Green Lies Exposed – The Electric Car

The Electric Car like everything pushed by the warming alarmists and Greens, is nothing more than a careful selection of isolated facts all glued together with gallons of snake oil.

If you assume that an electric car is a paranormal object, it miraculously appears without needing manufacture, it runs on electricity that is solely generated by a realistic clean source like nuclear, and then when life expired, disappears in the same miraculous way as it appeared; then the chances are you have been snorting way too much Pixie dust and need to come down:

Electric cars may portray themselves as ‘zero emissions’ but the overall pollution they generate can be almost as great as a frugal conventional diesel car, consumer watchdogs said today.

Electric cars are a lot more expensive to buy – though they are generally cheaper to run as they plug in for their power from the domestic mains, say experts at Which?

The amount of carbon dioxide – the so-called ‘greenhouse gas’ blamed by scientists for global warming – created to generate the electricity powering an electric car, can be just as great as that created by the internal combustion engine, they say.

The main difference is that while a conventional car’s emissions come out of the vehicle’s exhaust pipe, those created by an electric car are generated at the power station which supplies the electricity.

The findings come as the first ever electric car to pass the European crash test was announced – the Mitsubishi i-MiEVsuper-mini – getting four stars out of a maximum five.

Experts at Which? compared the carbon dioxide created by charging electric cars with that emitted by the most efficient diesel models and concluded:’Sometimes there’s not a great deal of difference.’

And the gap is narrowing as ‘conventional’ cars up their game to cut emissions.

The Which? report noted:’The common manufacturer claim that electric cars produce ‘zero emissions’ ignores the fact that most drivers use a conventional electricity supply to charge them, which has a carbon cost from burning fossil fuels. ‘

Other stories on Electric Cars:

Electric Car Sales In Britain Stall

A New Attempt To Kick Start The Electric Car

Advertisements

About Tory Aardvark

Climate Realist, Conservative and proud NRA member. I don't buy into the Man Made Global Warming Scam, science is never settled. http://toryaardvark.com @ToryAardvark on Twitter ToryAardvark on Facebook

Posted on February 27, 2011, in Anthropogenic Global Warming, Church Of Climatology, Climategate, COP16, Copenhagen COP15, Fear, Green Lies, Greenpeace, IPCC, ManBearPig, Oh FFS, Social Engineering, Wealth Redistribution and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 28 Comments.

  1. Not to mention the fact that electricity generation is the problem in the first place, so why push for even more electricity consumers?
    And of course all the electric cars are totally impractical. There isn’t even one that is a normal size, and the range is pathetic (not even one hundred kilometres as compared with at _least_ seven hundred for any normal size diesel car) on all the others plus of course the recharging time of several HOURS as compared to around fifteen minutes for filling up a diesel from empty.

  2. Chevelon Tom (U.S.

    Electrical Vehicles
    Tom Lahman Feb.27, 2011

    “Can our existing system handle it? Given that the grid is stressed already, probably not”
    Brad Allenby, Professor of Engineering at Arizona State University

    People often suggest to me that the ideal “Green” transportation system would consist of electrical cars supplied with electricity produced by wind “farms”. Obama has a stated goal of 0ne million electrical vehicles by 2015 (according to the U.S. dept. of transportation, there are 62 million cars registered in the U.S. – one million would be 1.6% of this.).

    According to the EPA, an electrical vehicle using 33.7 KW is equivalent to a conventional vehicle using one gallon of gasoline1. In 2008 there were a little less than 3 trillion miles2 driven in the U.S. at an est. avg. of 25 mpg. Dividing 3/25 we get 120,000,000,000 (120 billion) gallons of gasoline. If we multiply that by the EPA’s electrical equivalent we arrive at 4.04 trillion KW. Rounded down, this is 4 Giga Watts Hours (GWH). In 2009 the U.S. consumed 3.74 GWH3 of electricity. Replacing the entire U.S. passenger car fleet would require more than double the existing generation capacity.

    Replacing only 10% of the gasoline powered vehicles in this country would require increasing our current electrical system by about 11% (411MWh). Currently there is 36,300 mW4 installed wind capacity in the U.S. This provides 2% of the total U.S. demand so we will need to add five times this (181,500 MW). If we scaled up the recently approved Sheppard’s Flat Wind project5, we would need:
    • 72,600 wind turbines (made in China) producing 2.5 mega watts each (this is about three times what is currently installed in the U.S.) These have an expected life of 20 years.
    • $430,000,000,000 ($430 billion borrowed from China)
    • 4,128,000 acres
    • 18,275 miles of new roadways
    • 20,350 miles of new power lines (the diameter of the earth is 24,000 miles)
    • Increase grid capacity by 10%. (currently the grid consists of 200,000 miles of high voltage lines and approx. 5.5 million miles of local distribution lines)
    • an electrical storage system for which the technology does not exist. The intermittency problem of wind power is compounded by the fact wind power is created mostly at night and in the winter – the inverse of vehicle demand.
    • a national system of recharge stations. At 80 amps, a 4-8 hr recharge can draw as much power as an avg. home. Typical home and industrial power is A.C., electrical vehicles are D.C.

    Recharging is done thru an A.C. to D.C. converter (home recharge systems cost from $1-$2 thousand dollars. A full charge for a Nissan Leaf takes about six hours at 240 volts – twice that at 120 volts. The most expensive chargers operate at 480 volts and can charge most EV batteries in about 15 minutes ,however, this shortens the life of the battery and the charge will likely be more expensive). These converters are typically 87%1 efficient: at this rate putting $50 worth of electricity into a vehicle battery bank will cost $56.70. This portion of the overall efficiency occurs ahead of the vehicle and generally is not reflected in the vehicle efficiency ratings.

    While on the subject of efficiency consider comfort heating (and refrigeration). Heat is a natural byproduct of the internal combustion engine. A portion of this is easily diverted to heating of the passenger compartment. Any battery drain allocated to this end will be substantial, as will the impact on overall efficiency. The drain due to this is compounded as the batteries themselves are significantly affected by the outside temperature. The optimum temperature is 77 degrees F. (see: “Cold truths about electric cars” by Charles Lane, Washington Post, Jan 28,2011). Range is greatly reduced by higher speeds, low temperatures, passenger loads, uneven terrain, and stop and go driving.

    Also, the new smart meter system being installed in Cal, senses spike draws and penalizes for it, especially during peak demand periods which just happens to coincide with peak driving hours. Driving to work will likely require a recharge in order to get home. If this is done at the work place, business owners are sure to object to the enhanced expense – unless there is a subsidy!
    On a pound for pound basis: gasoline contains about 80 times the energy as the best lithium-ion battery2. As an example, a Ford Focus or Golf-sized car can travel over 370 miles in mixed driving conditions and can easily maintain a speed of 70mph, even when fully loaded. For an electric car to match that, its lithium-ion batteries would weigh over 1.5 tons and would be as large as the car itself. And remember we are talking about a two-seater. Few are going to choose a two-seater as a primary vehicle, Until this changes, electric vehicles will remain at best, expensive optional second vehicles.
    from The Washington Post2:

    The 1000 lb lithium-ion battery pack in the Tesla Roadster1 has an anticipated lifespan of about 7 years or 100,000 miles. At five years/50,000 miles the battery pack is expected to have degraded to 70% capacity. The cost of replacing the pack is expected to be approximately $36,000 (2009). The Roadster itself will cost almost $100,000. The Nissan Leaf2 (green, get it?) lists for about $32,000. It’s battery pack represents about half of the cost and is guaranteed for only 75,000 miles. Question: At the 75,000 mile mark would you be willing to sink an additional $16,000 into your current automobile? Another Question: How much will a used EV be worth as it nears the warrantied life of the battery? (Electrical vehicles weigh approx 30% more than gasoline vehicles of the same size. This results in a 30% reduction in tire life. Tires are a crude oil product. Most tires sold in America are made in China)

    The manufacturing of Lithium-Ion batteries, like wind turbines and solar cells will be dominated by Asia. In a Bloomberg article last summer Former Intel chief Andy Grove had this to say: “The U.S. lost its lead in batteries 30 years ago when it stopped making consumer electronics devices. U.S. companies did not participate in the first phase and consequently were not in the running for all that followed. I doubt they will ever catch up.”

    In South Korea, there are 17,600 people employed in the Lithium-Ion battery industry, China has 33,200, and Japan 35,700. Here in the U.S., the entire workforce consists of 1100 lonely soles – a little over 1.2%3 of the world wide total.

    There is research underway to create huge Lithium Ion battery* banks for wind “Farms” *. Lithium is not a hugely abundant resource (the most economical sources are in Bolivia and China). It is doubtful that there is sufficient quantities of lithium to achieve this any meaningful way. Any attempt at this will increase demand and will most certainly launch the cost of automotive battery banks to such a level that for replacement to be even remotely affordable, yet another subsidy will be required.

    *This will be an enormously expensive “solution” requiring yet another subsidy to “solve” an underlying problem (intermittency) inherit in an existing massively subsidized program (wind power) created to displace CO2 (failed) in response to a highly dubious theory: “human caused global warming”!

    As the wind turbines have a designed life expectancy of only 20 years (field experience casts serious doubt on this), they would need replacing twice during the 66 years. At the end of the first 20 years, the investment would show a 66% loss ($1.7 trillion) compared to the cost of the miles driven on gasoline. If the turbines were replaced for half the original cost, another $1.28 trillion would be added to the loss making the new loss total $3. trillion. If this were done again at the 40 year mark, another $1.28 would be added bringing the new total loss to $4.26 trillion. This, before we could break even on the amount of gasoline the original $2.56 trillion would have bought.

    Also, during that 66 year period, the owners of the electric cars would still have to buy fuel (electricity) and that at tripled rates ! Then too, if those electric cars lasted 10 years they would need replacing 6 times before consuming the 66 years of gasoline we paid for.

    The U.S. government purchased one quarter of GM and ford hybrids in 20101. In Oct. GE announced that it intends to buy 12,000 Chevy Volts2 (It’s useful to keep in mind that GE is heavily invested in supplying major components for the Volt) The announcement came a week before GM’s first stock offer after the government takeover and, no doubt, was timed to improve investor response.

    The Electric Vehicle has significant surface appeal (like every component in the “Green” Energy agenda) it is when one tries to integrate them into the real world that the“Black Tailpipe Smoke” begins to appear.

    From The Washington Post2:”Prices on electric cars will continue to drop until they’re within reach of the average family.” (That was in 1915)

  3. quite right the electric car is an evolutionary dead end. What this government and all governments should be doing is investing the ridiculous amounts of climate change taxes into a hydrogen fuel cell infrastructure and development of more HFC cars. Once there is a system in place to fuel these cars then the motor manufacturers will flood the market with them. At the moment there is virtually no incentive for the manufacturers to produce them as virtually no one could fill them up.
    While I am sure the manufacture of these cars will produce its own fair share of carbon, the cars do not produce any emissions except water. Obviously there is CO2 produced when the electricity to create the hydrogen fuel is taken into account. But the cars themselves are free t go where and when the like, they are not tethered to the national grid and do not take hours to refuel.

  4. I’d be advocating (until hydrogen fuel cell cars become readily avaialble) the use of CNG over electric any day.

  5. Another sham “Eurobarometer” survey. Has anybody EVER found an active one or even ANYONE who has ever been asked?

    http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/flash_arch_314_300_en.htm#312

  6. Here’s something to think about:

    http://jalopnik.com/?utm_source=Jalopnik+Newsletter&utm_campaign=ad9c9aa22b-UA-142218-9&utm_medium=email#!5785281/japan-fixed-this-quake+damaged-road-in-just-six-days

    That’s EARTHQUAKE damage. Why does the UK have such a problem with fixing potholes despite the extortionate road tax and fuel tax?

  7. Another link for you. Don’t forget to look at the poll on that page as well

    http://www.heartland.org/environmentandclimate-news.org/Fletcher.html

  8. http://newnostradamusofthenorth.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-you-can-celebrate-earth-hour-on.html

    Also don’t forget http://www.facebook.com/lifehour

    I really like the ideas in the first link to thwart these “green” imbeciles.

  9. The Hypothesis That CO2 Vapours Drive Global Temperature Change Is Crumbling

    Posted: 30 Mar 2011 06:36 AM PDT
    As the monthly empirical evidence keeps pouring in, the AGW hypothesis and climate model simulations that portray atmospheric CO2 levels being the principal driving force behind global temperature change looks weaker and weaker. A growing chorus of scientists worldwide are.

    http://www.c3headlines.com

  10. http://www.sott.net/articles/show/171079-Proof-Humans-Cause-Global-Warming-

    It’s not in the link text above, but the rest of the title is “plus bad science = global warming”

    The conclusion is: Credibility should have collapsed but political control and insanity prevail.

  11. http://drtimball.com/

    This actual scientist is being sued by two well known “warmers”, Dr Michael Mann and Dr Andrew Weaver by the lawyer who routinely does that sort of work for the DeSmogBlog and the David Suzuki Foundation people. Both of these have deep pockets. Tim does not.
    Apart from fighting the essence of these two actions, these suits could provide a golden opportunity to get some of the alleged scientific misdeeds out in the open,

  12. This one says it all about the state of “science”

    http://xkcd.com/882/

  13. I found this originally in German elsewhere. Sorry about the Guardian, but first one I found in English about EU plans to increase diesel taxes! What do they think that is going to do to food prices? I predict Europe is not far away from riots

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/13/fuel-tax-diesel-prices-europe

  14. Patrick Fossett

    Electric cars are only cheap to run so long as there is no fuel tax on electricity. When the government sees that about 80 billion is lost to the exchequer since nobody buys petrol any more would you take bets on “car” electricity not being taxed?

  1. Pingback: Teen dreams about a healthy planet and dissing electric cars | The Green Ticker

  2. Pingback: Electric Cars today are mostly coal-powered : Alphatech.sg

  3. Pingback: Green Lies Exposed – The Electric Car (via Tory Aardvark) | MibsBlog

  4. Pingback: TWAWKI » The Green effect – run!

  5. Pingback: Electric Cars – Will Be As Cheap As Conventional Cars In 20 Years Time « Tory Aardvark

  6. Pingback: More Green Subsidies For The Rich – Britain’s Electric Cars « Tory Aardvark

  7. Pingback: Liberal Democrats Plan To Ban All Petrol & Diesel Vehicles By 2040 | Tory Aardvark

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: