Electric cars cause more pollution than petrol ones

  • Thread starter Thread starter Raikkonen1337
  • 61 comments
  • 4,497 views
Electric cars requiring more money to supply sufficient energy is old news, but petrol still isn't an limitless resource.
 
It's all relative. All expended energy will create some kind of waste by-product (unless it's a hydrogen powered combustion engine; by-product is water).

I'm going to get me one of these:

delorean_30_294.jpg
 
^That only powers the time circuits. The combustion engine still requires petrol.

Go watch BTTF III!
 
Last edited:
The article kind of misses the point with pollution in cities, fumes being generated by cars are being pumped straight into peoples faces, those being generated by power stations are usually miles from anybody. Not saying the article is factually wrong, but I don't think it's relevant to pollution cities.

Anyway, we need to spend on developing renewable energy sources.
 
The article kind of misses the point with pollution in cities, fumes being generated by cars are being pumped straight into peoples faces, those being generated by power stations are usually miles from anybody. Not saying the article is factually wrong, but I don't think it's relevant to pollution cities.

Anyway, we need to spend on developing renewable energy sources.

True, but the reason most people buy electric is to "save" the environment. That means they should be most concerned about emissions and waste as a total sum.

Edit: For clarification, I'm not in support of this study or its conclusions.
 
Last edited:
Saving the environment is an outlook on the future of the world, not your saving.

Business and Sustainability aren't very compatible unfortunately.
 
I'll get to why that report is a load of bollocks tomorrow when I'm on my computer rather than my iPhone...

There's a very specific caveat to EVs being dirtier than petrol cars, but 99.9% of the time it isn't the case at all...
 
You can charge an electric car with solar panels, therefore no pollution at all from the car or a power plant.
 
You can charge an electric car with solar panels, therefore no pollution at all from the car or a power plant.

The batteries and panels themselves are a consideration.

Was it Cash for Clunkers that had people buying an EV or hybrid to save the environment then junking a perfectly good gas powered car?
 
This article used coal-burning power plants as an example, which is not one the least efficient means (although cheaper than other methods) to produce electrical power. Compare to to hydroelectric or ocean wave-generated systems, and then make a fair comparison. And although wind farming doesn't produce as sterling a result in terms of efficiency, it's much cleaner overall due to a lack of waste product. Which explains why we aren't commuting by locomotive anymore; having to employ a brakeman and coal-shoveler is also quite pricey.

I would also say that the ability of an electric or hybrid car compared to standard automobile to biodegrade after it's past it's useful life is up for debate, but I think in short time, the battery cells will also be recyclable. The plastic content is also going to vary from manufacturer to manufacturer (nee supplier to supplier).
 
Last edited:
They seem to leave out a ton of variables in their test, or at least in their report. It doesn't seem to mention that fossil fuel driven vehicle still require the search for, extraction of and refinement of the fossil fuels. Not to mention shipping, storage or the impact of an eco disaster like the New Horizons one a year or two back.

While I don't think the environmental impact of electric cars is dramatically less, I would certainly say it probably lower then that of an equivalent fossil fuel powered vehicle.

Also this was done in China, a place where unbiased reporting isn't the strongest quality. It was also done by an automotive company that produces predominately fossil fuel powered vehicles, that right there should set off red flags. The research was conducted with an extreme bias already built in. They also only looked at Chineses cities instead of cities worldwide, another strike against the research there too.

I'll wait to see what Ant posts up about this since he knows way more about the green auto industry than I do.
 
Noise pollution, or carcinogens and smog in the air?

I'll take the noise pollution.

But I must say, First world problem?
 
But I must say, First world problem?

Pollution is indeed an entire-world problem, but this is coming from someone who advocates the combustion of fossil fuels for recreation and pleasure.
 
Joey D
I'll wait to see what Ant posts up about this since he knows way more about the green auto industry than I do.

Yourself and Pupik have actually covered most of the general points I was going to make, but I've a few articles dotted about with some solid facts so I'll gather them and post the details when I have my computer handy tomorrow.

Once again, it's one of those "if you ignore this, this, and one hundred other things, electric cars are awful for the environment" sort of things. Some let their bias cloud their judgement. I can't really do that, as it'd make me a Daily Mail reporter...

The funniest thing is, that I've mentioned before, electric cars *do* have some downsides, but people always seem to choose the dumb, easily-refuted ones to try and argue their point. Pick the good reasons, there are loads!
 
It's all relative. All expended energy will create some kind of waste by-product (unless it's a hydrogen powered combustion engine; by-product is water).

Not particularly true. HICE engines do produce water, however since this is coming from a combustion engine, when this water comes into contact with the air, it produces harmful nitrates similar to current petrol cars, just on a much, much, much lower scale.
 
The funniest thing is, that I've mentioned before, electric cars *do* have some downsides, but people always seem to choose the dumb, easily-refuted ones to try and argue their point. Pick the good reasons, there are loads!

OK then, explain what those are. Everyone I've argued with seems to think there are none, or they don't matter as long as you're a Mother Earth Hero.
 
-Not cost-effective in terms of the amount of energy needed for X amount of power, when a lesser value of petrol can match that. (could be an outdated argument)
-more e-cars = higher demand in electricity = higher electricity rates = bigger bills each month.
-Solar panels (under the assumption they haven't really improved) produce avery insufficient amount of energy to be the main power source of a consumer vehicle.

Did I get 'em right?
 
OK then, explain what those are. Everyone I've argued with seems to think there are none, or they don't matter as long as you're a Mother Earth Hero.

Apart from me, every other time you've raised the subject and demonstrated you know very little about it.

And drop the ignorant attitude. Not everyone who likes electric cars and hybrids is some kind of mega hippy. You've spent enough time on this forum to realise that the people defending hybrids and EVs here also happen to be massive petrolheads. Despite what you may think, it is possible to like both.

Hell, it's even possible for someone to have concerns for the environment but still like gas-guzzling V8s and supercars - you're talking to one of them.

EVs have some pretty obvious downsides, though that's not to say they're a) without reason or b) apply to everyone.

These are the two, overriding main ones. Everything else is just a secondary concern, and usually baseless. And that includes the charging network one, since a massive proportion of charging is done at home.

1) Cost - You'd think people would bring this up as argument #1, but instead they peddle crap about them being dirty or boring to drive. Nope, cost is the main reason. A hell of a lot more people would be happy driving EVs - even with their current range - if they were priced more competitively with regular cars.

In the UK, a hell of a lot of people barely ever do anything other than drive around the city in which they live. Even most of the ones who don't do far fewer miles each day than most EVs can manage on one charge. That's a potentially huge market, but if an EV is ten or fifteen grand more than the equivalent diesel, they'll go for the diesel.

Caveat to this: If you're shopping at a particular price point, rather than class of car, then it may not be as much of an issue. If you have X amount of money to spend and a Nissan Leaf is within X, then you may choose it anyway simply because you like it and it's within your budget. Also, we tend to think of cars in total amounts. If you're buying on finance, then even a 5 grand difference in purchase price can be surprisingly little per month, and make it seem more affordable.

2) Range - Another "duh" one which for some reason people have moved away from in pursuit of dumber, unresearched arguments.

The 100-odd mile range is more a psychological issue than a practical one, since statistics overwhelmingly show that most people - whether in the UK, Europe, Australasia or the U.S. - do far fewer miles on average than most EVs can manage.

However, people do occasionally do a bit more. If I had to list the reasons that I don't own an electric car personally - despite having driven several and liked them - cost would be reason number one (I don't earn nearly enough to buy any new car, let alone an expensive one), and as part of my job I drive 100+ mile journeys frequently enough that it would be inconvenient. And clearly, there are others like me.

Caveat to this one: Provided you can get over the cost issue first, which I believe is more of an issue, then your average two-car family could quite easily have an EV sitting next to their regular car. As long as just one of those cars can do the longer journeys, then the other could easily be an EV. I know that, if they could afford it, my parents could happily do this: both their commutes are well within an EV's range, and they only occasionally do a long enough journey to justify any extra range.

Those are the most convincing anti-EV arguments.

But of course, even those don't apply to everyone, they're just the ones that apply to most people. For the time being.

-Not cost-effective in terms of the amount of energy needed for X amount of power, when a lesser value of petrol can match that. (could be an outdated argument)
-more e-cars = higher demand in electricity = higher electricity rates = bigger bills each month.
-Solar panels (under the assumption they haven't really improved) produce avery insufficient amount of energy to be the main power source of a consumer vehicle.

Did I get 'em right?

You're not miles off, but as above - think more obvious.

In terms of price/energy, EVs are still more efficient - petrol has higher energy density than a battery does, but thanks to its cost, you still go more miles on the pennies you spend on electricity than the pennies you spend on fuel.

Higher electricity demand isn't really an issue. Mainly because not many people drive EVs at the mo and the tipping point for higher bills will be way in the future, but also because many people currently spend more in a month on fuel than they do in a year supplying their home with gas and electricity, so energy prices would have to rise massively before people started spending more filling EVs up than they do their cars.

As for solar panels, there are plenty of people living in California who not only power their EV with solar panels but their house too - and have enough electricity left over to put back into the grid, so they get paid for it. The initial outlay is high (sometimes: there are companies in the UK which give you them for free, so long as they get the money from the excess put back into the grid). Anywhere that's year-round sunny will make easily enough energy from solar to power their car. Even in the UK you can make about 60% enough energy from solar to power your car :)
 
Last edited:
The study is for london you said? Don't they use coal power? I guess this all depends where you live:
- Sunny place -- Solar panels
- Windy place -- Wind turbines
- Place with rivers/mountains -- hydro-electric dams

I'm pretty sure all of these are cleaner than gas cars.
 
You must remember that this study was done in China, a country which is seriously lacking in environmental technology, especially in the production of electricity. It's fairly obvious that a certain amount of electricity created by coal power plants in China is going to create more pollution than that same amount would in the US or in Europe. Besides that, these power plants also create power for everything else.

The pollution from power generation isn't the big issue with electric cars. The issue is pollution created by battery production, which is a vastly more dirty industry than power production has been for decades.
 
If battery manufacturers started using recycled materials it's pollution would drop like a rock. In the US you have to recycle hybrid/electric automotive batteries, and having worked in the battery recycling industry, I've seen it first hand. I used to see literally tons of NiMH (Nickel Metal Hydride) hybrid batteries from Chevy and Saturn (recall issue). The battery recycling industry is just waiting for these batteries to come of age so they car be recycled and sold back. Give it another couple years and you'll start to see more car companies bragging about out eco friendly their semi recycled batteries are.
 
I think electric cars is the way. I've seen concepts of fast electric cars with great range and batteries that outlive the rest of the car. I would buy one of those if I could get a used one for a good price. But as long as car makers discontinue electric cars and avoid putting those concepts to production in favor of bi-fuel, hydrogen and hybrid mumbo jumbo we will not see this car of my dreams. Focus should be on the development for the electric car so we can make an even more efficient, stable and awesome electric car.
 
Back