Study: Electric cars no greener than gasoline vehicles

[ScreamingEagle]

Can't help myself man.. With your calling my math analysis a conspiracy and bailing and all without ATTEMPTING to do the 6th grade thing --- I picture your "space ship" something like ----

Good fun for a dime eh???

I compiled a damn DOSSIER on electrical costs/ratios/comparisons a year ago and can't find it. It's an ageless game sucking an opponent into an unsourced math quiz, denying any refutation, and then declaring victory. I got the jump on ya with this one is all.

As to the spaceship comment, there is literally NO NOISE...no engine noise, no tire noise, no wind noise....no noise. Folks walk out in front of the VOLT often enough that a beep-sensor is being installed on them near crosswalks. Drive one....it's free and you'll see what I'm talking about....and it's got muscle car low-end torque....take it from a guy who's first ride was a '64 389 Tempest GTO....the VOLT is fun as hell.

yeah.....the Volt is a real hot item.....in more ways than one....

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No, but only conservatives want to castrate the EPA, lower environmental standards, fight any move to clean energy and reward polluters with more subsidies.

The real irony; you CLAIM that liberals are communists, but your vision of America looks EXACTLY the same as Russia...

Nice deflections. Now, will consider actually responding to the OP where political bullshit WAS NOT ADDRESSED but rather the research that electric cars do NOT help pollution was.

There was no study sited or linked to. That makes the whole OP bullshit. Show the study, referances, and where the study was published.

 

[JoeBlam]

Cool...more fake "fire" pics and links to the dreaded COAL....hey, stick with 1970's technology...me, I'm looking to the future and it just arrived.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Cool...more fake "fire" pics and links to the dreaded COAL....hey, stick with 1970's technology...me, I'm looking to the future and it just arrived.

what...? did you just buy a Volt and take advantage of their 'please-buy-me' cashback offer....?

the future...? hardly...Volt sales are up only about 1.5%....they've sold about 7,000 so far.....while regular car sales are booming...

Volt Joins Electric Car Price War

 

[buckeye45_73]

The conservative dream America...

yes--only conservatives drive cars

No, but only conservatives want to castrate the EPA, lower environmental standards, fight any move to clean energy and reward polluters with more subsidies.

The real irony; you CLAIM that liberals are communists, but your vision of America looks EXACTLY the same as Russia...

The difference is dipshit, we love freedom and when the tech is advanced and available it will work, but liberals want to impose everything on people.

Why dont more people recylce? Because it's inefficient and not worth it to most people, fix that and people will actually recycle, WITHOUT govt mandates and strongarm tactics.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I'm looking pretty hard at a Honda Insight.
Plugging in my particulars (driving distances and habits, kWh rates, etc.) I'll save about 50% over my small, gas-only car.

There are definitely trade offs and I'd never suggest that one-size-fits-all, but I do believe the benefits merit incentivizing EVs and hybrids. I don't think we are anywhere near "forcing" people into driving one and the hyperbole to that effect makes me laugh.

 

[auditor0007]

Interesting stuff, I think we should be moving to natural gas and investing in super capacitors for electric cards. Batteries, too expensive and too much environmental damage, in my opinion.

BERKELEY, Calif., July 1 (UPI) -- Electric cars, despite their supposed green credentials, are among the environmentally dirtiest transportation options, a U.S. researcher suggests.

Writing in the journal IEEE Spectrum, researcher Ozzie Zehner says electric cars lead to hidden environmental and health damages and are likely more harmful than gasoline cars and other transportation options.


Read more: Switching to electric cars said like switching cigarette brands - UPI.com

I can believe this for the most part. I'm not sure that will remain that way though, and I don't think we should completely abandon the idea of electric based vehicles. At the same time, I agree that we should be doing more with gas powered vehicles.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

The title of the article is "Study: Electric cars no greener than gasoline vehicles"

Yet, the link provided contains no study. Why is that?

Yes, the article is totally devoid of fact. It's just a collection of bald statements.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

I really, really like the idea of solar electricity for homes. It frees us, at least partly, from the tyranny of the grid. Batteries can and should be recycled. The more self-reliant we become, the better off we are.

 

[JoeBlam]

what...? did you just buy a Volt and take advantage of their 'please-buy-me' cashback offer....?

the future...? hardly...Volt sales are up only about 1.5%....they've sold about 7,000 so far.....while regular car sales are booming...

Volt Joins Electric Car Price War

7,000 eh? Odd, I guess you've been in jail or a coma for the last year, eh?


Chevy Volt sales are cranking up. General Motors sold three times as many Chevrolet Volts in 2012 as it did in 2011, which was the car's first full year on the market.

GM sold 23,461 Volts in 2012 compared with just 7,671 in 2011. While it's an impressive jump, the Volt is still one of Chevy's lowest-selling cars. However, the Volt greatly outdid the Corvette, for instance, of which only 14,000 were sold last year.

Its 2012 sales also put the Volt well ahead of its nearest competitor, the Nissan Leaf. Nissan sold about 9,800 Leafs in 2012, an increase of just 1.5% over 2011. Still, Nissan pointed out, it was a record year for Leaf sales.

The single biggest factor driving the sales increase, according to both GM and industry analysts, was the Volt's increased popularity in car-clogged California. Sales there jumped thanks to a few engineering tweaks that made the Volt eligible for California's highly desirable carpool lane stickers for the first time.

"More than half of all Volt sales are in California," said Alec Guitierrez, an analyst with Kelley Blue Book. The car has also been catching on in other markets, however, including Michigan and in the Chicago area, according to GM.

Besides the carpool lane stickers, the Volt has also been helped by aggressive leasing incentives offered in 2012. Last year, GM was offering the car for $289 a month with a $2,800 down payment. That was far less than a car with the Volt's nearly $40,000 purchase price would ordinarily lease for, even factoring in a $7,500 plug-in car tax credit.

"The math on the Volt starts to make sense to the masses at those prices," said Jesse Toprak, an analyst with the auto pricing Web site Truecar.com.

Chevy Volt owners routinely report getting triple-digit gas mileage, according to the Web site Voltstats.net.

Chevy Volt sales triple - Jan. 3, 2013

 

[Bfgrn]

And I value your "humble opinion" == $0.02.. Obviously we have an epidemic of poor reading habits and comprehension.. (It's not just you nodog, so I'm not piling on)

More than 6 studies were cited and ALL are linked in the article.

Our "opinion" crowd forced me to go cut and paste for them..

That last paragraph is total bullshit. Provide a link to the study that makes those ridiculous claims?

The study WAS LINKED in the IEEE article you dense clod....

Dense clod? Really?? Did you read that report??? I did. That statement is not in the report. It is fabricated.

 

[Bfgrn]

yes--only conservatives drive cars

No, but only conservatives want to castrate the EPA, lower environmental standards, fight any move to clean energy and reward polluters with more subsidies.

The real irony; you CLAIM that liberals are communists, but your vision of America looks EXACTLY the same as Russia...

The difference is dipshit, we love freedom and when the tech is advanced and available it will work, but liberals want to impose everything on people.

Why dont more people recylce? Because it's inefficient and not worth it to most people, fix that and people will actually recycle, WITHOUT govt mandates and strongarm tactics.

So citizens dying prematurely is 'freedom'? WOW, then Hitler would be your patron saint.

Forget climate change. You right wing communists don't even want to stop pollution.

 

[ScienceRocks]

yes--only conservatives drive cars

No, but only conservatives want to castrate the EPA, lower environmental standards, fight any move to clean energy and reward polluters with more subsidies.

The real irony; you CLAIM that liberals are communists, but your vision of America looks EXACTLY the same as Russia...

The difference is dipshit, we love freedom and when the tech is advanced and available it will work, but liberals want to impose everything on people.

Why dont more people recylce? Because it's inefficient and not worth it to most people, fix that and people will actually recycle, WITHOUT govt mandates and strongarm tactics.

-Batteries of 4-10 times per density are being developed. You could look at a shit load of technology to see how this works.
-It's only as "clean" as its power plant powering it. True! This is why we need nuclear, wind, solar, thermal, wave, etc. Some states are far cleaner like Oregon, Washington then southeastern states.
-Lastly, do you want to throw stuff on the ground like the Chinese or Indians do? Think about it.

 

[flacaltenn]

Nor should any assumptions or "what ifs" be included imho.

But I also painted pretty close to a worse-case scenario for the Volt expenses. But I used worst-case set-ups that actually exist today.

Societies that railroad technological solutions thru without "what - ifs" are doomed to waste a LOT of time and money... How can you ignore that almost $1.00/gal of road tax man?

I guarantee you --- your STATE won't ignore it for long if this stuff starts to cut into their revenues...

BTW: Gave you a link to the IEEE articles that lists these studies the OP refers to...

ALL of the studies and the analysis is HERE
Unclean at Any Speed - IEEE Spectrum


And your "corrections" to my simple math problems are nowhere to be found...

you linked a news stoiry - it included links to studies that concluded:
Union of Concerned Scientists. Its 2012 report [PDF] on the issue, titled “State of Charge,” notes that charging electric cars yields less CO2 than even the most efficient gasoline vehicles."

Of copurse the news article assumed bias because it was partially funded by auto comapnies that produce hybrid and electric cars. But those companies also produce gas cars, so why is there an assumed bias against gas??? Doesn't make sense.

OK, I'll clarify - any links to a study that supports OP ????

Still haven't seen one.

And if you missed my correction to your erroneous electrical engineering assumptions and math - you weren't paying attention. Your bad - not mine.

I'm beginning to question your ethics and morals here. There were FIVE studies given in that IEEE link. And the most supportive of the OP was the study from the National Academy of Sciences.. Did ya SKIP THAT PART? It's all justified there and its totally linked back to study.. Try again...

The same way you SKIPPED the corrections that you made to my arguments about JoeBlam faking numbers? Give me a post number where you corrected my math please...

IEEE is NOT funded by the car companies or big oil.. THey are funded by practicing MEMBERS like me.

UCScientists is probably right about CO2.. Except on this planet -- it's not a pollutant except in the mind of bureaucrats with a political agenda..

 

[flacaltenn]

No, but only conservatives want to castrate the EPA, lower environmental standards, fight any move to clean energy and reward polluters with more subsidies.

The real irony; you CLAIM that liberals are communists, but your vision of America looks EXACTLY the same as Russia...

Nice deflections. Now, will consider actually responding to the OP where political bullshit WAS NOT ADDRESSED but rather the research that electric cars do NOT help pollution was.

There was no study sited or linked to. That makes the whole OP bullshit. Show the study, referances, and where the study was published.

Did that.. Back about a page and a half ago.. OP quoted from IEEE article but linked to something else. Search this thread for IEEE and you'll find the analysis and the links to the original studies.. I know I know that's tooo hard for you...

 

[flacaltenn]

HOLY CRAP FOLKS.. I APOLOGIZE to RDD and nodog... I screwed up...

The OP was quoting the guy who wrote the IEEE article I snipped.. I THOUGHT the OP was linked to the IEEE article directly -- but it's NOT...

ALL of the studies and the analysis is HERE
Unclean at Any Speed - IEEE Spectrum

Not in the OP link..

I'm going now for an EEG to find out why FlaCalTenn had a rare error of comprehension. Wish me luck.

One more time.. For all of you who don't read the thread.. I'm quoting myself.. ALL of the links to the studies are in this IEEE article.. Including the Nat. Academy of Science link..

Don't know why the OP poster boy isn't answering the question of where are the links. Aint my thread..

It's all THERE --- no more whining about no studies eh??

 

[flacaltenn]

That last paragraph is total bullshit. Provide a link to the study that makes those ridiculous claims?

The study WAS LINKED in the IEEE article you dense clod....

Dense clod? Really?? Did you read that report??? I did. That statement is not in the report. It is fabricated.

The statement you have a problem was ---

The National Academies’ assessment didn’t ignore those difficult-to-measure realities. It drew together the effects of vehicle construction, fuel extraction, refining, emissions, and other factors. In a gut punch to electric-car advocates, it concluded that the vehicles’ lifetime health and environmental damages (excluding long-term climatic effects) are actually greater than those of gasoline-powered cars. Indeed, the study found that an electric car is likely worse than a car fueled exclusively by gasoline derived from Canadian tar sands!

Now the National Academy report is 508 pages ---- Did you read that just this AFTERNOON? Or just search for "tar sands"? Perhaps the data in the report can BACK UP that assertion IF YOU READ IT AND COMPREHENDED it...

Or is the MAIN CONCLUSION that total social impacts from EVs exceed gas-powered cars also not in the National Academy report somewhere in the 508 pages???

Very funny dude..

 

[Bfgrn]

The study WAS LINKED in the IEEE article you dense clod....

Dense clod? Really?? Did you read that report??? I did. That statement is not in the report. It is fabricated.

The statement you have a problem was ---

The National Academies’ assessment didn’t ignore those difficult-to-measure realities. It drew together the effects of vehicle construction, fuel extraction, refining, emissions, and other factors. In a gut punch to electric-car advocates, it concluded that the vehicles’ lifetime health and environmental damages (excluding long-term climatic effects) are actually greater than those of gasoline-powered cars. Indeed, the study found that an electric car is likely worse than a car fueled exclusively by gasoline derived from Canadian tar sands!

Now the National Academy report is 508 pages ---- Did you read that just this AFTERNOON? Or just search for "tar sands"? Perhaps the data in the report can BACK UP that assertion IF YOU READ IT AND COMPREHENDED it...

Or is the MAIN CONCLUSION that total social impacts from EVs exceed gas-powered cars also not in the National Academy report somewhere in the 508 pages???

Very funny dude..

Yea I read it. You would have to ignore coal burning power plants to come to that conclusion. You right wing turds are the most regressive turds on the planet.

page 202

The analysis of damages attributable to the operation of different electric technologies is highly dependent on the assumptions made about the energy mix and emissions from the electric utility system. The damage estimates for operation of hybrid and electric vehicles show significant lower damages than those for vehicles fueled by conventional gasoline (even when accounting for the uncertainty in the analysis). The difference is greatest when comparing damages resulting from the operation of electric vehicles to those resulting from the operation of vehicles fueled by conventional gasoline. Even damages resulting from the operation of grid-independent hybrid electric vehicles (which also consume gasoline) are approximately 20% lower compared with damages resulting from the operation of vehicles fueled solely by conventional gasoline.

However, emissions from electricity generation are included in the full life-cycle damages of the grid-dependent vehicles, specifically the emissions from the power plants as well as emissions from activities to produce the fossil fuels used in these plants.

 

[flacaltenn]

Dense clod? Really?? Did you read that report??? I did. That statement is not in the report. It is fabricated.

The statement you have a problem was ---

The National Academies’ assessment didn’t ignore those difficult-to-measure realities. It drew together the effects of vehicle construction, fuel extraction, refining, emissions, and other factors. In a gut punch to electric-car advocates, it concluded that the vehicles’ lifetime health and environmental damages (excluding long-term climatic effects) are actually greater than those of gasoline-powered cars. Indeed, the study found that an electric car is likely worse than a car fueled exclusively by gasoline derived from Canadian tar sands!

Now the National Academy report is 508 pages ---- Did you read that just this AFTERNOON? Or just search for "tar sands"? Perhaps the data in the report can BACK UP that assertion IF YOU READ IT AND COMPREHENDED it...

Or is the MAIN CONCLUSION that total social impacts from EVs exceed gas-powered cars also not in the National Academy report somewhere in the 508 pages???

Very funny dude..

Yea I read it. You would have to ignore coal burning power plants to come to that conclusion. You right wing turds are the most regressive turds on the planet.

page 202

The analysis of damages attributable to the operation of different electric technologies is highly dependent on the assumptions made about the energy mix and emissions from the electric utility system. The damage estimates for operation of hybrid and electric vehicles show significant lower damages than those for vehicles fueled by conventional gasoline (even when accounting for the uncertainty in the analysis). The difference is greatest when comparing damages resulting from the operation of electric vehicles to those resulting from the operation of vehicles fueled by conventional gasoline. Even damages resulting from the operation of grid-independent hybrid electric vehicles (which also consume gasoline) are approximately 20% lower compared with damages resulting from the operation of vehicles fueled solely by conventional gasoline.

However, emissions from electricity generation are included in the full life-cycle damages of the grid-dependent vehicles, specifically the emissions from the power plants as well as emissions from activities to produce the fossil fuels used in these plants.

Class A job of dishonest reading and snipping there Dr. Doom.. The operable phrase in the paragraph you quoted was

damages attributable to the operation

Let's read on......

However, emissions from electricity generation are included in the full
life-cycle damages of the grid-dependent vehicles, specifically the emissions
from the power plants as well as emissions from activities to produce the
fossil fuels used in these plants. As shown in Table 3-13, when the damages
attributable to other parts of the life cycle were included, especially
the emissions from the feedstock and the fuel (emissions from electricity
production), the aggregate damages for the grid-dependent and all-electric
vehicles became comparable to, or somewhat higher than, those from
gasoline.

Only a dishonest political hack would account for the OPERATION of the vehicle and NOT where it got it's fuel from.. NO one can ignore reality better than a leftist on the prowl.

Furthermore your contention that the IEEE misrepresented this NAS study (the paragraph you said was NOT in the report) is patently false.. To wit...

From the summary...

Electric vehicles and grid-dependent hybrid vehicles showed somewhat higher damages than many other technologies for both 2005 and 2030. Although operation of the vehicles produces few or no emissions, electricity production at present relies mainly on fossil fuels and, based on current emission control requirements, emissions from this stage of the life cycle are expected to still rely primarily on those fuels by 2030, albeit at significantly lower emission rates. In addition, battery and electric motor production—being energy- and material-intensive—added up to 20% to the damages from manufacturing.

'

And the "tar sands" claim???

All accounted for Captain... No lies.. Just a thorough scientific analysis by America's premiere scientists. You know -- the ones you're willing to impeach if they don't agree with your conceived visions for the future...

Any other unsupported allegations you want to toss out there??

 

[Freewill]

Beware of researchers named "Ozzie".

I happen to think the VOLT is an AWESOME automobile. It probably should have been marketed as a Cadillac because of it's sticker price. It's remarkably quick, 8 airbags, KILLER Bose sound system, and if kept within it's e-range can recoup it's price by avoiding gas stations. And if you must travel long distances, it has a 400 mile range with it's gas motor charging the electric-traction motor. It makes the Nissan Leaf look like a golf cart.

You do understand that you do not avoid charging the battery? You do understand that electicity prices set a record this summer? Or do you propose stealing electricity making the car worth 40000. The Volt is basically a compact car that if it had just a gasoline engine it would sell for under 20000. The difference in prices certainly would buy a whole bunch of gasoline.