Electric Cars Are Not So Green...

[Katganistan]

What?!

So, the 'green' technology over all would produce more carbon dioxide emissions over it's lifetime than an actual gasoline/diesel/petrol burning vehicle?!

While my opinion would be laughing at the irony of the green tech advocates yelling that I, like many other 'non-green' tech users are killing polar bears... I would rather allow you all to discuss this subject and not focus on my rant.

Of course they aren't -- add into that that the electricity you charge it with has to be produced SOMEHOW... are they using nuclear power? Burning coal?

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

What?!

So, the 'green' technology over all would produce more carbon dioxide emissions over it's lifetime than an actual gasoline/diesel/petrol burning vehicle?!

While my opinion would be laughing at the irony of the green tech advocates yelling that I, like many other 'non-green' tech users are killing polar bears... I would rather allow you all to discuss this subject and not focus on my rant.

Of course they aren't -- add into that that the electricity you charge it with has to be produced SOMEHOW... are they using nuclear power? Burning coal?

Soylent Coal.

[Soviet Haaregrad]

Yeah, no, just because you put green on a Lamborghini does not make green a good car color.

There are (few) shades of green that go great on cars, but that is not one of them

I disagree. I want that colour on a CRX.

[Fartsniffage]

What?!

So, the 'green' technology over all would produce more carbon dioxide emissions over it's lifetime than an actual gasoline/diesel/petrol burning vehicle?!

While my opinion would be laughing at the irony of the green tech advocates yelling that I, like many other 'non-green' tech users are killing polar bears... I would rather allow you all to discuss this subject and not focus on my rant.

Of course they aren't -- add into that that the electricity you charge it with has to be produced SOMEHOW... are they using nuclear power? Burning coal?

Umm, didn't read the thread did you?

[Karshkovia]

Do you not think a large reduction in demand for petrol caused by, say, the urban population of the US moving to alternately powered vehicles might help keep the price of fuel down for a bit longer?

Also, the US already has very low fuel prices. European pay anywhere from $5 to $7 a liter, or more. Our costs are just headed up. Lowering our demand might slow the price increases but again, those who produce the food for you to eat will increase the costs of that food because of growing petroleum pricing. You will pay for it one way or the other.

The other factor to remember is if you are going to have electric vehicles, you need to have the power in the national grid to cover that increase in demand. That means more power stations and wiring to handle that load. Electric companies pass that onto the consumers, plus you are going to being paying large electric bills. I think it will be cheaper than what you are paying monthly at the pumps but I don't know for a fact. The costs are just going to go up.

[Soviet Haaregrad]

We need to let our vehicles run for 15minutes to 30 minutes just to allow the engine to warm up to a safe operating level

Not true.

http://www.trucknews.com/news/study-con ... +Archives#
http://green.yahoo.com/blog/daily_green ... inter.html

[Cannot think of a name]

What?!

So, the 'green' technology over all would produce more carbon dioxide emissions over it's lifetime than an actual gasoline/diesel/petrol burning vehicle?!

While my opinion would be laughing at the irony of the green tech advocates yelling that I, like many other 'non-green' tech users are killing polar bears... I would rather allow you all to discuss this subject and not focus on my rant.

Of course they aren't -- add into that that the electricity you charge it with has to be produced SOMEHOW... are they using nuclear power? Burning coal?

The hydro-electric power from the dam down the street. (it almost literally is just down the street...) Anyway, the whole 'long tail pipe' argument is kind of ridiculous and I can't believe that we're still seeing it.

First of all, this is an issue with the power grid and not the car itself. We don't have to get our power from coal etc. And no one is proposing a single solution in that 'well, if we just get electric cars it's a job well done, we don't have to change anything else!' People who advocate for electric cars also advocate for updating and changing our power grid as well.

But even if that weren't true, a single central power generator is more efficient and can be cleaner than a fleet of small variable generators pushing cars around individually. Your catalytic converter is not going to be as efficient or effective as scrubbers and the like, plus you need a lot more gas and generate a lot more emissions to generate the power in the car than it does for a power plant to create the energy to charge the car.

[Fartsniffage]

Do you not think a large reduction in demand for petrol caused by, say, the urban population of the US moving to alternately powered vehicles might help keep the price of fuel down for a bit longer?

Also, the US already has very low fuel prices. European pay anywhere from $5 to $7 a liter, or more. Our costs are just headed up. Lowering our demand might slow the price increases but again, those who produce the food for you to eat will increase the costs of that food because of growing petroleum pricing. You will pay for it one way or the other.

The other factor to remember is if you are going to have electric vehicles, you need to have the power in the national grid to cover that increase in demand. That means more power stations and wiring to handle that load. Electric companies pass that onto the consumers, plus you are going to being paying large electric bills. I think it will be cheaper than what you are paying monthly at the pumps but I don't know for a fact. The costs are just going to go up.

It's not going to cost me anything. I already live in one of those European countries with high fuel costs and have seen the increases in food costs due to fuel increases already and it doesn't scare me.

The simple fact is that the world as a whole is going to have to become smarter with its' energy usage and for you to dismiss electric powered vehicles as one part of the solution because they don't fit your particular needs is just laughable.

[Free Soviets]

this must be some strange new meaning of 'average' that i am unfamiliar with.

Average as in most of us don't live in highly populated urban centers.

except...we do. half the population lives in just over 100 urban areas the smallest of which are 300k people. we can drag that up to 70% of people if we go all the way down to 50k people-strong urban areas. another 10% or so live in the urbanized parts of the even smaller micropolitan cities - the moscow-pullmans of the country...which have population densities that rival any other urban area.

basically nobody lives outside of urban areas.

[Karshkovia]

Not with China and India rapidly increasing their demand for oil.

So what is your solution?

I think Electrics are the way to go for the urban areas. I support their development and use in the south and major urban centers. I do have to say that you can't kill off pure internal combustion engine vehicles completely. Not until we have found a solution for everyone. Maybe that is a hybrid car that runs on Pure Ethonol/electric? I don't know. I do know that gas prices are going up no matter what we do as world demand for oil increases. Even if the US switches over most of the citizens to electric cars, you still have those that need to drive gas vehicles until a hybrid solution is found (I honestly believe hybrids are going to be the wave of the future up north and pure electrics down south). The other problem is farm equipment would need to be changed out to something not running on petro unless you want food prices to keep rising with gas prices.

Electric cars are the start but they can't be the end-all for everyone.

[Wikipedia and Universe]

An electric car is only as green as the local power plant from which it derives electricity when it charges up. You're kind of defeating the purpose if it runs from, say, a coal-fired plant. We've known this for quite a good bit. Better if the local power comes from wind, hydro, nuclear (not dangerous if handled right), etc. EOFS. Lol at primitivists and communal travel yahoos ITT.

[New Ziedrich]

Well, hell, if CO₂ is the problem, then why don't we just switch to energy sources that don't emit the goddamn stuff (or at least significantly less, hurr durr)? Also emphasize mass transit and electric cars and whatnot.

Of course, dispensing with the private automobile entirely is pointlessly silly and should not be entertained, as it can evolve and take its rightful place in the greater comprehensive transportation infrastructure. Also, I'm not giving up my car collection without a bitter and hateful fight, so there.

[Karshkovia]

We need to let our vehicles run for 15minutes to 30 minutes just to allow the engine to warm up to a safe operating level

Not true.

http://www.trucknews.com/news/study-con ... +Archives#
http://green.yahoo.com/blog/daily_green ... inter.html

Great... but I wasn't talking diesel engines for one.

I was explaining about harsh winters in places like Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota. You have places where temps can hover around 0 to -10F without windchill easily for days or weeks on end. We even see -40F and don't even start me on the windchills.

Just an idea of how cold it gets up here....and you think 10 seconds is enough time to warm up your car? Right....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeD45wAuIZY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLyHCOe2xgQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIe8iIK_n4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLyHCOe2xgQ&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urPngC2dNQ4

I also meant for the interior of my car to be warm enough to sit in. If you only let the car warm up for a few seconds to drive it, not only do you have a seriously cold car, you have a fogging issues....which up here can earn you serious fines.

My limited automotive engine experience has taught me that an engine needs more time that 10-30 seconds to run when the temps are near or below freezing. The oil can't circulate properly through your engine in that time frame. I don't know if you have much engine repair experience yourself but you can damage your engine by running it cold. The oil needs time to lube the cylinder walls for you can end up with scored pistons, scored cylinders, and damage bearings. If you stress a cold engine you increase the chance of a cracked head gasket, blow-by occurring, and possibly damaged rings. Your tranny needs time to heat up too or you are just increasing the wear on it. 5 minutes for a V-6 for a cold soaked engine with air/windchill temps above 10F. Increasing time for the lower the temp.

[Karshkovia]

It's not going to cost me anything. I already live in one of those European countries with high fuel costs and have seen the increases in food costs due to fuel increases already and it doesn't scare me.

The simple fact is that the world as a whole is going to have to become smarter with its' energy usage and for you to dismiss electric powered vehicles as one part of the solution because they don't fit your particular needs is just laughable.

I didn't dismiss them at all...which I posted already. I dismissed them as feasible in areas where it gets really cold in the winter. I think they work fine for those in warmer climates, but we in colder climates need a solution as well. Like I said maybe a hybrid.

Average as in most of us don't live in highly populated urban centers.

except...we do. half the population lives in just over 100 urban areas the smallest of which are 300k people. we can drag that up to 70% of people if we go all the way down to 50k people-strong urban areas. another 10% or so live in the urbanized parts of the even smaller micropolitan cities - the moscow-pullmans of the country...which have population densities that rival any other urban area.

basically nobody lives outside of urban areas.

I mis-phrased that and already addressed it. And come on, you really believe that the heartland of america is empty? That nobody really lives out on the plains? Now you are just being silly.

[Salandriagado]

It's not going to cost me anything. I already live in one of those European countries with high fuel costs and have seen the increases in food costs due to fuel increases already and it doesn't scare me.

The simple fact is that the world as a whole is going to have to become smarter with its' energy usage and for you to dismiss electric powered vehicles as one part of the solution because they don't fit your particular needs is just laughable.

I didn't dismiss them at all...which I posted already. I dismissed them as feasible in areas where it gets really cold in the winter. I think they work fine for those in warmer climates, but we in colder climates need a solution as well. Like I said maybe a hybrid.

except...we do. half the population lives in just over 100 urban areas the smallest of which are 300k people. we can drag that up to 70% of people if we go all the way down to 50k people-strong urban areas. another 10% or so live in the urbanized parts of the even smaller micropolitan cities - the moscow-pullmans of the country...which have population densities that rival any other urban area.

basically nobody lives outside of urban areas.

I mis-phrased that and already addressed it. And come on, you really believe that the heartland of america is empty? That nobody really lives out on the plains? Now you are just being silly.

Yes, it is empty. Vast tracts of it have population densities below 4 people per square mile, which is just ridiculously low.

[Karshkovia]

I didn't dismiss them at all...which I posted already. I dismissed them as feasible in areas where it gets really cold in the winter. I think they work fine for those in warmer climates, but we in colder climates need a solution as well. Like I said maybe a hybrid.



I mis-phrased that and already addressed it. And come on, you really believe that the heartland of america is empty? That nobody really lives out on the plains? Now you are just being silly.

Yes, it is empty. Vast tracts of it have population densities below 4 people per square mile, which is just ridiculously low.

So screw everyone that doesn't live in a city of what, 500K or more. Or doesn't live on the coasts. Gotcha

Also you kinda need large tracts of land empty of humans if you want us to grow enough food for you in the Urban areas. but this is totally of the topic of the thread.

[Mpya Mwanzo]

look i dont get you conservatives, GREEN TECH IS CHEAPER QUIT FOCUSING ON THE FACT THAT AL GORE PRESENTED THE IDEA!!! IF GEORGE BUSH OR SOME REPUBLICAN SAID THE SAME DAMN THING I BET YOU WOULD ALL BE ON THE GLOBAL WARMING BOAT!!!! GREEN TECH IS CHEAPER GREEN TECH IS CHEAPER GREEN TECH SAVES MONEY GREEN TECH IS CHEAPER!!!!!!!!!

[New Chalcedon]

What?!

So, the 'green' technology over all would produce more carbon dioxide emissions over it's lifetime than an actual gasoline/diesel/petrol burning vehicle?!

While my opinion would be laughing at the irony of the green tech advocates yelling that I, like many other 'non-green' tech users are killing polar bears... I would rather allow you all to discuss this subject and not focus on my rant.

Just remember to consider the source. The Australian has vowed to destroy the Green Party, so I'm really not sure of their veracity as a source.

Also, having read the article you linked to, two concerns appear to me:

(1) Who says that 129,000 km is unreasonable for a lifetime usage for a car? The study was conflating battery life with vehicle life.

(2) 24 tonnes of CO₂ for a lifetime for a petrol car? I'm calling bullshit on that. Given that 228.416g of octane (the most efficient active agent in petrol) combusts to form 694.16g of CO₂, that's just not realistic. Unless, naturally, you're claiming that a lifetime fuel use for a vehicle is less than 10 000L of petrol (10,712.26L to be precise)? With a 68L tank (standard for the '98 Falcon Forte), that amounts to 158 tankfuls of petrol.

A friend had a car (1998 Ford Falcon) with, I believe, a 68L tank, and filled it at least once a fortnight (6 years total), and usually once a week (3 years total) in order to get around the suburbs of Perth as his job required him to do (electrician). Therefore, 24 tonnes of CO₂ is the fuel CO₂ for a Ford Falcon for between 3 and 6 years - not to mention the (less-complex) batteries used to make that vehicle work, which should be counted (as we are counting this also for the electric vehicle) in addition to pure tailpipe emissions. Most vehicles last longer than 6 years, last I checked. Maybe, just maybe, a small beep-beep running around may produce less emissions than an electric - but I doubt it. Certainly, the big 4-cyl/small 6-cyl cars driven around by most people won't.

(Stochiometric equation: 2C₈H₁₈+25O₂ --> 16CO₂+18H₂O. Molar mass of C₈H₁₈ = 8*12.01+18*1.008 = 114.224g/mol; molar mass of CO₂ = 12.01+32 = 46.01g/mol. Density of vehicle petrol = 73.722% of water density (1t/m³). Therefore, 24 tonnes of CO₂ becomes 7897 kg of octane, which in turn becomes 10,712L at petrol's listed density, which in turn becomes 157.5 tankfuls at 68L/tank.)

Also: Right-wing rag (The same parent company owns The Australian and Faux News) cites industry-funded study showing no need for change, action or anything else but denial, right after the government pushed through a carbon tax. Yawn, big surprise - it's about as credible as ExxonMobil's studies that show no evidence for global warming.

[Salandriagado]

Yes, it is empty. Vast tracts of it have population densities below 4 people per square mile, which is just ridiculously low.

So screw everyone that doesn't live in a city of what, 500K or more. Or doesn't live on the coasts. Gotcha

Also you kinda need large tracts of land empty of humans if you want us to grow enough food for you in the Urban areas. but this is totally of the topic of the thread.

Oh for fucks sake, are you actually reading posts or just picking words at random?

1) The. Vast. Majority. Of. The. Population. Lives. In. Urban. Areas. Period. I believe this is also true for the world at general, but I'm going off some quite old forecasts here, so if anyone has more up to date data, I'd appreciate it if you could check this point.
2) Fossil fuels are hideously inefficient and limited and HAVE to be disposed of. If electric doesn't work in your particular exception, go hydrogen, or nuclear (fusion, once we get that working).


Incidentally, you can live in and grow food in the same areas. You just need a bit more effort to do it. Either dig the housing down or lift the food production up onto the roofs.

[Mpya Mwanzo]

I didn't dismiss them at all...which I posted already. I dismissed them as feasible in areas where it gets really cold in the winter. I think they work fine for those in warmer climates, but we in colder climates need a solution as well. Like I said maybe a hybrid.



I mis-phrased that and already addressed it. And come on, you really believe that the heartland of america is empty? That nobody really lives out on the plains? Now you are just being silly.

Yes, it is empty. Vast tracts of it have population densities below 4 people per square mile, which is just ridiculously low.

yeah dude i just took a road trip in america, the towns i kept passing were basically mayorless houseless empty gas stations...... WHERE ARE THE 30000000000000000000000000000000000000000 PEOPLE??????? 0.o

[Mpya Mwanzo]

What?!

So, the 'green' technology over all would produce more carbon dioxide emissions over it's lifetime than an actual gasoline/diesel/petrol burning vehicle?!

While my opinion would be laughing at the irony of the green tech advocates yelling that I, like many other 'non-green' tech users are killing polar bears... I would rather allow you all to discuss this subject and not focus on my rant.

Just remember to consider the source. The Australian has vowed to destroy the Green Party, so I'm really not sure of their veracity as a source.

Also, having read the article you linked to, two concerns appear to me:

(1) Who says that 129,000 km is unreasonable for a lifetime usage for a car? The study was conflating battery life with vehicle life.

(2) 24 tonnes of CO₂ for a lifetime for a petrol car? I'm calling bullshit on that. Given that 228.416g of octane (the most efficient active agent in petrol) combusts to form 694.16g of CO₂, that's just not realistic. Unless, naturally, you're claiming that a lifetime fuel use for a vehicle is less than 10 000L of petrol (10,712.26L to be precise)? With a 68L tank (standard for the '98 Falcon Forte), that amounts to 158 tankfuls of petrol.

A friend had a car (1998 Ford Falcon) with, I believe, a 68L tank, and filled it at least once a fortnight (6 years total), and usually once a week (3 years total) in order to get around the suburbs of Perth as his job required him to do (electrician). Therefore, 24 tonnes of CO₂ is the fuel CO₂ for a Ford Falcon for between 3 and 6 years - not to mention the (less-complex) batteries used to make that vehicle work, which should be counted (as we are counting this also for the electric vehicle) in addition to pure tailpipe emissions. Most vehicles last longer than 6 years, last I checked. Maybe, just maybe, a small beep-beep running around may produce less emissions than an electric - but I doubt it. Certainly, the big 4-cyl/small 6-cyl cars driven around by most people won't.

(Stochiometric equation: 2C₈H₁₈+25O₂ --> 16CO₂+18H₂O. Molar mass of C₈H₁₈ = 8*12.01+18*1.008 = 114.224g/mol; molar mass of CO₂ = 12.01+32 = 46.01g/mol. Density of vehicle petrol = 73.722% of water density (1t/m³). Therefore, 24 tonnes of CO₂ becomes 7897 kg of octane, which in turn becomes 10,712L at petrol's listed density, which in turn becomes 157.5 tankfuls at 68L/tank.)

Also: Right-wing rag (The same parent company owns The Australian and Faux News) cites industry-funded study showing no need for change, action or anything else but denial, right after the government pushed through a carbon tax. Yawn, big surprise - it's about as credible as ExxonMobil's studies that show no evidence for global warming.

this is why liberals are smarter, sir... i love you.....; teach me the ways of your kind!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Qara-jin]

Regardless of whether they are green or not, some form of Renewable, clean form of energy needs development, and if Tesla's theories on wireless transmission are feasible, given enough time, the car culture itself can be sustained, granted Capitalism would have to adopt Socialist tenets before such was even feasible as the Plutocracy tends to limit the progress of the whole more than anything. Yes, all of this coming from a Fascist/Corporatist/National Syndicalist oriented individual.

[Abdju]

So screw everyone that doesn't live in a city of what, 500K or more. Or doesn't live on the coasts. Gotcha

Also you kinda need large tracts of land empty of humans if you want us to grow enough food for you in the Urban areas. but this is totally of the topic of the thread.

Oh for fucks sake, are you actually reading posts or just picking words at random?

1) The. Vast. Majority. Of. The. Population. Lives. In. Urban. Areas. Period. I believe this is also true for the world at general, but I'm going off some quite old forecasts here, so if anyone has more up to date data, I'd appreciate it if you could check this point.
2) Fossil fuels are hideously inefficient and limited and HAVE to be disposed of. If electric doesn't work in your particular exception, go hydrogen, or nuclear (fusion, once we get that working).


Incidentally, you can live in and grow food in the same areas. You just need a bit more effort to do it. Either dig the housing down or lift the food production up onto the roofs.

YOULL HAV TO PRIZE MAH SACRED DINO JOOSE FROM MAH COLD DEAD HANDZ!!! JEEBUS TOLD ME THAT TEH ELETRIC CARZ ARE MADE BY COMMIES OUT TO DESTROY DUHMERIKA!!!

[New Chalcedon]

Just remember to consider the source. The Australian has vowed to destroy the Green Party, so I'm really not sure of their veracity as a source.

Also, having read the article you linked to, two concerns appear to me:

(1) Who says that 129,000 km is unreasonable for a lifetime usage for a car? The study was conflating battery life with vehicle life.

(2) 24 tonnes of CO₂ for a lifetime for a petrol car? I'm calling bullshit on that. Given that 228.416g of octane (the most efficient active agent in petrol) combusts to form 694.16g of CO₂, that's just not realistic. Unless, naturally, you're claiming that a lifetime fuel use for a vehicle is less than 10 000L of petrol (10,712.26L to be precise)? With a 68L tank (standard for the '98 Falcon Forte), that amounts to 158 tankfuls of petrol.

A friend had a car (1998 Ford Falcon) with, I believe, a 68L tank, and filled it at least once a fortnight (6 years total), and usually once a week (3 years total) in order to get around the suburbs of Perth as his job required him to do (electrician). Therefore, 24 tonnes of CO₂ is the fuel CO₂ for a Ford Falcon for between 3 and 6 years - not to mention the (less-complex) batteries used to make that vehicle work, which should be counted (as we are counting this also for the electric vehicle) in addition to pure tailpipe emissions. Most vehicles last longer than 6 years, last I checked. Maybe, just maybe, a small beep-beep running around may produce less emissions than an electric - but I doubt it. Certainly, the big 4-cyl/small 6-cyl cars driven around by most people won't.

(Stochiometric equation: 2C₈H₁₈+25O₂ --> 16CO₂+18H₂O. Molar mass of C₈H₁₈ = 8*12.01+18*1.008 = 114.224g/mol; molar mass of CO₂ = 12.01+32 = 46.01g/mol. Density of vehicle petrol = 73.722% of water density (1t/m³). Therefore, 24 tonnes of CO₂ becomes 7897 kg of octane, which in turn becomes 10,712L at petrol's listed density, which in turn becomes 157.5 tankfuls at 68L/tank.)

Also: Right-wing rag (The same parent company owns The Australian and Faux News) cites industry-funded study showing no need for change, action or anything else but denial, right after the government pushed through a carbon tax. Yawn, big surprise - it's about as credible as ExxonMobil's studies that show no evidence for global warming.

this is why liberals are smarter, sir... i love you.....; teach me the ways of your kind!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks for attacking my political structures of belief instead of my mathematics, with your sarcastic, fake "adoration" (especially important in terms of your immediately-previous post). Oh, wait - my mathematics stacks up nicely, and proves that the industry-funded study, backed by the right-wing rag, is full of shit: therefore, you must instead sink to sliming my politics and trolling me. Because you have no logical case if you instead attempt to argue based on reality.

Ignore cannon applied, troll.

[Karshkovia]

Again, we strayed from the point. Pure electrics are fine for those in major population areas with a mild climate. When you start looking at places with colder climates, pure electric cars won't work. You need some new advancements in electrics or you need to look at hybrids (pure ethonal engines with electric engine hybrids). We can't have pure electrics as the end-all be-all solution unless there are major advancements that will allow them to work in areas where the winter temps can drop to -40F.

We also need some type of trucks with high torque for those that NEED to have a truck. I agree you don't need a pickup for urban transportation but if you make your living in agriculture or you make your living in construction, then you need a pickup. We don't have a pure electric replacement for those yet.

We are at a good starting point but there needs to be a hell of alot of development done first before we can ween the nation off of the oil tit.