No Politics: This Is Why Electric Vehicles Won't Work In The Long Run

peneumbra

Explorer
Well, the REAL problem with electric vehicles is:

They don't make enough noise.

How a person can think, let alone relax, without the pleasant burbling throb of internal combustion (preferably diesel) in the background is beyond me.

Same problem with sailboats: all that quiet will make you crazy!
 

OSV

Adventurer
Germany is shutting down construction of its offshore wind farms - it's not working out, economically.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/05/g...lycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social

"Thanks to America's world-class resources, wind energy is now the lowest-cost source of new electricity generation in the U.S. While wind energy may increase electric bills in other countries, that is clearly not the case here. Wind energy was the largest source of new electric generating capacity in the U.S. last year. It costs two-thirds less than it did six years ago. Wind also supports more jobs than ever, after growing 20 percent during 2015.

That's why false claims that wind doesn't work by an anti-renewable energy Forbes.com contributor and a Breitbart reporter, using a Wall Street Journal editorial about Germany's renewable energy policies, stick out as blatantly misleading.

...American wind resources are twice as productive as Germany's. That's one reason the U.S. created more electricity from wind than any other country in the world in 2015, and it also means that American wind power costs a fraction as much as German wind power.

A variety of experts and market data, including Wall Street investment firm Lazard, show that wind is the lowest cost source of new generation in the U.S., and adding wind drives electricity prices down, not up. For example, the 10 states with the most renewable energy have significantly cheaper electricity prices than the 10 states with the least amount of renewable energy." http://www.aweablog.org/fact-check-comparing-american-and-european-wind-power-is-apples-to-oranges/
 

stingray1300

Explorer
EVs, in general, pollute the environment more than a gasoline engine (cars similar in size). Also, as far as alternative power resources go, California has the highest percentage of renewable power - that would be right about 30%. That's a total combination of wind, solar, hydro. The rest comes from good old fossil fuel burning power plants. And that's the state with the HIGHEST percentage of renewable power resources. Every other state is less than that. Just because nothing comes out of the tailpipe, doesn't mean it doesn't pollute.
.
EVs aren't currently viable the way some people want them to be, with the current technology.
 

Haf-E

Expedition Leader
WRONG - really wrong...

The top states for renewable energy generation as a percentage of electrical consumption are Idaho, Maine, Washington DC, Rhode Island, Delaware and Hawaii all at effectively 100% renewable energy sources (wind, solar, hydro, geothermal and biomass).

http://energy.gov/maps/renewable-energy-production-state

California ranks 25 with about 24% of its electricity coming from renewables - with some of that being supplied by other states as excess production.

What time you charge your EV also makes a big difference - late at night, most of California's consumption is met by hydro capacity that "goes to waste" if it is not consumed - so then the emissions of the EV are nill.
 
Last edited:

Silverado08

Observer
EVs, in general, pollute the environment more than a gasoline engine (cars similar in size). ..y.
Youre either Trolling or very misinformed..
Did you know that in Alberta alone there are about 4 thousand wells poluting the enviroment by burning off the sour gas the by product of oil extraction,,making people and animals nearby and downwind sick and dying..

http://www.alive.com/health/the-real-story-of-alberta-oil-industry-pollution/

Same with tar sands mess poluting the rivers and lakes and fish making people sick with cancers..

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...r-pollution-in-north-america/article30151841/

Now ad to this the rest of the world where oil is produced,,then add up all the wars and killings started to gain control of it and it doesnt sound all that sweet does it?

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php

While some Evs may use dirty coal powerplants to suply their electricity,its still way way less since it takes very small amount of electric power to fully recharge the batteries..
gas or even the most efficient diesel doesnt even come close in efficiency to EV
..200 mpg Chevy Volt
https://youtu.be/SThO7oY8pi0
 

MOguy

Explorer
Youre either Trolling or very misinformed..
Did you know that in Alberta alone there are about 4 thousand wells poluting the enviroment by burning off the sour gas the by product of oil extraction,,making people and animals nearby and downwind sick and dying..

http://www.alive.com/health/the-real-story-of-alberta-oil-industry-pollution/

Same with tar sands mess poluting the rivers and lakes and fish making people sick with cancers..

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...r-pollution-in-north-america/article30151841/

Now ad to this the rest of the world where oil is produced,,then add up all the wars and killings started to gain control of it and it doesnt sound all that sweet does it?

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php

While some Evs may use dirty coal powerplants to suply their electricity,its still way way less since it takes very small amount of electric power to fully recharge the batteries..
gas or even the most efficient diesel doesnt even come close in efficiency to EV
..200 mpg Chevy Volt
https://youtu.be/SThO7oY8pi0

There are studies showing each side. http://www.wired.com/2016/03/teslas-electric-cars-might-not-green-think/http://www.citylab.com/weather/2015...ly-cause-more-pollution-than-gas-cars/397136/ https://www.theguardian.com/vital-s...eries-environment-lithium-elon-musk-powerwall

Storing energy in a battery is wastefull, batteries are bad. Thing should hopefully get better over time as the tech advances. At this point if we to make a complete switch to electric vehicles there would be problems. As time passes hopefully we can do more to produce and store electrify ourselves and it will truly be better for the enviroment.
 
Last edited:

boxcar1

boxcar1
The EV revolution in truth is a gross polluter from the start.
Advocates overlook the manufacturing process entirely. For good reason.....
Then there is the mining of the metals required to produce the EV . All bad . Especially for the poor people digging the toxic crap up....
A quote.....


Pollution Caused By Building a Hybrid Car


Building a hybrid car is almost exactly the same as building a conventional car, requiring high-tech and highly automated assembly lines. This type of manufacturing process requires tremendous inputs of energy, particularly the forging of materials like steel, aluminum, glass and plastic. Interestingly, lightweight vehicles can sometimes be more energy-intensive to build than heavier cars because lighter metals like aluminum are harder to forge than stainless steel [source: Moon]. Experts estimate that 10 to 20 percent of a vehicle's total lifetime greenhouse gas emissions are released during the manufacturing stage alone [source: California Energy Commission].

Toyota admits that the production of its lightweight Prius requires more energy and emits more carbon dioxide than the production of its gas-only models [source: Williams]. The major reason is because hybrids like the Prius include more advanced components than a conventional car, including a second electric motor and heavy battery packs.

Batteries are an essential component of hybrids. Regenerative braking lets hybrids generate and store their own energy to power the vehicle at low speeds and while idling. Unfortunately, both nickel-hydride batteries and the newer lithium-ion batteries rely on the mining of nickel, copper and so-called rare earth metals. The production of lithium-ion batteries account for 2 to 5 percent of total lifetime hybrid emissions and nickel-hydride batteries are responsible for higher sulfur oxide emissions, roughly 22 pounds (10 kilograms) per hybrid compared with 2.2 pounds (about 1 kilogram) for a conventional vehicle [sources: Samaras and Burnham et al].

There are additional environmental concerns related to those rare earth metals, like those used in the magnets of hybrid batteries. In recent years, rare earth metals like lithium have been imported almost exclusively from China, which was able to lower its prices enough to monopolize the industry [source: Strickland]. One of the reasons China could sell lithium so cheaply was because it widely ignored environmental safeguards during the mining process. In the Bayan Obo region of China, for example, miners removed topsoil and extracted the gold-flecked metals using acids that entered the groundwater, destroying nearby agricultural land. Even the normally tight-lipped Chinese government admitted that rare earth mining has been abused in some places. A regulator at the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology in China went so far as to tell The New York Times, "This has caused great harm to the ecology and environment"


The current hybrid's are more efficient than a standard internal combustion vehicle but that's about to change....

Since hybrid cars burn regular gasoline, they emit the same greenhouse gases as conventional cars. But since hybrid cars are much more fuel efficient than conventional vehicles -- the U.S. Energy Information Administration sets the average mileage for a hybrid at 38.7 miles per gallon (16.5 kilometers/liter) compared with 26.7 (11.4 kilometers/liter) for a gas-only vehicle -- they require far less gas to cover the same distance.

If every gallon of gasoline contains 20 pounds (9 kilograms) of carbon dioxide, then a hybrid car will emit 51.6 pounds (23.1 kilograms) of carbon dioxide every 100 miles (161 kilometers), while a conventional car will emit 74.9 pounds (34 kilograms). If you multiply those numbers over the lifetime of a vehicle, hybrids more than make up for their heavier production footprint. Let's look at some more lifetime emissions numbers.
The Argonne National Laboratory ran a side-by-side comparison of hybrid and conventional vehicles over their entire life cycle, which includes vehicle production, vehicle operation and the energy required to produce fuel for both cars. If you assume that both vehicles travel 160,000 miles (257,495 kilometers) over their lifetime, the conventional vehicle requires 6,500 Btu of energy per mile compared to 4,200 Btu per mile for a hybrid. That higher energy input results in far greater lifetime greenhouse gas emissions for conventional vehicles compared to hybrids, more than 1.1 pounds (500 grams) per mile compared to 0.75 pounds (340 grams) per mile [source: Burnham et al].

But there is an interesting side note to the hybrid vs. conventional debate. Hybrid carmakers like Toyota are set to release a new breed of plug-in hybrids. Equipped with a bigger battery pack, these hybrids can be plugged into the wall like an electric car, giving an extra 10 to 20 miles (16 to 32 kilometers) of zero emissions driving before the gas engine kicks in. Toyota expects to sell 20,000 to 30,000 units of its 2011 Plug-in Prius -- and more in the coming years [source: Green].

The trouble with plug-in hybrids (and electric cars, too) is that electricity isn't always cleaner than gasoline. More than 45 percent of electricity in the U.S. is generated by coal-powered plants [source: EIA]. According to another Argonne National Laboratory report, if a plug-in hybrid charges from coal-generated electricity, it could be responsible for emitting up to 10 percent more greenhouse gasses than a conventional vehicle and up to 60 percent more than a standard hybrid [source: Elgowainy].

Not the rosy picture most EV supporters would like us to see.
Only when we crack the Fusion problems will we be able to convert solely or even economically to an EV transportation grid.
 
Last edited:

Ducky's Dad

Explorer
Followed a new Tesla X on the freeway yesterday. Paper plate said "Zero Emissions." Only if you don't count the manufacturing and generation emissions and side effects. Load of marketing crap. Not politics, just an observation of reality.
 

MOguy

Explorer
Followed a new Tesla X on the freeway yesterday. Paper plate said "Zero Emissions." Only if you don't count the manufacturing and generation emissions and side effects. Load of marketing crap. Not politics, just an observation of reality.

Yep, not to go off topic BUT: I am redoing the floors in my house and was going with bamboo because it is supposed to be durable and environmentally friendly. What a load of BS. It isn't as durable as they want you think but it is really the environmental claims that is BS.

Yes bamboo grows fast and if could be more environmentally wonderful if farmer farms in an environmentally conscience manner but for the most part they don't. The process of turning bamboo into flooring is toxic and nowhere even close to environmentally friendly.

People need to do a little more research on what is truly environmentally friendly not just in regard to automobiles.


Going out and buying a new car just because the car pollutes less or gets better gas mileage is not environmentally friendly. If you NEEDS a new car there are better choice than others but the best choice may be to fix what you got and keep rolling with it. Buying a used car is more environmentally friendly than buying new.

Reusing is often the best choice when it comes to being environmentally friendly.
 

OCD Overland

Explorer
I get so tired of deniers pulling out that one study and then declaring that everything about EV cars is BS. The only BS is using that study as an argument.

First, it applied only to hybrids, not EV's. Second, it only showed a net increase when 100% of the power was derived from coal plants. Third, it assumed that all the electricity consumed corresponded to additional power generation. Fourth, it assumed no improvements in coal emissions over time. Fifth, even ignoring all of that, it only applies to ⅓ of EV's, assuming uniform distribution, and only today.

In real life, the situation is vastly different. First, the study doesn't even apply to EV's. Second, charging happens mostly at night, when utility companies with coal plants are generating excess power (i.e., coal plants take hours to adjust and no one shovels a load of coal onto the fire every time you plug in your car). Third, electricity is bought and sold, and rarely is local power 100% coal, so it's very rare that anyone charging from 100% coal energy anyway (For example, our electricity comes primarily from two plants - one coal and one NG - but we also get electricity from a nuclear plant and a hydro plant that are hundreds of miles away. We also have two 5MW solar farms within 50 miles and two 20MW farms further away.) Fourth, most coal plants are planned to be phased out over the next decade anyway (Our coal plant is being replaced next year.)

And even if you want to ignore all of that - and we know that you do - it doesn't matter because ⅔ of all EV's would still have net lower emissions, which obviously outweigh the ⅓ that wouldn't.

And so the real question is why people get their panties in a wad about this in the first place. I mean, how scared of change does someone have to be to get worked up over what kind of car I choose to buy? What harm does Tesla's existence cause you? What exactly is it that you guys are against?
 

MOguy

Explorer
I get so tired of deniers pulling out that one study and then declaring that everything about EV cars is BS. The only BS is using that study as an argument.

First, it applied only to hybrids, not EV's. Second, it only showed a net increase when 100% of the power was derived from coal plants. Third, it assumed that all the electricity consumed corresponded to additional power generation. Fourth, it assumed no improvements in coal emissions over time. Fifth, even ignoring all of that, it only applies to ⅓ of EV's, assuming uniform distribution, and only today.

In real life, the situation is vastly different. First, the study doesn't even apply to EV's. Second, charging happens mostly at night, when utility companies with coal plants are generating excess power (i.e., coal plants take hours to adjust and no one shovels a load of coal onto the fire every time you plug in your car). Third, electricity is bought and sold, and rarely is local power 100% coal, so it's very rare that anyone charging from 100% coal energy anyway (For example, our electricity comes primarily from two plants - one coal and one NG - but we also get electricity from a nuclear plant and a hydro plant that are hundreds of miles away. We also have two 5MW solar farms within 50 miles and two 20MW farms further away.) Fourth, most coal plants are planned to be phased out over the next decade anyway (Our coal plant is being replaced next year.)

And even if you want to ignore all of that - and we know that you do - it doesn't matter because ⅔ of all EV's would still have net lower emissions, which obviously outweigh the ⅓ that wouldn't.

And so the real question is why people get their panties in a wad about this in the first place. I mean, how scared of change does someone have to be to get worked up over what kind of car I choose to buy? What harm does Tesla's existence cause you? What exactly is it that you guys are against?


There is 3 sides to every story, your side, my side and the truth. I like the idea of eclectic cars. The transition has to come slowly or it will create more problems than it will solve. The change has to be based a more normal attrition rate of current internal combustion vehicles. The environmental issues will get figured out, but at this point batteries aren't the best way to store power. And moving more and more power through a growing system of wires isn't ideal. The lure for me is an electric car is being able to make my own power.
 
Last edited:

Forum statistics

Threads
188,503
Messages
2,905,915
Members
230,501
Latest member
Sophia Lopez
Top