Study Finds Electric Cars Dirtier than Gas

[Vprbite]

I have been telling people this for some time that, while an electric cars are an interesting technology, electricity doesn't come from unicorn farts. We have to damn rivers, burn coal and even wind farms are not without an environmental cost. Plus, let's not forget the evil stuff in batteries. And no battery lasts forever. My guess is soon we will have a glut of batteries to dispose of. I guess what bothers me is the self-rightous electric car owners that I have come across that seem to believe they are better and more evolved than this knuckle dragging moron that I apparently am. Who then refuse to believe that their cars have an environmental impact. Here in Arizona, mining is a big deal and I love when I see the anti-mining bumper stickers on an electric car. The irony sends my head spinning.

Sorry for the rant. Here is the link

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/study-electric-car-may-not-114859842.html

[Chorps]

I believe the studies for environmental costs do factor in the life cycle of the batteries as well. Batteries are tough to make and tough on the environment when disposed of improperly, but batteries can be recycled/recovered.

Also the headline is not fully correct, it is not black and white, and every choice has an environmental impact, whether you choose gas cars or electric cars.

From the article, electric car 'emissions' are very dependant on the source of the electrical generation, naturally. The study from the link says if your source is a coal burning plant, electric cars are worse than internal combustion for enviro impact. Almost all the other sources have the electric car as being cleaner than internal combustion engined counterparts.

I'm pretty sure this is more an indictment on 'clean coal' more than anything else. It points to the fact that coal burning plant emissions are pretty brutal environmentally, even worse than gas cars.

[Vprbite]

Absolutely there is more to it than a simple one is better than the other.

I think it's good to point out that electric cars are no environmental "freebie." I think it is promising technology and as things get more efficient, we may see things change. I would like that. I suppose it's the self righteousness that gets to me

[slysnake]

electricity doesn't come from unicorn fartsHahahahahahaha..... Now that's a quotable quote. :)


Plus, let's not forget the evil stuff in batteries. And no battery lasts foreverYes! We have some battery factories around here and their waste is unbelievably toxic. Those guys think their saving money on gas, but when they have to replace those batteries I wonder if there is any real savings.


I have come across that seem to believe they are better and more evolved than this knuckle dragging moron that I apparently amYo be fair, they may not take your envirmental stance into consideration when they are making that assesment of you. :lol2: (just kidding) hehehehe

[Chorps]

Just show those folks this link and they'll assplode.

http://www.thecarconnection.com/tips-article/1010861_prius-versus-hummer-exploding-the-myth

To compare, the Toyota Prius involves $3.25 per mile in energy costs over its lifetime, according to CNW, while several full-size SUVs scored lower. A Dodge Viper involves only $2.18 in energy per mile over its lifetime. The Range Rover Sport costs $2.42, and the Cadillac Escalade costs $2.75.

[Vprbite]

Great responses here. And thank you slyenake, I am glad you like my assessment of energy generation in regards to airborne equine flatulance. Quote it all you would like, but try and cite your source if possible. :)

And my knuckles were only dragging because my club was so heavy and I was exhausted as I had just been in my cave with their wives. Prius driver's women go nuts when they come across a real man like us Viper drivers.

[Viktimize]

At the end of the day how much does car emissions actually affect our climate anyway? Climate change is a lot more affected by our distance to the sun. Unless you believe the world warms up every spring because of all the idling cars pumping out extra CO2 emissions all winter.

[Redx]

I have worked as a mechanic in a coal fired strip mine/plant, and the environmental impact from just extracting the coal has a large environmental impact. Truck/shovels/support equipment burning 100,000L+ of diesel a day(and none even meeting tier 2 emmisions), leaving the place a total wasteland.

[Chorps]

At the end of the day how much does car emissions actually affect our climate anyway? Climate change is a lot more affected by our distance to the sun. Unless you believe the world warms up every spring because of all the idling cars pumping out extra CO2 emissions all winter.

28% in 2012 for the US.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources.html

Electricity generation is slightly higher at 32%.

CO2 changes per year:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

A measurable and significant increase in CO2, but is that directly correlated with global warming? Most likely. :-/

There are also other knock on effects of increasing CO2 concentrations (like ocean acidification) but GHG is the current battleground.

If there was a better political will to go nuclear for electricity generation and worries about nuclear weapon proliferation weren't an issue I bet we'd be able to wind back CO2 generation significantly.

[Viktimize]

28% in 2012 for the US.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources.html

Electricity generation is slightly higher at 32%.

CO2 changes per year:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

A measurable and significant increase in CO2, but is that directly correlated with global warming? Most likely. :-/

There are also other knock on effects of increasing CO2 concentrations (like ocean acidification) but GHG is the current battleground.

If there was a better political will to go nuclear for electricity generation and worries about nuclear weapon proliferation weren't an issue I bet we'd be able to wind back CO2 generation significantly.

And that is the question that matters. Nobody has been able to officially prove it yet, but these climate scientists still like to spout it off as fact that it's us humans solely responsible for climate change. Is it likely we contribute? Sure. Is it likely that it is majority due to what humans are doing? I highly doubt it. Distance to the sun is still something major that we have no control over. And as for CO2, how much emissions are caused by forest fires and other natural means?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should just forget about it. But there needs to be a hell of a major advancement in science on the subject before I will support the majority of these "green" initiatives which are all political propaganda BS designed to make someone else rich. The fact that they still tout electric cars as the greatest thing for the planet, even though the facts show us they cause more pollution, should be enough for anyone to at least question the motives behind these green initiatives.

I know I read an article a long time ago about CO2 reversal. And it made a claim that if everyone had a small tree in a potter on their porch, that would be enough to reverse the trend. No idea if there was any validity to that statement? But it was an interesting idea.

[Vprbite]

I think the media has contributed to this country's reluctance to adopt nuclear. The public in general has little knowledge about the safety of nuclear and thinks of "nuclear waste" as this oozing green substance that somehow expands and bursts from its container and oozes out making everything glow. Nuclear is actually very safe and it's waste is pretty small in comparison to the power generated and can easily be dealt with. Now, building one on a beach is pretty boneheaded in my opinion and we saw what can happen there. But in places where weather is less of a concern like out here in the desert or areas that tend to use coal and aren't near a river that can easily be dammed, I think it's a great option. Especially given the increase in the technology to monitor and run the reaction, I really think we need to be more amenable to nuclear.

As soon as we do, electric technology gets more attractive.

[Viktimize]

I think the media has contributed to this country's reluctance to adopt nuclear. The public in general has little knowledge about the safety of nuclear and thinks of "nuclear waste" as this oozing green substance that somehow expands and bursts from its container and oozes out making everything glow. Nuclear is actually very safe and it's waste is pretty small in comparison to the power generated and can easily be dealt with. Now, building one on a beach is pretty boneheaded in my opinion and we saw what can happen there. But in places where weather is less of a concern like out here in the desert or areas that tend to use coal and aren't near a river that can easily be dammed, I think it's a great option. Especially given the increase in the technology to monitor and run the reaction, I really think we need to be more amenable to nuclear.

As soon as we do, electric technology gets more attractive.

The only issue with nuclear location is that you need a huge source of water for it. But yes, nuclear should definitely be the way to go for energy until they solve cold fusion.

[Sybil TF]

Good post Vprbite!

[Vprbite]

Thank you, Sybil