http://www.autoblog.com/2016/05/10/minnesota-ev-pollute-less-than-gas/
problem with that is
-
not everyone is like minnesota (the deck is stacked for EV there both in the source of electricity and the shitty gas they have). Further, minnesota is a population that is only 45% of the population of Ohio for example, where the deck is stacked against EV in a similar study (in Ohio, EV emissions from cradle to grave are actually very similar to a gasoline engine and worse than diesel)
-
it doesn’t consider anything other than greenhouse gases. For example environmental destruction to produce lithium ion batteries is considered ‘green’ in that study because of a limited amount of greenhouse gases emitted during mining. But when you’ve destroyed the environment you leave behind, is that really green? I’m not saying that oil spills or open pit oilsands are great, but generally oil on the whole isn’t sourced via a massive scorched earth oilsands project, so again let’s not cherry pick examples to make a thesis work. Let’s stick to facts.
-
It also doesn’t consider the grave…it considers only building and usage of the car. It doesn’t deal with what to do with a lithium ion battery that needs to be disposed of some day. That’s kind of important…and is a bit glaring for it’s omission.
The Denmark study is far more valuable.
-
The article mentions the relative position of Minnesota’s energy production situation by comparison with other areas. Even taking that out of the equation leaves the advantage firmly in the EV camp.
-
Greenhouse gases appear to be an immediate threat. Cherry-picking individual points from the study to dispute also doesn’t result in a balanced conclusion.
-
In the long run, sustainable production and recycling of lithium-ion (and other) batteries is likely to be addressed by necessity - not just because of electric cars, but because of all the other batteries out there in every type of electronic item.
lol I’m not cherry picking anything. I will ask you this. If there was a way to run cars with 0 emissions but we had to cut down 30 acres of rain forest per car…would that be good? That’s the point. You can’t trade one form of environmental destruction for another because Brad Pitt says greenhouse gas is bad.
as for the Minnesota only element of the study, instead of pretending this is the same everywhere or close to it, why don’t you actually do your homework and read other studies that are nation wide? Or worldwide? Speaking of cherry picking!
‘likely to be addressed’…great. Problem is that the batteries themselves at this point are a major element in their environmental footprint, and only a moron ignores that in order to come to a ‘greenhouse gas’ conclusion that makes a case for EV. Personally I’m a bit more diplomatic about it. If we let the facts speak, I’m all for it. If you let an emotional attachment to a point of view cloud your judgement, you’re making a shitty argument.
I don’t think electric works to save the whales. Simple. It’s slightly better than diesel and gasoline overall. That’s it. That’s not enough to hang my hat on, so I will wait for what I think may be the real solution (hydrogen) to become viable before I proclaim a tidal shift. Or maybe it’s electric…but it is certainly not yet electric.
However there’s certainly merit to electric to augment petrol cars. The hybrid model is interesting. Using a gasoline engine in tandem is interesting because gasoline infrastructure and range are far superior, and for the next 10 years that won’t change. My next car may be a hybrid. I quite like the idea of slipping around my neighbourhood on the way to work early or to golf in electric mode, but I’m not going to make my daily driver a 1 dimensional EV that means I can’t go on vacation without egregious planning and charge times dictating my schedule.
Bottom line it’s still early for electric…and by the time an EV doesn’t rape the environment and doesn’t require government subsidization of $100,000 cars…and by the time I can drive one 750 miles on a charge and recharge it in 10 minutes, I think Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will be ready. Who knows.
The only thing I’m sure of is that electric still doesn’t work. It’s a neat experiment for rich people who want to overpay $30,000-40,000 for a $100,000-140,000 American car, built with classic american reliability (shit) by an American company owned by a Canadian educated South African who loses billions and burns your tax dollars in the process while he tries his experiment out. it’s a neat 2nd or 3rd car, but it’s not your only car unless you don’t like leaving town. At this point. But hey, maybe electric can give you that great range that eliminates anxiety (I reckon that’s 500 miles or so) and maybe they can create a way to charge it right up in 10 minutes or less and roll that infrastructure out nation (and world) wide. when that happens, electric becomes a viable alternative, but not at $140,000 a car, and not to save the whales (since that electricity and that battery still come from somewhere).
Saki, speaking of emotional attachment, I’ll give you this: You’re consistent in making every discussion personal, and in insulting anyone who dares to suggest anything even slightly out of line with your rigid opinions.
I have no horse in this race, nor any emotional or personal attachment to the discussion. I put the post up there to spur discussion, not arguments or insults.
There are at least a couple of areas where our ideas appear to align, however: Gasoline/fossil fuels are not the future, and hybrids have a place in the here and now. At the recent auto show, I was disappointed to discover that the new Chevy Volt’s back seat is really suitable only for children. That’s a car I could see myself owning for an around-town runabout. Uses no gas for the first 50 miles, but with no range anxiety should the need to go further occur. A friend has used the previous-generation Volt this way for the past 3 years, and has averaged over 300 miles per gallon of gas burned in that time.
In the end, anything that nudges the world away from its dependence on fossil fuel is a step in the right direction.
who insulted you? Was that the voice in your head?
I said it would be moronic to accept a new form of environmental destruction if it was the result of reducing another. That’s not progressive. That’s pulling the wool over the public’s eyes and fooling them. This is what the EV world has been doing for a couple of years. The governments are in on it unfortunately. Especially yours. Why? there’s no lithium in america. Not much anyway.
I think you’re smart enough to not believe that however so you shouldn’t feel you were called a moron.
I think maybe it was this paragraph that gave that impression:
So, who exactly were you calling moron(s)? The study authors, Brad Pitt, or me?
Regardless, I’m all for discussion…
I will requote it
Anyone who agrees with that concept. Embracing a process that causes one type of environmental destruction in an effort to prevent another type of environmental destruction.
i.e. embrace battery material sourcing, refining and battery processes as well as end life management in an effort to reduce greenhouse gases. Destroying China with battery material production and naturalized areas in South America mining lithium all so you can reduce US domestic market CO from automotive emissions is moronic. There’s one planet if you want to pretend you care abotu the environment. You can’t fuck up other countries and protect your own. Doesn’t work.
OK, well, nobody put forth that concept as a “good thing”…
Nobody said it’s good. What happened was when I pointed out that focusing solely on greenhouse gas is myopic and ultimately moronic, you said this:
I like how you concluded that the authors of the study (or even I) don’t realize that there are other factors to consider…
I don’t know who the fuck you’re talking to. I didn’t conclude that. I merely pointed out it’s a pretty onesided view with everything stacked to support the argument for an electric golf cart. You’re the one who took it personally as if you wrote the frigging thing.
Anyway, check your facts and then try again later on. Maybe have a snickers.
I didnt want to get into the tesla conversation because there are a few here where i live and there always broken or seem to be dead on the side of the road.
Hybrid cars are the future and as saki said hydrogen cars are fantastic and you can make your car a hydrogen car they actually have kits and me and a few friends installed a kit on his focus and it actually works.
EV cars are seriously not all its cracked up to be. On only the surface do we think this small moment of transportation is good. But its all one sided. If you look at the entire picture EV cars are kinda a joke.
Also this global warming hustle is a joke. For another side of the argument look at sites like Cfact.org and enjoy the movie climate hustle. I did. Not saying anyone in this conversation is a global warming or enviremential alarmist.
What people miss is some of what saki pointed out.
First you have to make power somewhere else and transfer that power into the car. The making of electricity to charge the car needs to be factored in. and when you factor in that tax payers pay for some charging stations you need to take the cost and go even further with how expensive this is. When government is involved it takes 3 people to do the job of just one person in the private sector. So the cost of EV power stations goes well beyond the cost but the full cost of government spending panels that had to vote contract and pay for this with our money.
ELECTRIC charge energy still needs to get made somewhere else and that has environmental impact.
The battery mining part of the conversation cant be ignored but what also is a very big deal is that the cradle to grave battery life gets worse. With these batteries giving off radiation and causing waste after its use. Its not just waste but toxic waste.
With each use the battery on these cars becomes less and less efficient so most of the conversations we are having on these cars mileage ability is on a perfectly good battery. According to a few websites most EV cars carry an ability to travel about 100 to 200 miles on a charge with less able to travel 200 than most being closer to 100. If thats the case and you consider charge time to be in the 10 hour range you could litterly get to a 250mile destination faster if you road a bike than if you drove a EV car.
Are EV cars cool yes they fit a great section of cars. They are a small conversation in the car world and a small section of the car world. Are they able to take over for the main cars. No… are they better than the standard fuel liquid powered cars… at some things yes at other things no.
When compared to the standard TDI cars its no contest when almost all TDI cars can get over 45mpg. I drove a friends car for a few days to help sort out a front end noise he had and that car got a honest 44mpg I could have gotten more if I drove like I wanted to get better mileage. i could travel that same 250 miles for about 10.50 cents in diesel fuel 500 miles for less then 25 dollars.
Electric cars or better yet electronic systems are part of the future but they are not the future. As mentioned you can’t have a conversation about electronic cars and ignore the blatant huge drawbacks and hidden issues
At this point most EV cars are just bigger nicer versions of golf carts. That’s fine golf carts work very well for what they do and so do EV but EV are not the glitz and glamor so many play them up to be. There is still only one clean mode of transportation and that’s to walk… for me F walking I’ll drive my nitrous assisted 4.2 and get there faster funner and in fashion. .
Not an ev but what are thoughts on the new sq7 turbo diesel v8 with an electric motor/turbo right ? I’ll buy one assuming no major glitches in first two years
Yeah that car sounds like crazy neat.
[quote=“sakimano,post:12,topic:8665”]
I’m talking to you.
You didn’t conclude that?? Right - except for the part where you drew a conclusion about the study (You have issues with its thesis, apparently) that led you to suggest that it isn’t valid.
Except that it is, given what it looked at.
Also, pedantic much? :
The future of EVs is Fuel Cells or similar, Batteries and charging is stop gap dead end. requires too much weight, toxic materials and strip mining of land. I personally will never consider a EV or hybrid that carries heavy batteries around with or without a fossil fuel powered motor. When you can drive a pure EV like any regular car (range issues etc.) then it is time.
Regarding the aforementioned 2nd generation Volt:
http://www.automobilemag.com/news/commuting-2016-chevrolet-volt/
you moving to Europe? because I can’t see them selling that thing here (and by here, I mean there, in America)
[quote=“zcd1,post:16,topic:8665”]
How did I conclude that the authors of the study are unaware of any other problems? How do you even think that I said that. I know they’re well aware of the other problems…that was kind of the point I made. They’re writing a deliberately myopic article to support an agenda. My post showed that the article tells a story for a small state with a perfect storm of shit fuel, great electric power sources (depending on your definition) and ignores a multitude of other factors about the environmental impact of EV…thus is pretty irrelevant unless you live in Minnesota (which you don’t). Nor do I. Nor do 99.925% of people on earth. So for the rest of us, let’s stick to the facts. OK?
Maybe you need to re-read the thread.