Study says electric cars worse for environment than gas cars...

[Hammerfest]

http://www.nber.org/papers/w21291

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ne...ticle/2566847#

Electric cars are worse for the environment per mile than comparable gasoline-powered cars, according to a new study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. This contradicts the common assumption that electric cars are cleaner. In spite of this, the federal government still pays $7,500 for every electric car purchased — a subsidy the nation would be better off without, say the authors.

Although the typical assumption is that electric cars are cleaner than gasoline-fueled cars, the power for electric cars has to come from somewhere, and it's often from coal-fired power plants. "Rather than simply accepting the assertion of environmental benefits from electric vehicle use, this paper conducts a rigorous comparison of the environmental consequences of gasoline and electric powered vehicles, specifically by quantifying the externalities (both greenhouse gases and local air pollution) generated by driving these vehicles," the authors write.

I've been saying this for years.

[zephid]

But you can fix that by not using coal-fired power plants.

We will have to switch from gasoline powered cars sooner or later, might as well do it sooner rather than later.

[I Push Buttons]

Because we only burn coal to power electric cars.

[Netherspark]

I'm pretty sure it's been fairly common knowledge for years that electric and hybrid cars are disastrous for the environment. They're basically just a scam.

It's not just the power that makes them bad. it's the materials and the methods they're built with -- a modern electric/hybrid car produces more pollution and consumes more resources to make than older petrol cars will produce throughout their entire lifetime.

[SL1200]

So ban the coal burning power plants. Problem solved.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Gonna give this thread a A for effort, but a C- for execution, seeing as how the proposed argument got destroyed in the first post.

[Plutarch78]

So ban the coal burning power plants. Problem solved.

And replace them with what???

Nuclear? And risk another meltdown like the one in Japan recently? Wind and solar are okay, but are not viable enough to produce the amount necessary to completely replace coal, which is cheap and plentiful. Plus, solar and wind panels are made from hydrocarbons as well.

[Kujako]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...S._Coal_Plants

Number of coal power plants in CA, ten. Very easy to get power from something else. In fact in most counties there are renewable options for at least 40% of your power.

That being said.... if you buy a new car for environmental reasons, you're doing it wrong. I go carless, but if you must have a car get a used diesel. Most of the environmental impact is from the vehicle manufacturing.

[Netherspark]

So ban the coal burning power plants. Problem solved.

And replace them with what?

[Kujako]

And replace them with what?

Nuclear, natural gas, hydroelectric, wind, solar, tidal, bio, etc....

[SL1200]

And replace them with what?

I like nuclear energy. We got a reactor not far from here. I'd take wind turbines, but seems a lot of people don't like the way they look. I think the turbine farms are beautiful. Anything but burning coal. Coal needs to be phased out.

[Theinquisition]

http://www.nber.org/papers/w21291

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ne...ticle/2566847#





I've been saying this for years.

What's not mentioned is how battery materials are mined in Canada, shipped to Europe to be refined, shipped to China to be assembled shiped to Japan to be installed in cars, and shipped to the US to be sold.

That's alot of gas used to ship stuff around.

- - - Updated - - -

And replace them with what???

Nuclear? And risk another meltdown like the one in Japan recently? Wind and solar are okay, but are not viable enough to produce the amount necessary to completely replace coal, which is cheap and plentiful. Plus, solar and wind panels are made from hydrocarbons as well.

The nuclear event at fukushima was vastly overstated, and we could switch to thorium nuclear power which is much cleaner

[Hammerfest]

But you can fix that by not using coal-fired power plants.

Which would be dumb for the US considering we're the Saudi Arabia of coal. Of course, there's also nuclear power to consider...

[Theinquisition]

Nuclear, natural gas, hydroelectric, wind, solar, tidal, bio, etc....

Natural gas...okay, but it's finite.

Hydro...we're about tapped out where we can build dams with minimal environmental impact.

Wind...costs too much to build tranfer infastucture.

Solar....not cost effective without any govt subsidies.

Tidal...cool

Bio...cool

[Deleted]

It's important to remember the difference between fuel and a battery as a power source.

Fuel generates energy locally, with less overhead costs, but also less efficiency. Fuel also typically is non-renewable resource "found lying around".
Batteries (electric, hydrogen, etc), generates energy in a centralized location, and has more overhead cost, but can be more efficient.

So in the end this is more a argument against fossil fuels rather then electric cars. A electric car that uses electric y from a solar/wind power plant beats a combustion engine any day.

[endersblade]

And replace them with what???

Nuclear? And risk another meltdown like the one in Japan recently? Wind and solar are okay, but are not viable enough to produce the amount necessary to completely replace coal, which is cheap and plentiful. Plus, solar and wind panels are made from hydrocarbons as well.

We have several nuclear plants in the US. Why are you comparing something that happened in Japan to the US? When was the last time the US had a meltdown? Three mile island or something?

I love that this whole article is basically complaining about coal-burning power plants powering electric cars. As in, if the cars didn't exist, we wouldn't be using coal plants. Coal plants have been around for DECADES, and until someone finds a better power source, they will be around for decades to come, regardless of electric cars.

"The electricity has to come from somewhere" yeah, from a source that we already pull from. This doesn't contribute anything more than a new computer or an A/C or something. Good lord, this is just a bunch of tinfoil hat wearing, hand waving bullshit.

[Kujako]

Wind...costs too much to build tranfer infastucture.

Can put a small turbine on your roof and get around 500 watt/hours from it, wind permitting, for under a grand. But a lot of towns wont allow them due to noise, which is rather out dated since modern ones with ceramic bearings don't make much of a sound.

[Deleted]

Can put a small turbine on your roof and get around 500 watt/hours from it, wind permitting, for under a grand. But a lot of towns wont allow them due to noise, which is rather out dated since modern ones with ceramic bearings don't make much of a sound.

Ye but often wind is not really cheaper or more CO2 efficient in the end when you factor in construction cost, transport cost, maintenance, disposal cost, etc. Sometimes the CO2 used in building a wind turbine is more then it will save over it's lifetime (tho that could just be older models, but i bet it's true for a lot of those build at sea.)

Biomass also has the funny side effect of competing with agricultural land that could be used for food.

[Theylor]

So there were people who got paid to make this "study", which was actually published, and then it made it to the news. Idiocracy really is happening. I bet there are kids at high school who are smart enough to say "why are they assuming all the energy is coming from coal sources? Also, isn't this actually a technology for the future, when alternative energy methods such as renewable energy become widespread with the advancement of technology, and you know, the depletion of fossil fuels?".

[I Push Buttons]

Can put a small turbine on your roof and get around 500 watt/hours from it, wind permitting, for under a grand. But a lot of towns wont allow them due to noise, which is rather out dated since modern ones with ceramic bearings don't make much of a sound.

Dang a whole 500 watt/hours. And only if the wind is blowing.

That might mean something if the average home in the US didn't use 11,000,000 watt/hours per year on average.