Electric cars cause more pollution than petrol ones

[dlaurence01]

There's another aspect to consider if looking at only emissions; a large scale power plant will be cleaner and more efficient at turning fossil fuels into usable energy (in this case, forward motion via electricity) than a series of small scale powerplants in each vehicle. In other words, for a given fleet of X vehicles, it is cleaner and more efficient to burn those fossil fuels in a powerplant to power a fleet of electric vehicles than to have engines burning those fossil fuels in each individual vehicle.

This is not to say, however, that there are not other factors affecting a choice between an electric vehicle and internal combustion, because a number of good points have been brought up previously. But in the case of China, and anywhere else with heavy traffic, electric vehicles would seem to make more sense, since they can "idle" without using energy, unlike the internal combustion engine.

In the end, however, I suspect that all these arguments are moot, since the biggest issue I see can't be solved by either electric or conventional cars. That issue is space, or more specifically, the space used by the infrastructure required to accomodate a vehicle for every person. Where I live (Phoenix, Arizona) this isn't an issue, but for Asia, Europe and the East Coast of the US, traffic is becoming a serious headache. The only solution I see is to improve and increase the amount of mass transit in use, which has the side benefit of leaving the streets a bit emptier for us car enthusiasts who prefer to drive anyway.

 

[kekke2000]

There's another aspect to consider if looking at only emissions; a large scale power plant will be cleaner and more efficient at turning fossil fuels into usable energy (in this case, forward motion via electricity) than a series of small scale powerplants in each vehicle. In other words, for a given fleet of X vehicles, it is cleaner and more efficient to burn those fossil fuels in a powerplant to power a fleet of electric vehicles than to have engines burning those fossil fuels in each individual vehicle.

This is not to say, however, that there are not other factors affecting a choice between an electric vehicle and internal combustion, because a number of good points have been brought up previously. But in the case of China, and anywhere else with heavy traffic, electric vehicles would seem to make more sense, since they can "idle" without using energy, unlike the internal combustion engine.

In the end, however, I suspect that all these arguments are moot, since the biggest issue I see can't be solved by either electric or conventional cars. That issue is space, or more specifically, the space used by the infrastructure required to accomodate a vehicle for every person. Where I live (Phoenix, Arizona) this isn't an issue, but for Asia, Europe and the East Coast of the US, traffic is becoming a serious headache. The only solution I see is to improve and increase the amount of mass transit in use, which has the side benefit of leaving the streets a bit emptier for us car enthusiasts who prefer to drive anyway.

Thats some good thinking. But the overcrowded streets is not really a global problem. The best solution for Asia may not be the best solution for USA.

 

[niky]

Traffic is a problem wherever there is economic growth. The difference in emerging economies is that the vehicles used tend to be cheaper and smaller.

 

[kikie]

So, the conclusion of this thread.

There is no way to develop a clean car.

Everybody, sell your car and start riding bycicles.

 

[niky]

What? What about all the land destroyed by mining nickel to plate the handlebars?

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

What? What about all the land destroyed by mining nickel to plate the handlebars?

Or, 💡 the Chinese batteries shipped to a German factory etc., as detailed by Top Gear?




Skip to 3:30.

 

[niky]

While that is, technically an issue, it's hardly any different from most other cars out there, which use various electronic and mechanical subsystems shipped from all around the world. There's hardly any product with 100% domestic components... and even American-made cars with domestic components will see those components travel a long way between factories... not to mention the cars themselves.

Shipping costs a whole lot less per pound per mile than trucking does. Both in terms of cost and pollution. That's the only reason why outsourcing factories works.

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

But, it's still something people overlook when they're buying eco cars.

My view on it, is simple: if you feel bad about burning gallons of gasoline, go in your backyard, quit being lazy, and plant oxygen factories trees.

 

[dlaurence01]

Thats some good thinking. But the overcrowded streets is not really a global problem. The best solution for Asia may not be the best solution for USA.

While that is true now, that is unlikely to be true in the future. Look at Chicago, Washington, DC or especially New York City; already these cities are experiencing some of the issues caused by the population density, something that is unlikely to change in the future.

 

[dlaurence01]

Or, 💡 the Chinese batteries shipped to a German factory etc., as detailed by Top Gear?

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmxUsGiGp3w">YouTube Link</a>

Skip to 3:30.

I have my doubts about this. Much as I like Top Gear, they aren't necessarily the most factual show on TV.

 

[GDII]

Electric cars are only better than petrol cars in countries that produce power from renewable energy sources. NZ has mainly hydro and wind power so they would work out here but China is more coal than anything else.

 

[niky]

But, it's still something people overlook when they're buying eco cars.

My view on it, is simple: if you feel bad about burning gallons of gasoline, go in your backyard, quit being lazy, and plant oxygen factories trees.

It's something everyone overlooks when they buy anything. iPads are shipped whole from Asia. So are Nike shoes, Adidas, Smartphones and Televisions. Even cars built "domestically" contain a fair amount of parts built in Asia... and lets not forget the megatons of Nickel used in producing chrome wheels for all those Hummers!

-

Arguing shipping costs into the equation is pointless. Which is the same argument I use against the greenies when they claim we should only buy domestic. The cost and emissions per kilogram of cargo are nearly negligible when considered against lifetime usage emissions and factory emissions.

Lifetime costs reflect lifetime emissions. Which is why hybrids and electrics work for some people, as their lifetime costs are lower than a gasoline car if the owner does enough kilometers over the life of the car.

And if you're really concerned about the environment, you'll bicycle.

In a cardboard bike.

*I'd say walk, but walking takes more calories per kilometer than cycling. Of course, cycling takes more calories per kilometer than a modern hybrid, but again, overall fuel, maintenance and purchase costs reflect total emissions, and you'd have to drive a freaking long way in a hybrid to match the lifetime emissions of a cyclist.

 

[xNEVER-ONEx]

The title is misleading. Electric cars themselves do not cause more pollution, its that our infrastructure is not designed to maximize their efficiency.

 

[dlaurence01]

The title is misleading. Electric cars themselves do not cause more pollution, its that our infrastructure is not designed to maximize their efficiency.

Quite right.

 

[BongRipz]

Electric cars are only better than petrol cars in countries that produce power from renewable energy sources. NZ has mainly hydro and wind power so they would work out here but China is more coal than anything else.

Hydro power has a huge impact on the environment. It might not be as bad as coal but the larger scale you go the worse things get.

 

[xNEVER-ONEx]

Look guys, China isn't a shining example for pollution reduction to begin with, have you seen the smog in Beijing? The question isn't if electric cars are efficient at reducing pollution, its relying less on fossil fuel for not just cars, but producing energies. I really don't know why the world seems to be giving up on nuclear energy, its cleaner and safer once you get past the hysteria "omg nuclear apocalypse" mentality. China uses fossil fuels because its cheaper method to produce electricity, not because its better.

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

This Guardian.co.uk article about Chinese pollution just appeared on my FB wall. Enjoy!

 

[Crash]

And what does that article have to do with whether electric cars causes more pollution than gasoline cars or not? That article talks about the widespread environmental damage largely brought on by the rapid industrialization.

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

And what does that article have to do with whether electric cars causes more pollution than gasoline cars or not? That article talks about the widespread environmental damage largely brought on by the rapid industrialization.

People are mentioning the amount of pollution in China, specifically.

Electric cars are only better than petrol cars in countries that produce power from renewable energy sources. NZ has mainly hydro and wind power so they would work out here but China is more coal than anything else.

See?

 

[gogatrs]

Environmentalists: 1385927495927394

Petrol heads: 1

Oooooooh yeaaaahh.

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

👍 gatrs. They can have our house's lights changed, and they can have our toilets made to flush with less water... But, they can't have our engines!

 

[kikie]

So, the conclusion of this thread.

There is no way to develop a clean car.

Everybody, sell your car and start riding bycicles.

What? What about all the land destroyed by mining nickel to plate the handlebars?

It's something everyone overlooks when they buy anything. iPads are shipped whole from Asia. So are Nike shoes, Adidas, Smartphones and Televisions. Even cars built "domestically" contain a fair amount of parts built in Asia... and lets not forget the megatons of Nickel used in producing chrome wheels for all those Hummers!

-

Arguing shipping costs into the equation is pointless. Which is the same argument I use against the greenies when they claim we should only buy domestic. The cost and emissions per kilogram of cargo are nearly negligible when considered against lifetime usage emissions and factory emissions.

Lifetime costs reflect lifetime emissions. Which is why hybrids and electrics work for some people, as their lifetime costs are lower than a gasoline car if the owner does enough kilometers over the life of the car.

And if you're really concerned about the environment, you'll bicycle.

In a cardboard bike.


*I'd say walk, but walking takes more calories per kilometer than cycling. Of course, cycling takes more calories per kilometer than a modern hybrid, but again, overall fuel, maintenance and purchase costs reflect total emissions, and you'd have to drive a freaking long way in a hybrid to match the lifetime emissions of a cyclist.

But what about all the land destroyed by mining nickel to plate the handlebars?

 

[niky]

Hence cardboard bike.

Guy says they can sell for just $25. Uses secondhand timing and accessory belts for chain and tires, and the only metal parts can be sourced from junked bikes.

Don't know about you, but that's cheap enough for me.

And he swears it won't come apart in the rain.

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

And he swears it won't come apart in the rain.

For that price, you don't even need to worry about it, unless you happen to live in an area that's prone to unforeseen showers.

 

[homeforsummer]

Ah, this one again. I actually covered this fairly recently in another thread, so to save my typing it out again:

Conveniently, some statistics recently came out on this very subject. It's complicated, so bear with me. Best place to start is reading my article on it, though you can also link through to my source via the article.

The first thing to consider is the "well-to-wheels" statistics for any power source. And it can get very complicated.

In most cases it's a virtually infinite chain backwards. Let's say you get your electricity from coal. It's dirty, yes. But then, if you're going to compare dirty coal-powered electricity with gasoline cars, you have to consider where the gasoline comes from. "The pump" is insufficient, as that's the point of use, like a plug. You'd have to consider how it got there, which means finding oil, building rigs, drilling for it, transporting it, refining it, transporting it again, and then powering gas stations around the clock so you can pump it. Ever so slightly energy-intensive, all that.

But then for this to be fair, you'd have to ask where the EV's coal came from, i.e. it was blown out of the ground, transported, etc. It gets stupid pretty quickly, so for layman discussion it makes more sense simply ignoring it (though do always remember that it exists - otherwise it can be used unfairly by pros and antis in these discussions).

The second point, and the reason the "electricity mostly comes from coal" argument is a bit lazy, is because this varies massively by country - see the link above. Or even better, look at this graph:

Nice and easy to understand. The US and UK are largely in the middle. The US, naturally, varies by state, or even by town. Some areas are pretty heavy on solar, or hydro, but if you live in NoDak, which I think is 100% coal, consider yourself nearer the India end of the scale.

Essentially, that's a top-to-bottom list of where you should and shouldn't drive an electric car, albeit largely based on CO2 (it's worth remembering that there are other emissions from power plants, and indeed internal combustion cars, and an EV will always be cleaner than a regular car if you're standing right next to it).

70 g/km of each of the above is from manufacturing (which reminds me of another myth - usage of cars accounts for far more pollution than manufacturing or transportation, even for that supposedly evil Prius being shipped from Japan).

Bottom line - Not all electricity comes from coal, and even when much of it does, the point at which electric cars are "dirtier" than regular ones is pretty high.

I feel people sometimes overplay the "Needs to be charged" aspect too. If you have a car with a large battery and charge at 120V, then it can take about 12 hours from absolutely empty, which is a bit of a bind. But then, most owners aren't charging from empty. Many can charge at work during the day (plugs: they're everywhere). Many commute a fraction of their car's range. Many have upgraded to 240V chargers, which cut whatever time it was previously taking in half. Naturally, it's not suitable for everyone, but then no car is suitable for everyone.

So the few salient points are:

• Electric cars are currently dirtier in some countries than driving a regular car - but it would have to be a reasonably efficient one even so, and you've still got the local pollution issue to contend with
• Manufacturing is only a tiny part of a car's overall environmental impact. Ironically, it becomes a bigger part the cleaner a car gets because it's a proportionately greater quantity of a car's lifetime emissions - but the problem there is more than regular cars are so polluting in the first place (relatively - they're a lot better than they used to be) that manufacturing looks like small beans
• Plug-in vehicles get cleaner as the grid gets cleaner. You can't do that with a regular vehicle, which tend to pollute more as they age, as people let servicing slip etc

But, it's still something people overlook when they're buying eco cars.

You'd be surprised. Most people buying the top level of "eco" cars these days - plug-in hybrids and full electric cars - are pretty clued-up on their environmental credentials. They have to be - limited practicality of some of these things means they have to be fairly educated in general on how they work.

If we're talking about "overlooking" things, then I'd suggest the people who say that diesels are "cleaner" than hybrids because they produce low CO2, or people who say that because Prius has to be shipped around the world it makes it worse than a Hummer, are the ones "overlooking" things. Or people who reckon a few saplings in their back yard are the solution to environmental issues.

Oh, wait...

My view on it, is simple: if you feel bad about burning gallons of gasoline, go in your backyard, quit being lazy, and plant oxygen factories trees.

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

Or people who reckon a few saplings in their back yard are the solution to environmental issues.

Studies have shown that mature trees don't really do anything. Their effect on the environment (asides from the direct biological habitat,) is pretty slim.

However, young trees that are growing (I'm not sure of the exact number) take at least a few times more CO2 out of the air than mature trees. If everyone planted 8-10 trees, that'd be quite a huge number. In fact, I've considered petitioning to have the expenses involved in planting trees covered by the Ministry of the Environment, but, Canada's taxes are high enough, and I'm sure that the politicians have more pressing issues than the environment, since, according to the news, we're not doing so well at meeting the Kyoto Protocol deadlines.

So, let's just run through some quick math:

Increased atmospheric C02 is attributable mostly to fossil fuel
combustion (about 75 percent) and deforestation (Schneider .
1989). Atmospheric carbon is estimated to be increasing by
approximately 2.6 billion metric tons (t) (2.9 tons) annually
(Sedjo 1989). By storing carbon through their growth process,
trees act as a sink for atmospheric COP. Thus, increasing the
number of trees can potentially slow the accumulation of
atmospheric carbon (e.g., Moulton and Richards 1990).
In reducing atmospheric Con, trees in urban areas offer double
benefits. First, they directly sequester and store atmospheric
carbon. Second, when located properly, urban trees conserve
energy, which results in lower C02 emissions from fossil-fuel
power plants. Properly located trees shade residences in
summer (reducing air-conditioning energy use), but also al-
low solar access and/or block winds in winter to reduce heat-
ing needs (Heisler 1986). Tree transpiration also reduces
local air temperatures, which can affect local energy use.
There has been little research on the amount of carbon that
urban forests store, or on the effect of energy conservation by
trees on the amount of carbon released to the atmosphere.

(Source)

So, using Chicago as an example, we want to remove 2.6 billion metric tons of CO2.

Carbon storage by urban forests in the United States has
been estimated at 350 to 750 million t (385 to 825 million
tons) (Rowntree and Nowak 1991 ; Nowak 1993). It has been
estimated that the establishment of 10 million urban trees
annually over the next 10 years would sequester and offset
the production of 363 million t (400 million tons) of carbon
over the next 50 years, 77 million t (85 million tons) due to
direct sequestration and 286 million t (315 million tons) due
to avoided carbon emissions from power plants (Nowak
1993). This estimate assumes that the 100 million trees
survive the 50-year period and were planted in optimal
positions for energy conservation. Even so, this total is less
than 1 percent of the amount of carbon emissions projected
for the United States over the same 50-year period.

(same source as above)

With enough trees, it is a logical idea.

 

[kikie]

Hence cardboard bike.

Guy says they can sell for just $25. Uses secondhand timing and accessory belts for chain and tires, and the only metal parts can be sourced from junked bikes.

Don't know about you, but that's cheap enough for me.

And he swears it won't come apart in the rain.

That's what I thought but I wanted to make sure.

 

[Famine]

With enough trees, it is a logical idea.

Now work out how much land is required. Bear in mind trees require a minimum separation so they don't crowd each other for resources - light from above and water from below (and the root system is likely the size of the tree itself, only underground).

And note that it says "urban" trees, so don't forget you'll be needing to plant them in urbanised areas.

Let's hope that the centre of the city of Chicago has a spare 22 square miles to forest and no-one minds the drought or the fact the underground utilities - electricity, gas, clean water, sewage and the subway - have roots growing through and damaging them.

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

Let's hope that the centre of the city of Chicago has a spare 22 square miles to forest and no-one minds the drought or the fact the underground utilities - electricity, gas, clean water, sewage and the subway - have roots growing through and damaging them.

I found the first reliable source. I'm smart, sometimes, but also normally lazy/preoccupied.

However, I was more implying that it works to offset some of my own emissions. I mean, it's not like the kilometers of open expanses aren't there for some good reason. (Specifically, see the "Quick Facts" section on the right hand side of the page)

Edit: that "farmland" is more than just "farmland," I live like an entire kilometer from the nearest farm.

 

[MrWednesday]

And if you're really concerned about the environment, you'll bicycle.

In a cardboard bike.

You do realize that it takes a bunch of really nasty chemical processes to make cardboard, right?