Hmmmm…
Not sure what the article says because you have to pay to read it.
However, I just came across this study which Tesla will absolutely love.
Yeah, that’s the identical article I was trying to link to, but at the LA Times website. I’m able to see the article on the Chicago Tribune website without a subscription, but I did have to click thru a nag screen asking me to pay…
In any case, thanks!
Yes, electric looks great if you ignore a number of factors.
- the production of those batteries creates incredible environmental damage
- the electricity powering the cars comes from carbon emitting sources like coal fired and gas generating stations
When you factor it all in, they’re not really all that revolutionary. Also, this study was done in Europe and told a different story …basically that the advantage is almost zero. Why? Because people in Europe drive incredibly efficient vehicles.
The study looks so good in America because most americans drive vehicles that get 15 mpg. So of course that means a huge cut if an EV is the equivalent of a 60 mpg car. However in Europe, 60 mpg isn’t all that great…50-60 is. So when you’re comparing a Tesla that acts like a 60 mpg car, emissions and enviro-damage wise to a bunch of cars that are already averaging 50-60 mpg, an EV doesn’t make a lick of sense…especially when when the government has to subsidize both the company and the buyers, and when you have to pay $30,000 more than a similar gasoline vehicle.
Take out $10,000 in government breaks, and the $30,000 price premium and you’ve got $40,000 to buy carbon offsets. Guess what…the regular cars DESTROY the electric vehicle fantasy.
In 5 or 10 years EVs might make sense, but right now they’re just a pipe dream.
Although I agree with your points in general (especially Europe vs. American gas consumption), that’s not what the article states.
The study took into account both electricity generation and battery disposal and basically everything along the supply chain from manufacturing to disposal and all supporting industries.
They made a good point that the “equivalent” mpg changes depending on the state due to the cleanliness of the grid. In some states where the energy is a lot greener, the equivalent mpg was much higher (in the 80s) whereas in states where the grid was supplied by dirty energy (such as coal), the equivalent mpgs dropped down to the 30s.
I also agree that in the future, EVs will make more sense as technology improves, however, you can’t get there over night. It’s been the same with combustion engines. Took forever to get to where we are today.
I’m not defending EVs as I don’t think I would enjoy driving one but for the greater good, I guess I’m open to their continued development in order to hit those benefits down the road (5 to 10 years time).
I read the article. In fact I posted the European version of that article/study last month in the Tesla thread.
Maybe you just read the initial line of my post where I pointed to people who are unaware of cradle to the grave analysis of the EV and who only point to ‘free, zero emissions energy’ when promoting the electric movement…people like westwest888 in the Tesla thread.
If you’ll re-read my post, you’ll see that I addressed the ‘cradle to the grave’ analysis. I pointed out that cradle to the grave favours electric cars only in regions with horrendous fuel economy on average and with highly renewable energy sources to fuel the EV. Even then it’s not a huge revolution. However when you compare to a region where the fuel economy of gasoline or diesel vehicles is far superior to America, the case for the EV falls apart because the benefits, environmentally, are nominal…but the costs outweigh those nominal benefits 100 fold.
You have to look at what the power source is and what the environmental cost is. Let’s start with the facts. America has already switched most of their power production to natural gas, which is a very low CO2 emitter compared to “clean” coal. The gas is being extracted with hydraulic fracking, which has consequences and a lot of FUD surrounding it. Extraction technology has more than doubled our proven reserves and there’s probably more than 100 years of natural gas in the ground in North America.
Fracking up in Canada and North Dakota has also introduced a lot of heavy, sulfuric crude. The new supply is great but the rub is you need to move it down to the Gulf of Mexico to refine it. You need a specific type of refinery that can crack heavy crude, and you have to mix it with light crude at the same time from the gulf. The biggest environmental problem is you have to move all of this crude from up north to the south with rail cars and trucks. For complicated reasons we could discuss in an entirely different thread, the Keystone XL pipeline connecting production with refineries is on hold.
If you’re a region like the western United States, it’s a lot easier to build a natural gas powerplant than it is to build a gasoline refinery. Like, it’s impossible to build a refinery but it’s mandated to build a natural gas plant.
If the United States can get 10% of its passenger vehicle miles on pure electric by 2025, it’s a huge win. All new battery technology is non toxic and they are recyclable. Getting back to forth to work on pure electric puts money in people’s pockets and reduces strain on our limited refining capacity.
Electric cars will always be cleaner for one reason: they don’t leak oil and other toxic fluids onto the roads, into the storm drains, and into our watersheds. I’m disgusted every time I see a parking lot full of oil and gasoline rainbows from shitty old cars.