Electric vehicles “unclean at any speed”?

[MoSurveyor]

I find it odd that ICE car emissions so obsess you given they are but a very tiny percentage of the harmful emissions today. I'm all for tackling pollution but I sense a rather more devious motivation is at work when people start demonising cars. Isnt this far more to do with restricting freedoms and imposing control ?

Today, motor vehicles are responsible for nearly one half of smog-forming volatile organic compounds (VOCs), more than half of the nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions, and about half of the toxic air pollutant emissions in the United States. Motor vehicles, including nonroad vehicles, now account for 75 percent of carbon monoxide emissions nationwide.

Cars, Trucks, Buses, and "Nonroad" Equipment | Plain English Guide to The Clean Air Act | US EPA

 

[Lord of Planar]

Thank you for that quote from the coal industry. I am sure they would never lie in order to protect their dwindling profits.

That was my quote. Not theirs. Have you looked into how much better modern technology is than in the past?

It's not very nice to attribute my words to someone else. please don't do it again. Next time I may not play so nice.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Cars, Trucks, Buses, and "Nonroad" Equipment | Plain English Guide to The Clean Air Act | US EPA

LOL...

They have to include "non road vehicles" to make those numbers look so scary.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Even if we create some type of high density power cell, then we effectively have huge bombs that people will be driving. I'll bet the terrorists would love them for modification...

You mean like those bombs they used on the World Trade Center towers?!?

 

[MoSurveyor]

LOL...

They have to include "non road vehicles" to make those numbers look so scary.

They can't separeate the two for measurement. How is it you can't understand the farm tractors and cars that both run on gasoline will have the same kind of exhaust gases? Ditto for semis and larger diesel tractors. :roll:

 

[Lord of Planar]

You mean like those bombs they used on the World Trade Center towers?!?

It depends on how much power density there is, and how it can be released. Since such powerful power cells don't exist yet, I'm just throwing that probability out there. If we create a battery that weighs less than a 16 gallon fuel tank, filled, with the same driving capabilities...

That's one hell of a of of energy. Fuel only burns so fast. I wasn't thinking of a bomb like you mentioned, but I only want to point out, that replacement technology could have serious drawbacks.

 

[Lord of Planar]

They can't separeate the two for measurement. How is it you can't understand the farm tractors and cars that both run on gasoline will have the same kind of exhaust gases? Ditto for semis and larger diesel tractors. :roll:

Ok, so you advocate replacing all vehicles with different technology, because we can't separate them?

Is that your point?

I am pointing out that I think articles are useless in a debate like we are having. Because like you said, we cannot separate them.

 

[MoSurveyor]

I went to Sears looking for an Xmas gift last year for my brother inlaw and they had these new lithium ion battery chargers for cordless tools. They were so small compared to the old ones (1/3 size) and similar voltages or even more in some cases. I picked one up with a drill attached and pulled the trigger expecting a weak motion, when the thing nearly jerked out of my hand with so much force.

It's only a matter of time before they make a car battery/engine so powerful and long ranged that it replaces gas engines. I saw a movie with Keven James and Vince Vaughn where they were inventing the vibration and motor growl of a classic muscle car for the sportier electric models.

Electric motors are better suited than their ICE counter-parts for common transportation because the torque "curve" is a line that starts at it's peak and then slopes downward. The HP curves tend to calculate out to rough parabolas with the peak being near the 60-65% point of full load. Most cars operate in the low- and mid-range most of the time, making electrics even more "efficient" as far as usage common goes in addition to their obvious advantages from strictly an energy efficiency viewpoint.


LOL! To the sound effects! They can come over and record my Road Runner if they want. I've tripped car alarms with it once or twice.

 

[MoSurveyor]

It depends on how much power density there is, and how it can be released. Since such powerful power cells don't exist yet, I'm just throwing that probability out there. If we create a battery that weighs less than a 16 gallon fuel tank, filled, with the same driving capabilities...

That's one hell of a of of energy. Fuel only burns so fast. I wasn't thinking of a bomb like you mentioned, but I only want to point out, that replacement technology could have serious drawbacks.

Gasoline already has it's drawbacks. Not even counting whole Pinto fiasco, cars do on occasion catch fire and on rare occasions blow up.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Ok, so you advocate replacing all vehicles with different technology, because we can't separate them?

Is that your point?

I am pointing out that I think articles are useless in a debate like we are having. Because like you said, we cannot separate them.

You honestly believe "non road vehicles" can even come close to competing with the ~250,000,000 vehicles on the roads of America? I'm sure someone has done some basic calculations on this, why don't you make a case for it if you think it so critical?

 

[Lord of Planar]

You honestly believe "non road vehicles" can even come close to competing with the ~250,000,000 vehicles on the roads of America? I'm sure someone has done some basic calculations on this, why don't you make a case for it if you think it so critical?

When it comes to pollution, maybe so. Today's cars are magnitudes cleaner than other vehicles. i simply don't know.

My maintain that I find that link laughable.

 

[MoSurveyor]

When it comes to pollution, maybe so. Today's cars are magnitudes cleaner than other vehicles. i simply don't know.

Yes they are, as that link clearly says:

The Clean Air Act required EPA to issue a series of rules to reduce pollution from vehicle exhaust, refueling emissions and evaporating gasoline. As a result, emissions from a new car purchased today are well over 90 percent cleaner than a new vehicle purchased in 1970.

Cars, Trucks, Buses, and "Nonroad" Equipment | Plain English Guide to The Clean Air Act | US EPA

My maintain that I find that link laughable.

You're invited to present better evidence - or any evidence at all, for that matter, since you've haven't presented anything except your uninformed guesses. I'm pretty sure no one else on the planet monitors US air quality and composition better than the EPA.


I also find your comments laughable considering that link also confirms your statement about cleaner vehicles. Should we laugh at just the EPA or should we be laughing at you, too, for agreeing with them? :lol:

 

[Deuce]

OP's article invokes nuclear fears. Premise rejected.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You're invited to present better evidence - or any evidence at all, for that matter, since you've haven't presented anything except your uninformed guesses.

I'd love to, but why waste my time? You're too busy to dispute the evidences I give.

I gave you two examples of proof against the alarmists. You say you are too busy, and ask me to continue to dig into research?

Please... Don't insult me. Match me first.

 

[MoSurveyor]

I'd love to, but why waste my time? You're too busy to dispute the evidences I give.

I gave you two examples of proof against the alarmists. You say you are too busy, and ask me to continue to dig into research?

Please... Don't insult me. Match me first.

You have presented no evidence about vehicle pollution at all. Try again.

 

[trfjr]

Yes, of course.

In order to support the development of the automobile, we built an entire highway system. Not to mention traffic lights, parking lots, bridges, ferry boats and other infrastructure that costs more than what little they are investing in these cars. Not to mention the billions that they use to subsidize the oil industry. Not to mention the technology patents like GPS and plastics that they build cars from. So, yes, sure. That's their job. If they would invest more in development and less in pushing us around, we'd all be better off.

they built all that because of the demand for Automobiles not to create a demand

 

[Lord of Planar]

You have presented no evidence about vehicle pollution at all. Try again.

LOL...

My God.

I didn't say I did. I'm talking about the two proof I gave about radiative forcing. You say you are too busy, have a life, etc. to disprove what I say.

Again, why should I waste my time, when I get nothing in return.

Are you my intellectual equal, or not?

 

[MoSurveyor]

LOL...\
My God.
I didn't say I did.

I'll take that to mean "I have no clue what I'm taking about when it comes to pollution, especially vehicle pollution".

I'm talking about the two proof I gave about radiative forcing. You say you are too busy, have a life, etc. to disprove what I say.
Again, why should I waste my time, when I get nothing in return.
Are you my intellectual equal, or not?

At this point I'm willing to bet I'm above it since I don't rush people to come to uninformed conclusions. You've been researching CO2 for awhile and I've just started, yet you want me to jump to judgement without proper research. It this point, I have to wonder what is it you expect me to find if I look too closely. It must be something bad if you're in such a hurry for an answer. Used car salesmen are like that, too. They don't want you to think too much or you might conclude they're full of crap.

 

[Lord of Planar]

At this point I'm willing to bet I'm above it since I don't rush people to come to uninformed conclusions.

Nice try.

The radiative forcing stuff we discussed is pretty simple, yet you don't have time.

Once again, I'm not even going to run any numbers on the pollution scenario. I think it's silly anyway considering how much cleaner the air in than in the 70's.

I took time on two examples, with no end result from you. Why should I let you slide a third time? That's what will happen. You will refuse to answer a valid point a third time. I will come up with something that I spent time on, only to be ignored. Not dismissed, but ignored. It's your pattern. When someone offers you real evidence that breaks your faith, you refuse to deal with it.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Nice try.

Nice dodge for the thread topic. Divert the discussion because heaven forbid you would admit you're talking out of your butt on pollution, especially vehicle pollution.

The radiative forcing stuff we discussed is pretty simple, yet you don't have time.

Once again, I'm not even going to run any numbers on the pollution scenario. I think it's silly anyway considering how much cleaner the air in than in the 70's.

I took time on two examples, with no end result from you. Why should I let you slide a third time? That's what will happen. You will refuse to answer a valid point a third time. I will come up with something that I spent time on, only to be ignored. Not dismissed, but ignored. It's your pattern. When someone offers you real evidence that breaks your faith, you refuse to deal with it.

If you think it's "pretty simple" then maybe that's the problem. I never take the "pretty simple" option when it comes to the environment. I've seen that attitude backfire quite often, even among the "experts".


I have no idea what "other times" you're talking about. We discussed ocean warming and I did sit down and go though those calculations. We discussed it then you presented more evidence and I said I'd have to dig deeper. Now you want me to make an uninformed decision so I have to wonder what you're hiding that you don't want me to find.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Fine. Keep in mind, I have a life too. The vehicle emissions area is one I would have to dig in deeper than I would normally do. Still, I don't think it's a problem because like I said. We are cleaner today than in the 70's, therefore, I have little concern on the matter.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Fine. Keep in mind, I have a life too. The vehicle emissions area is one I would have to dig in deeper than I would normally do. Still, I don't think it's a problem because like I said. We are cleaner today than in the 70's, therefore, I have little concern on the matter.

You have an unsupported opinion that is contrary to the EPA's information. I'll let that fall where it may, no problem.

 

[FederalRepublic]

I'm glad you see the amazing advancements in electric engines. And yes, batteries need improvements but waiting around until all the oil runs dry is not a wise solution to get battery technology to improve. Having the technology where we're at now on the market is what drives improvements.

And put m on record as predicting electric car technology will eventually surpass the intertribal combustion engine in every category; efficiency, costs, costs to operate, range, life of vehicle before its too worn out to drive anymore. How soon, I'm not sure especally when we have a huge segment of the population who have dug in their heels to oppose modernization for reasons having to do with political tribalism. They've made political foes of "environmentalist wackos" who they will oppose even if it means unending wars and dictators ripping us off to fund lavish lifestyles, but the day will come when the oil monopoly on personal transportation ends and is second-fiddle to electric cars.

Electric motors and batteries have been around pretty much the same amout of time as the internal combustion engine. Calling an electric car "modernization" is like saying 80 is the new 20. Unless you want to talk about fuel cells or hydrogen-powered engines, there's nothing new or exciting about today's electric cars and there's nothing even on the horizon to suggest that battery-powered cars will ever come close to the range of a comparable gas/diesel/natural gas/propane-powered car. There's no conspiracy keeping electric cars from catching on. It's just that batteries are a terrible storage medium for high-power applications.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Electric motors and batteries have been around pretty much the same amout of time as the internal combustion engine. Calling an electric car "modernization" is like saying 80 is the new 20. Unless you want to talk about fuel cells or hydrogen-powered engines, there's nothing new or exciting about today's electric cars and there's nothing even on the horizon to suggest that battery-powered cars will ever come close to the range of a comparable gas/diesel/natural gas/propane-powered car. There's no conspiracy keeping electric cars from catching on. It's just that batteries are a terrible storage medium for high-power applications.

The difference is, a 4-cycle gas engine is a 4-cycle gas engine. You can add some thrills and make it more efficient - and we seem to be pushing that edge now - but it's still a 4-cycle gas engine with it's 20-25% efficiency rating. By comparison, electric motors over their century of existence have increased to an efficiency of 85-95% over their power range.


As for batteries, they really are different. An old-fashioned dry cell or even a lead-acid battery is a far cry from modern NiCd or NiMH and there are other options being explored as we speak, exploration that wouldn't have taken place without the current interest in electric vehicles. Plenty of room for improvement in battery technology or maybe even small, on-board power generation.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Oops! Looks like the greenies lose another one.

Sure they do....



6. Conclusions
After our base case, sensitivity analysis, and uncertainty analysis, all of our results point to one main finding: a BEV is more energy efficient, and less polluting than a CV.
Although it takes 13 years to pay off the extra initial cost of a BEV over the lifetime of the vehicle, a BEV can ultimately save the consumer money. With improving technology, batteries and their production will become more efficient and BEV costs will likely decrease, making an electric car more attractive in the future from the consumer’s standpoint.
The majority of CV lifecycle air pollutants are emitted on the road. This type of emission is a mobile source - pollution that is very difficult to confine. Air pollution from BEVs however are emitted during the production of electricity and thus are a point source. Pollution from point sources has the potential to be easier to mitigate. With future advances in capturing and storing or chemically removing air pollution, BEV’s will have an even lower impact on the environment. Reduced air pollution leads to improved visibility and public health benefits.
With AB 32, California has committed to increasing its renewable energy sources through climate action policy. AB32 mandates that California’s electricity mix contain at least 33% renewables by 2020. The production of clean, virtually emissions-free energy makes BEVs more appealing, especially as the charging of BEVs will increase electricity consumption. This increase in renewables is also likely to drive improvements in energy technology and efficiency.
Future research can project our analysis even further. We recommend continued analysis in battery production and recycling. Clearly the BEV is preferred in terms of environmental concerns. However, further research needs to be conducted on how to better meet consumers’ need with longer battery range and faster charging ability.
http://www.environment.ucla.edu/media_IOE/files/BatteryElectricVehicleLCA2012-rh-ptd.pdf