AutoblogGreen

I don't believe this is entirely accurate. I remember reading an article ( I believe it was Autobloggreen) that ran a comparison between the all-electric Tesla and various other plug-in, gas hybrids, and gas-only vehicles and found that even if an all-electric vehicle gets its power from a "dirty" power grid (ala coal burning plant), it still has a substantially lower carbon footprint than its counterparts. C'mon... I know someone else had read the same article... No?

Reply

I wouldn't be surprised to find that EPIC (ethanol promotion and info council) or other such organization was behind the funding for these "scientific" studies. There is such an opaqueness about how our scientific research is disseminated in this country... it is such a shame that the choice few with the wherewithall to see past all the BS are branded as alarmists, hippy trash, left-wing liberal, un patriotic, terrorist, etc...

Stupid sheep.

Reply

Scatter, I think that what you’re saying could be considered an argument for saying that the people who are totally wrong on the other side, those who say that pollution is not a problem and that Industry should have a free hand (we’ll call those people the “anti greens”,) are entitled to their opinion and should be heard and followed. I don’t agree – they need to shut-up, along with the deep greens because the two groups are like children butting into adult conversations.

Reply

Scatter,

I disagree and here is why. Although I agree that everyone has a right to an opinion, including what you call “deep greens,” I find that their arguments are, in a word, foolish. Furthermore, they are the group that has prevented the progress that you are asking to have expedited (as am I.) It is the deep greens that have stood in the way of progress in the name of their brand of solutions. Furthermore, they, the “deep greens,” are not willing to hear what anyone else has to say, so why should they be listened to?

They have been, in my opinion, the most harmful group of any relative to environmentalism, and helping the environment. The US would be so much further ahead if we were allowed to have built a few extra nuclear plants. Are you aware that we have only electrified 2% of the dams in our country that ALREADY exist because of these “deep greens.” Are you aware that these older coal plants remain in operation because the “deep greens” will not allow their replacements, which are dramatically better, to be built?

It goes on and on. And even they admit to having been wrong about nuclear. How long do we have to keep waiting on them to understand that they are wrong?

Karen – Wonderful study. Thanks!

Reply

Karen, I agree totally with the idea of writing them into the future. But, I also understand the politics of my country and I know that when politicians start talking about writing checks to pay oil companies for their lost assets of oil, checks that will be valued in the trillions over time, that we are going to see a bit of an uproar over that.

Reply

#22, Dan, illustrates my point. “The choice few who can see past the BS…” and everyone else is just “stupid sheep.”

Yep – there it is. Anyone who doesn’t agree with “deep green,” is stupid.

Reply

This article is totally fucking bogus. Makes you wonder if the oil companies had a hand in it.

By using plug-in cars, the amount of pollution is DRASTICALLY reduced. It is far easier and cheaper to control the pollution from one source (the coal plant) then on 10 million cars!

Also, that article only mentions using coal as a power source. There's also wind and hyrdoelectric dams. Manitoba's electricity comes from the Hydroelectric dams, and therefore, a plug-in vehicle would be 100% clean. Bullshit on this article.

Reply

They are still environmentalists and it's absolutely right that there should be very vocal dissent to proposals such as nuclear/biofuels/"clean" coal and the like. These are not necessarily the best, most cost effective, most environmentally beneficial ways forwards.

Hydro I'm not so sure about although I do know that strong questions do need to be asked about it becuase there are significant issues surrounding hydro power.

But this doesn't mean I endorse the opposite end of the spectrum. Sure the deniers and sceptics have a right to spout their views but I don't think they should get so much air time from the media and frankly I think they really need to reassess their positions because they're becoming increasingly untenable.

Reply

USA Today: plug-in vehicles may increase air pollution

YES YES!!!! And there were WMD's in Iraq!!!!!

Keep believing the lies folks...they're feedin ya till you puke!

Reply

@20: Lets not over simplify the grid utilization issue with taking things in that report out of context. Keep in mind that study that you appear to be referring to says "up to 84%" for PHEV cars only and does not include the use of any electric-only vehicles, PHEV trucks, vans, SUVs. It assumes the charging of batteries that will power PHEVs that will travel a mere 33 miles on a full charge and use their on-board power source for going further, which of course how a PHEV is supposed to work.

http://www.pnl.gov/energy/eed/etd/pdfs/phev_feasibility_analysis_combined.pdf

Reply

About coal, which is one of your main problems in US :
Where does 60% of the power generated go ?
60% of the power is wasted in heat that is wasted in evaporating water that is simply thrown away in the air.
Use at least a part of this energy to heat something, what you want, countless Industries need heat, some homes, offices, Wal Marts, you name it ...

But don't waste ALL that power in the air, that's stupid.

Reply

littleuldav: "But don't waste ALL that power in the air, that's stupid."

We usually prefer, as a nation, to site power plants away from populated areas. Not always, but more often than not.

I don't know where you're from, but while the EU has a population density of 112/km^2, with nations like the UK and Germany over twice that, the US's population density is only 31/km^2. Also, since this is low level heat, it's not useful for most industrial applications. I have seen one use of coal waste heat to keep ethanol cookers warm, though.

Steven: "Up to 84%" doesn't imply less. It means just that -- up to 84%. Any more and you can't run on spare capacity. Plus, 33 miles the average American's daily commute (16 miles each way). The study furthermore says, "For the United States as a whole, up to 84% of U.S. cars, pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) could be supported by the existing infrastructure", so it does include trucks and SUVs.

Sure, it's not enough for *everyone* to convert *all at once*, but what we already have can easy take us a good portion of the way there. And there's no way consumer adoption of BEVs and PHEVs could outpace power infrastructure construction.

Reply

Here is what gets me, most everyone here has pointed out the main point of the issue: quit using coal. If someone wants to make an environmentally conscious decision and purchase an electric car, like the ZAP! Xebra Sedan or anything else for that matter they should feel free to do so without being guilt-tripped into thinking it's a bad move. The negative impact isn't from the vehicle itself, it emits nothing, it's from the power source. So instead of harping on those who are trying to make a difference, maybe they should be concentrating on a solution to the actual power production! Buy Electric!

Reply

Here's the problem with nuclear:
1) there is no storage facility for it's radioactive waste
2) A huge expansion of nuclear power would create a uranium shortage, making the material much more expensive
3) Industry not reporting leaks
4) It's UnInsurable, except by the federal government
because
5) Nuclear Power plants are Big TARGETS.

So, I'm against nuclear power at least until Obama GETS Osama, because the Bush admin isn't doing anything to get him.

The economics of Solar and Wind Plus the Risks of Nuclear make Solar and Wind power Cheaper and Safer TODAY.

If that makes me a "deep green" then so be it.

Reply

whoa wise golden why the hate against stoners? why not blame the drunks too while your at it, just because you haven't met one that accomplished something for society doesn't give you the right to call all of them worthless beings for the future.

That type of attitude does not differentiate the point your trying to make, a hater.

But back to the point I thought there were studies on about coal vs a corolla and it still marked a 13% CO2 improvement!

those who argue about the transportation of oil and the energy it requires can also argue about the energy it requires to mine batteries and build them. Then again that's a whole new ball park

the arguing will always be there, its just up to you to have the heart to convince those crazies!

Reply

How about we all just start walking. Oh wait then we use up all the oxygen and breathe out CO2.
If we know that as we get older we die, then who cares, the earth has gone through this before, it will do just fine again. If we are that ignorant to think this is the first time humans were capable of putting themselves into this position of too much CO2, or anything "too much" for that matter, then we as humans we never figure out the solution.

Reply

Nuclear. Even now with so few plants around the world, we've had several accidents and even more close accidents (not counting the ones we weren't told about). Even with so few plants we have a problem with storage.

Now imagine 100 x more nuclear plants. That is 100x more possibilities something will go wrong badly, 100x more nuclear waste we have no solution for, 100x more targets for idiots with their (hidden) agenda.

If the money for nuclear research was pumped into photovoltaic energy research, we could have a much better solution in a few years.

Reply

So, coal plants are perfectly clean and pollution-free when producing electricity for homes, but when charging electric cars, they suddenly start belching out huge amounts of pollution?

How does the coal plant know where the electricity is going? Once it travels from the plant to your home, how can the plant tell what you're using that electricity for?

Or maybe, even though the article never mentions it(!), coal plants produce lots of pollution all the time, no matter what we use the electricty for. But that would make coal plants the problem, not electric cars, which clearly doesn't fit the authors agenda.

There are lots of other ways to produce electricty; solar, wind, nuclear, hydro, natural gas, oil. Just about all of them are cleaner than coal. We don't get choices with gasoline.

There are no panels I can put on my roof that can turn sunshine into pollution-free gasoline. That's why electric cars are better.

Reply

Solar Power to Rule in 20 Years, Futurists Say

BOSTON — He predicted the fall of the Soviet Union. He predicted the explosive spread of the Internet and wireless access.
Now futurist and inventor Ray Kurzweil is part of distinguished panel of engineers that says solar power will scale up to produce all the energy needs of Earth's people in 20 years.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/080219-kurzweil-solar.html

Reply

Here is some VERY interesting reading on The Law of Accelerating Returns.

http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1

Reply