out of seven points, the only one you could counter was the allegation that the intended audience for your article are conservatives? Fine. While I find the tenor of these articles personally insulting, it's just that: personal. I concede this point and appreciate that you are conceding the other six. Thank you.

Edit: I did notice an error in point #1 of my post, which I can no longer edit. I said "bio-electric." Of course, I meant hydro-electric. Was posting fast.

Here's a great summary of the State's energy profile. http://www.eia.gov/state/print.cfm?sid=WA

You can see we get the lion's share of our energy from water.