Little Green Lies: Why Electric Cars Won’t Save the Environment

[SirLinksALot]

SOURCE: AMERICAN THINKER

URL: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/07/little_green_lies_why_electric_cars_wont_save_the_environment.html

by: Larry Alton


Things don’t look good for electric cars these days -- but did they ever? Tesla experienced a series of recalls, even before the recent crash in Florida that put the company’s autopilot system in the spotlight. Apparently, watching a Harry Potter movie and letting your car drive isn’t exactly a safe practice.

But the real problem with electric cars is actually the problem they’re marketed to solve: pollution. While the left insists that electric cars are the only way to protect the environment, they’re actually damaging the oil industry while shifting money to liberal interests.

Meanwhile, electric cars have proven to be a greater source of pollution than traditional vehicles.

Charges against Car Charging

One reason why the polluting effects of electric cars are obfuscated is because their proponents point to charging stations as a sustainable alternative to gasoline. What these electric car cheerleaders don’t explain, however, is where the electricity for charging these cars comes from. When the answer is coal, environmentalists no longer have a leg to stand on when they advocate for electric vehicles.

Sourcing energy from coal results in nearly four times the number of pollution deaths than gas due to the soot and smog involved in burning coal. While it’s nice that liberals can separate themselves from this source of pollution, since they don’t see it firsthand when driving electric vehicles, its naïve and hypocritical to proclaim they’re taking care of the environment with these cars.

Furthermore, though the Obama administration rewards drivers of electric cars, the left is really playing both sides of the fence. Though many of these car charging systems rely on coal, Obama’s administration froze all coal mining on federal land earlier this year. Couple that with his Clean Power Plan and thousands of mining jobs, as well as a significant source of U.S. energy, have been decimated with a flick of Obama’s pen.

Production Pollutants

It’s not just charging electric cars that make them an enemy of the earth. These vehicles still come from traditional manufacturing facilities and are actually responsible for a greater per-vehicle quantity of emissions than traditional vehicles. Before they’ve even set tires to pavement, electric cars have already done more damage than their combustion engine counterparts, with the batteries in electric cars playing a big role in this.

Producing the batteries for electric cars means a lot of mining and environmental damage that you won’t hear admitted by electric vehicle proponents. And when those batteries die, do you think they’ll just disappear into thin air, leaving no impact behind? Of course not. Improper disposal of batteries can create lasting damage in the areas where they’re dumped.

Weight Repercussions

Among car owners, electric vehicles are often praised for needing less maintenance than their traditional counterparts, with owners and mechanics citing various fluid changes and part replacements in this figure. This argument, however, is blatantly false. The tires and brakes on electric vehicles in particular are prone to excess wear, more breakdown, and higher emissions than combustion engine vehicles. This is largely due to the fact that electric vehicles are heavier, putting more strain on tires and belts.

The reality is that in order to propel a non-combustion vehicle, there are a lot of heavy pieces needed, while improvements in the combustion engine in recent years have made traditional vehicles much more efficient than in the past. The breakdown in tires and other car parts also produces a variety of non-exhaust emissions that no one seems willing to admit are a result of choosing electric vehicles.

Exporting Their Pollutants

While liberals in major cities snap up electric vehicles -- which do perform better in cities than in rural areas, though still at a high cost -- they’re also exporting the polluting aspects of their choices to less wealthy areas, forgetting about the little guy who’s affected by their choices. Most of the coal used to fuel these vehicles comes from places where you won’t see many electric vehicles, such as West Virginia. These “environmental externalities” shift out of view, but they don’t go away.

Even if over 40 percent of U.S. drivers shifted to electric vehicles, studies have revealed that this would be an unrealistic approach to reducing pollution and improving air quality. Charging these vehicles would result in higher emissions and greater pollution, and that doesn’t even account for the waste involved in transitioning hundreds of thousands of combustion engine cars off the roads.

Where would all of these vehicles -- many of which now get excellent mileage -- go if they were replaced? Would they just be dumped? Manufacturing would also need to speed up to meet demand, causing massive quantities of emissions as electric vehicle plants enter high production mode. The costs, both fiscally and socially, would be astronomical.

It’s time to put an end to the specious argument for electric vehicles when the bulk of the evidence indicates that they aren’t holding up any part of the environmental savior promise. The reality is that electric vehicles are a pet project of the left with no real advantages for society, carrying with them only greater pollution and individual harm.

Keep your combustion engine vehicle. When everyone else catches on, you’ll know you were on the right side all along.

[Joe Wooten]

When the $7500/car federal subsidy ends, so will the electric car craze end.

[thackney]

[Just_Victor]

When the $7500/car federal subsidy ends, so will the electric car craze end.

Even with $7500 tax rebate, the 100-mile range, ~2 hours of operation with an 8 hour charge time, makes the vehicle useless for most driving conditions.  You would do better to get an electric golf cart.

[thackney]

And for those that compare the efficiency of an electric car to the a internal combustion engine car, make sure they compare the complete efficiency of turning fuel into electrical power for that electric car.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

And for those that compare the efficiency of an electric car to the a internal combustion engine car, make sure they compare the complete efficiency of turning fuel into electrical power for that electric car.

great graph.

Electric Cars are only bought by the well-to-do, which do not need a subsidy.

Wonder where all that govt cash contribution then goes?

[thackney]

great graph.

Slightly dated.

Current is at:
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/flow/electricity.pdf

[Joe Wooten]

And for those that compare the efficiency of an electric car to the a internal combustion engine car, make sure they compare the complete efficiency of turning fuel into electrical power for that electric car.

When you want to directly compare efficiencies of an electric car to an IC car you multiply the efficiency of electrical generation (average 40%) by the efficiency of the electrical motor (average 90% at full load) and line losses (about 6% for a multiplier of 94%)for an overall efficiency of ~34%. Modern IC engines have an efficiency of about 35%. 

[thackney]

When you want to directly compare efficiencies of an electric car to an IC car you multiply the efficiency of electrical generation (average 40%) by the efficiency of the electrical motor (average 90% at full load) and line losses (about 6% for a multiplier of 94%)for an overall efficiency of ~34%. Modern IC engines have an efficiency of about 35%.

Worse than that.

Add the efficiency of the charger, the battery, the inverter and the variable speed drive before you get to the motor.  The motor is rarely going to be operating at full load.

[Joe Wooten]

Worse than that.

Add the efficiency of the charger, the battery, the inverter and the variable speed drive before you get to the motor.  The motor is rarely going to be operating at full load.

I just gave the absolute best scenario for both types. Reality is always much worse. IC engine efficiency rarely is 35% itself.

[dfwgator]

[Cyber Liberty]

My commuter situation is perfect for an E-car, but I'll be damned if I do it.  The cost is insane, even if the Gummint is offering to pay some.  I have a Hybrid now, and I'm looking for an exit plan before the warranty runs out on the $10,000 battery.  I'd be in the same spot if I had an E-car.

[thackney]

Not only would we then have a distributed power line system that would be nearly impervious to line breaks

Was that a joke?

Have you never seen the amount of road repair down in this country every year?

 And no batteries? So every parking lot, driveway, rural county road along with rebuilding every highway I. The nation before the system can be used.

Rather foolish concept.  If down a significant pothole would disable use of the entire road.

Not to mention the losses involved with induction compared to direct electrical contact.

[Cripplecreek]

Even with $7500 tax rebate, the 100-mile range, ~2 hours of operation with an 8 hour charge time, makes the vehicle useless for most driving conditions.  You would do better to get an electric golf cart.

Jay Leno nailed it when he said he loves his but recognizes that its a rich man's toy. He said he drives it to the studio where it charges for 12 hours and then he drives it home where it goes on the charger till the next day. He also noted the fact tat electricity is still being produced primarily by fossil fuels.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

And if one road needs repairs, the other roads provide the electricity to homes and business.  It's not like their is usually only one road to and from anyplace.

And for the road itself, it's not like a break in the line suddenly de-electrifies the rest of it, so the cars can still drive.  Sure, there would be a momentary power loss at the point of break, but that'd be less than a second as the vehicle's momentum carries it past the break.

If you'd like we could have a small battery for short durations with a power loss.

All that seems to be an attempt to make the freedom we exercise on highways into another onerous mass transit system.

No thank you.  I like our freedoms.  I can see these being turned into control mechanisms by authoritarians to decide who goes where and when.  The current decentralization of transportation via automobiles is anathema to those who wish to control us.

[kevindavis007]

I prefer Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars..

[thackney]

I prefer Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars..

Hydrogen is a terrible fuel, except in terms of energy/mass.

Cost to produce, transport, store, etc just make it unreasonable, without justification for automobile transportation.

I've worked with several hydrogen systems for different refineries over the years.  The wasted energy in the production and compression is just immense.  Not to mention everything goes up significantly in costed compared to handling a fuel like natural gas: pipe and vessel alloys, gasketing material, electrical equipment rated for a hydrogen classified area, etc.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Hydrogen is a terrible fuel, except in terms of energy/mass.

Cost to produce, transport, store, etc just make it unreasonable, without justification for automobile transportation.

I've worked with several hydrogen systems for different refineries over the years.  The wasted energy in the production and compression is just immense.  Not to mention everything goes up significantly in costed compared to handling a fuel like natural gas: pipe and vessel alloys, gasketing material, electrical equipment rated for a hydrogen classified area, etc.

And pure hydrogen is not frequently found in nature unlike the abundant hydrocarbons like oil and gas.

It is not called natural gas for nothing.

There are too many people who do not understand the hydrocarbons that are naturally found in the ground all around us are simply the best overall energy supply we could have.  A gift from God.

[LateForLunch]

And pure hydrogen is not frequently found in nature unlike the abundant hydrocarbons like oil and gas.

It is not called natural gas for nothing.

There are too many people who do not understand the hydrocarbons that are naturally found in the ground all around us are simply the best overall energy supply we could have.  A gift from God.

Bucky Fuller outlined how a superconducting hydrogen energy grid around the entire planet would be the most efficient for delivering low-cost energy to everyone. The beauty of his plan was that the surplus of local power available at low-consumption periods permits the power to be diverted to the creation of more hydrogen through electrolysis, which has no harmful byproducts, unlike chemical synthesis of hydrogen.

The key to a hydrogen energy car solution would be the need for massive amounts of hydrogen, which is solved only by converting the entire U.S. grid to a superconducting one. That would require a significant outlay of financial resources which would not be possible under the currently grossly mismanaged, insanely wasteful, corrupt government we maintain.

[thackney]

superconducting hydrogen energy grid around the entire planet

What the heck is that supposed to mean?  Superconducting refers to electrical power circuits.  Hydrogen is compressed and moved in pipes.

Neither is a source of energy, it is converted energy from another source.  Conversions to both are very inefficient.

[Sanguine]

I didn't read the article, but I'm going to guess it's because you still need to produce the energy to manufacture, transport, power and maintain the electric car.  Or, something along those lines.

[Cyber Liberty]

What the heck is that supposed to mean?  Superconducting refers to electrical power circuits.  Hydrogen is compressed and moved in pipes.

Neither is a source of energy, it is converted energy from another source.  Conversions to both are very inefficient.

I prefer to use the highly technical term, "Majick."

[LateForLunch]

What the heck is that supposed to mean?  Superconducting refers to electrical power circuits.  Hydrogen is compressed and moved in pipes.

Neither is a source of energy, it is converted energy from another source.  Conversions to both are very inefficient.

hah hah sorry, maybe I should have been more clear. Fuel cell vehicles use hydrogen as the fuel. A reaction splits the molecules of hydrogen creating electricity, powering the motor. This process also creates a small amount of water and oxygen as by-products. There would not be enough hydrogen produced in the USA to fuel millions of such vehicles. Currently, hydrogen is produced industrially by primarily two methods - one involves chemicals and has toxic byproducts, the other requires electricity to produce but has no harmful by-products. 

If there were a superconducting energy grid in the nation, it would be so efficient that there would be a massive surplus of power available cheaply (especially at night when industries, which use the bulk of all power, are largely idle). With the extra power, hydrogen producing plants could run and make enough hydrogen fuel available to run millions of hydrogen fuel-cell powered vehicles.

The idea of a superconducting national or international energy grid is not new. It has been explored in articles in Scientific American magazine and elsewhere. Once established (albeit requiring a major investment in the tens of trillions of dollars) power would likely be much cheaper than it is now. The grid would theoretically be so efficient that it would be able to transport power around the globe without losing too much in electrical resistance "leakage" to make it cost effective.

http://phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/SA_Supergrid.pdf

In essence, energy created in one nation would be able to circle the planet and unused power on one side of the planet in darkness, would instantaneously be transported to the day-light side of the planet.

Of course the initial investment of building the grid nationally (and internationally) and a hydrogen-fuel-cell-based auto industry would be enormous.

NOTE: The PDF article has some references to "greenhouse gasses" that can (and should) be ignored. The authors are obviously trying to make the strongest case for their proposal and in that effort, using some elements of argument that are designed to appeal to ecoparanoids who believe that fossil fuel power is "destroying the world". The article is mostly just information and the references to AGW-related nonsense are minimal and do not alter the basic core premises explored.

[Just_Victor]

I prefer to use the highly technical term, "Majick."

Closely related to the scientific term, "pipe dream."

[thackney]

Currently, hydrogen is produced industrially by primarily two methods - one involves chemicals and has toxic byproducts, the other requires electricity to produce but has no harmful by-products. 

Nearly all hydrogen used in the US is produced by steam reforming natural gas.  There are no more toxic byproducts than that of a natural gas engine.

If there were a superconducting energy grid in the nation, it would be so efficient that there would be a massive surplus of power available cheaply (especially at night when industries, which use the bulk of all power, are largely idle).

The entire line losses including transmission, transformer and distribution systems is only about 8~9% losses.  Replacing the transmission system with a magic system of no losses would gain 4~5% of the energy.  No big change at all.

With the extra power, hydrogen producing plants could run and make enough hydrogen fuel available to run millions of hydrogen fuel-cell powered vehicles.

Producing hydrogen from electrolysis is about 1/3 of the energy loss.  Nearly double that for compression and transportation of the hydrogen.  I have worked in hydrogen systems in refineries.  The losses are immense in compression due to the low specific gravity and the consequential heat gains in compression.

The idea of a superconducting national or international energy grid is not new. It has been explored in articles in Scientific American magazine and elsewhere.

Just like magic perpetual motion machines.

Once established (albeit requiring a major investment in the tens of trillions of dollars) power would likely be much cheaper than it is now.

No.  You are talking about immense cost for a 5% savings of energy.

The grid would theoretically be so efficient that it would be able to transport power around the globe without losing too much in electrical resistance "leakage" to make it cost effective.

Not enough losses to make a difference.  Far greater advantages in chasing better generation efficiencies.