A new study published in Environmental Science and Technology argues that increased numbers of electric vehicles over the next four decades will not result in a “clear and consistent trend toward lower system-wide emissions.” The reason, of course, is that it takes energy to produce electricity, and much of that energy comes from burning fossil fuels.
Maybe not green enough to be worth the wait.
Of course, we can increase the production of “renewable” electricity. But if we increase the demand for that electricity by driving electric cars, then we’ll still have to burn fossil fuels to supply electricity for other purposes such as light and heat. It might make more sense to use renewable electricity to replace fossil fuels in electrical generation while working to make fossil-fuel-powered cars more energy efficient.
If you have been searching for the answer on “how to sildenafil uk buy stop premature ejaculation naturally”, you must first familiarize yourself with what these supplements do. There are certain yoga postures specialized for healthy blood circulation near male cipla generic cialis reproductive system. There is no need of http://amerikabulteni.com/2012/02/11/ingilterede-the-sun-gazetesinin-5-calisani-daha-tutuklandi/ commander cialis having the prescription. To cope with purchase generic viagra a wide range of problems, be sure to only deal with sellers who are delivering the real deal.
That’s why the Antiplanner has focused on what drives cars more than what powers them. Self-driving cars can improve energy efficiency in many ways: by relieving congestion; by applying power more optimally; and==when most cars on the road are autonomous–by jettisoning the extra weight required to protect occupants from human errors.
Unfortunately, auto manufacturers are being forced by the laws of certain states (ahem, California) to invest ridiculous amounts of money into electric vehicles. I’m not an expert on battery technology, but I do know that batteries have been around for a long time, and I don’t see them making the quantum leaps required to allow electric vehicles to compete with cars powered by liquid petroleum costing less than $5 per gallon; nor do I see petrol prices rising to $5 per gallon or more in the next 50 years.
What I do see is that petroleum-powered vehicles can become far more energy efficient than they are today. According to MIT researchers, just three simple changes–more streamlining, replacing gasoline with Diesel motors, and substitution of aluminum for steel–should be enough to double fuel economy. The last one is the only one that costs anything, and that cost will largely be recovered by the energy savings. Perhaps it makes sense to continue to power transportation with petroleum for the foreseeable future while concentrating efforts on cleaning up the generation of electricity for other uses.
The reason to start using cars is to get the world is to get to a one tonne per person carbon dioxide production that the body of scientist feel is sustainable. (Use Google search terms “sustainable energy without the hot air” and read chapter one on line for a good description of the problem, page 15 describes the one tonne per year). This is going to require major changes in the way energy is produced. I should emphasize that we are not going to use a great deal less energy than our life style demands now. And the idea that building more public transit simply will not have any cost effective reduction in carbon dioxide.
Therefore electric cars may well have a place if battery technology improves. The development of lithium ion batteries made electric cars at least usable daily transport if not economical yet. If lithium air batteries can be developed they may have an energy density of gasoline. These batteries connected to the electrical grid when the car is not is use may be a useful buffer for electrical storage from intermittent renewable power (Google search terms “electric car storage buffer”). I agree with the antiplanner that all of this will be useless if we do not have non carbon dioxide way of producing power.
Another technology that may make sense is ethanol from cellulose. The first commercially sized cellulose to ethanol production has started in Italy (use Google search terms “commercial cellulose to ethanol Italy”) but it is still too early to determine if this technology is feasible. However if it does become feasible then cars may be powered using very high efficiency engines running on ethanol and even ethanol with a small amount of water (Google “high efficiency ethanol engine”) may be the future.
All this requires more research and development. I would advocate Lomborg’s position in his book “Cool it” (Google search terms “Lomborg cool it”). We need to stop society pretending that “walkable communities” and more heavily subsidized transit will have any meaningful effect on carbon dioxide production. We need to start to look at realistic future technologies that will make cost effective difference. This technology does not exist yet. But if we work sensibly on this we can develop this and maintain our modern life style that not only we but the world population demands.
Paul,
Why are you concerned about CO2 and ethanol?
Did you get fooled by Al Gore’s climate fraud?
If so, please just show how man’s CO2 is causing dangerous global warming. But note that coincidence is not evidence of causation, the earth was warmer during Roman, Egyptian and Minoan times than now and CO2 lags, not leads, temperature on all time scales.
Thanks
JK
If carbon dioxide is so bad, why do people who grow shit in greenhouses purposely pump more CO2 into their greenhouses, if you see advertisements in magazines, ironically “Mother Earth News” and such they sell units. Made in USA, burns propane or natural gas and uses extractors and pumps carbon into the house raising the CO2 concentration to as high as 1,000 parts per million or more. Marijuana farmers take the cheap route and simply put dry ice in buckets of water rapidly raising the CO2 level to make a nice, healthy, strong little chronic plant. The environmentalists keep saying that higher CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere would have horrible consequences for agriculture because the plants are not suited to grow in these high concentrations. If that’s the case explain the crops which are no different than the ones growing outside are growing bigger and faster. Carbon Dioxide is plant food.
Since 1987 an experiment performed by Dr. Sherwood Idso, orange trees were grown in enclosures, one of which was open to and contained a standard atmosphere given the amount of CO2 the time the experiment was run (300-350 ppm over the years in accordance with the natural CO2 level present). The other enclosure had twice the amount of carbon pumped into the enclosure (600 ppm and raised in accordance with CO2 concentrations in the air at the time). After several years, the growth of the orange trees and weight of the fruit harvested were closely monitored. There is no way to truly know how trees will respond to long-term atmospheric CO2 enrichment without actually doing a long-term experiment and the experiment ran for nearly 20 years. All and all, the enriched trees suffered no ill and produced 180% greater biomass than the tree’s grown in a normal atmosphere. They produced more fruit, 5-10% increase in Vitamin C production, more flowers, more leaves, more roots, longer tap roots and thicker trunks. They did the same experiment with pine trees, the enriched trees grew nearly twice as high. We may need the benefit of CO2 enrichment in the future in order to feed future populations.
Generally speaking throughout much of Earth’s history, glaciers are rare. Because back then the temperature was warmer compared to today. For nearly 90% of the last 100 million years where much of what we consume evolved, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was higher than it is now. For several millennia after the end of the last Ice Age, Paleo-trees found buried in the tundra of North America and Europe indicated the climate was considerably warmer in order to permit the growth of trees in what is now frozen tundra. As much as twelve degree’s warmer than even now. What does that mean regarding sea ice in the Arctic? It was gone, completely in summer. Despite this total absence of ice, the polar bear survived, so did the walrus. Inuit culture flourished because they could farm for their sustenance. And human civilization radiated Northward.
Keep producing CO2! We’re going to need warming to offset cooling in northern latitudes until the end of the century. Of course the following article ends with fundamentalist AGW orthodoxy, as anyone who doesn’t conform to the consensus is a heretic. But time will tell…
Sun Flatlining Into Grand Minimum, Says Solar Physicist, January 20, 2014
Weather isn’t climate, but circumstantial evidence indicates our sun may be entering a grand minimum of sunspot activity, not unlike the Maunder Minimum that some climatologists think caused record low winter temperatures in Northern Europe during the latter half of the 17th century.
“My opinion is that we are heading into a Maunder Minimum,” said Mark Giampapa, a solar physicist at the National Solar Observatory (NSO) in Tucson, Arizona. “I’m seeing a continuation in the decline of the sunspots’ mean magnetic field strengths and a weakening of the polar magnetic fields and subsurface flows.”
“If we’re entering a Maunder Minimum, it could persist until the 2080s,” said Giampapa, who points out that if such a minimum’s primary effect is cooling, it could wreak havoc by curtailing agricultural growing seasons which, for instance, could lead to lower wheat production in breadbasket economies.
But Giampapa says it could also mean a global excursion from the mean, resulting in local climate extremes in terms of both anomalous temperatures and precipitation.
“If there were solid evidence that global warming didn’t exist, or that CO2 emissions weren’t the culprit, there would be papers in the journals about it. Lots of them.”
Are there? No.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/01/14/climate_change_another_study_shows_they_don_t_publish_actual_papers.html
I’d also add that the fossil fuel industry has plenty of resources (no pun intended), as well as a vested interest, in funding credible scientific research to disprove AGW. Explain to me why that isn’t happening?
If carbon dioxide is so bad, why do people who grow shit in greenhouses purposely pump more CO2 into their greenhouses,
Quoting Lomborg is problematic aside, as Paul would say: Google FACE studies. CO2 isn’t life.
Nevertheless, Randal brings up a good point: as long as there is a large human population, it is going to need to move around. Bringing down emissions from the transport sector is going to be huge, and our land-use is going to need to be up to the task.
Efficiency gains in transport, building envelopes. manufacturing will have to improve. China is already working on it. Great Britain is struggling to increase building efficiency. Asia is exploding in renewable energy (note no scare quotes) as it struggles to come to grips with dirty energy affecting productivity.
Lots to do, little time to do it in.
DS
$5/gal in the next 50 years? I.e. 2064? How many predictions on gas prices from 1964 were right about today? That seems like a pretty bold prediction considering national gas prices have gone from sub-$1 to $3-$4 in the last 15 years…
Making cars lighter increases gas mileage tremendously. Weight is the greatest factor in lowering gas mileage.
You suggest: “substitution of aluminum for steel”. This just happened with a Ford pickup-hopefully others will follow.
This is not a new idea. In the late 70’s, early 80’s plastic bumpers, etc. lowered the weight of cars by 100’s of pounds and many early 80’s cars got better mileage than cars today. I had a Mercury Lynx that regularly beat 40 mpg on the highway – but weighed around 2200 pounds – today’s Honda Civics are over 3000 pounds.
Why did gas mileage go down after the early 80’s: In this order.
1. Government safety requirements added back the several hundred pounds of weight, and then some. I am not against safety–but as Milton Friedman said, there is no free lunch.
2. Ethanol – a lot less mileage per volume than gasoline – with no real benefits.
3. SUV craze – most people buy SUV’s to protect themselves from other SUV’s. But, a well-made small SUV (like our Honda CRV) gets 35 mpg on the highway, as good as many “compact” cars. But it is scary to drive around in a small, light car these days.
4. Heavier people? No doubt about it. A car with 700 pounds of people will get worse mileage than a car with 500 pounds.
Today’s engines are much better than 30 years ago – but carrying all that weight has prevented them from achieving the gains we should have accomplished a long time ago.
Letsgola:
I was thinking the same thing. However the value of silver in a 1964 quarter is equivalent to a gallon of gas. This even after the recent precious metals correction. So, by that metric, gas prices are unchanged for the last 50 years. Look for inflation to be the primary driver of gas prices in the next 50.
If carbon dioxide is so bad, why do people who grow shit in greenhouses purposely pump more CO2 into their greenhouses,
I love this reasoning. It makes so much sense. If a little bit is good for you, then a lot must be really good for you. It’s just like saying we need water for life and that’s why everyone loves flooding in their neighborhood.
But the point of this post is not to talk about climate change, but rather it points out the obvious that using an electric car powered by fossil fuels is about as bad as just using the fossil fuels to begin with. This is obviously true, but beside the point. The way that we generate electricity over the next 50 years will change. I am not stupid enough to predict exactly how, but I would hope that we will be moving away from dirty sources and towards cleaner sources. If this is the case, then electric cars will be a win in terms of emissions. If this is not the case, then, well, we have some really big problems ahead of us.
“Self-driving cars can improve energy efficiency in many ways: by relieving congestion; by applying power more optimally”
Sorry Anti, you’ve drunk the totalitarian Kool-Aid on this one.
I take the route I happen to feel like, often with many changes of mind and speed en route. I am almost completely disinterested in energy efficiency and I apply power as I choose. I am conservative and abstemious in 90% of my personal consumption, so feel no guilt whatever over being intentionally inefficient in my energy use in this area.
Any damned Roundhead who wants to force me to conserve energy by “applying power optimally” or give up the sheer joy of driving my cars or motorbike fast and at maximum possible acceleration and cornering speed can go straight to hell. Said Roundhead will have to take my antique English sports car and my Suzuki crotch rocket from my cold dead hands.
On a less emotional note, cars will not get lighter soon, or at all, because it is not possible to convert all cars and all roads to robot drivers in any near term span. Until it’s 100% done the risks remain sufficient that plenty of protective mass is needed.
I still don’t see any proof that man’s CO2 is causing global warming from the several Al Gore dupes above.
Can any of you cite actual evidence?
All right, JimLarlock, I’ll take the bait since I’m feeling energetic. I am not a climate scientist, but I do tend to listen to what they say. I don’t have time to read the peer reviewed papers or follow the details as the science progresses. So, when read things like this from the National Academies of Sciences putting out a strong statement saying why climate change is real, I tend to think that what they say has a strong basis in fact. For example, read this: http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
Now, after reading this, I can only think of 3 broad reactions:
1. These scientists are idiots. I know better
2. These scientists are lying to me. There is a Conspiracy that involves just about every academic institution in the world (not just in the US), the same institutions that have brought all of these wonderful scientific and technological advances.
3. They are probably right.
Which one are you?
I have a lot of faith in scientists who are doing their science under true scientific processes.
Climate predictions are very very very far from science. To believe climate models you have to first believe that man has figured out all the natural systems on the earth — atmospheric, oceanic, geological, astronomical, biological. You have to believe that despite the fact they can’t predict weather worth a darn in 3 days, they can exactly predict the climate in 30 years.
The reason climate models are “believed in” is because they are untestalbe in a reasonable number of years. The fact they exactly predict the past and yet utterly fail to predict the first 15 years in the future puts them in the bin with gambling models of sports and poker of which far more intelligent people and far more money is being spent.
Increased C02 in the atmosphere has some good data and some logical hypothesis to test, but because of the work of the dead tree decomposition deniers taught at the A-1 California School of Trucking and Urban Planning, that hypothesis has been made into a computer “SymEarth”.
werdnagreb – when read things like this from the National Academies of Sciences putting out a strong statement saying why climate change is real, I tend to think that what they say has a strong basis in fact.
JK– Thanks for providing proof that the NAS has a strong position on AGW.
However I asked for proof that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous global warming. Do you know of any?
werdnagreb – after reading this, I can only think of 3 broad reactions…
JK–You left out they are:
1 – following the fraudulent IPCC
2 – looking to continue getting governemtn grants
3 – the leaders are NOT scientists and are fools.
4 – The membership of many of these organizations disagree. See AMS survey where most meteorologists DO NOT agree that most warming is caused by man.
Thanks
JK
My understanding is that emissions per mile are greater for petrol powered cars than electric (or coal) powered cars. It aint perfect, but it’s better. Imagine how efficient a electric (maybe charge by solar) driverless car would be?
Imagine how efficient a electric (maybe charge by solar) driverless car would be?
Elon Musk is all over it. I’m following where he’s going.
DS
Elon Musk is all over it. I’m following where he’s going.
Of course, the fact that Tesla Motors has never reported an honest profit doesn’t bother him at all. Elon can, of course, continue to use his wealth to prop up Tesla as some sort of odd political statement. Remember that the Tesla isn’t some sort of breakthrough. It’s just a really expensive car that is kind of luxurious, and most importantly, derives its range from a super big battery. No magic here.
HTH
Elon Musk is all over it. I’m following where he’s going.
Sure, just like he’s all over this. You’ve got to love the choice quote from Dan Sperling in the article: “there’s no way the economics on that would ever work out.” Musk is great at attracting PR. Not so great at running profitable ventures. Plenty of people are ‘following’ him, just not with their money.
Musk is great at attracting PR. Not so great at running profitable ventures. Plenty of people are ‘following’ him, just not with their money.
I wasn’t aware the requirement for leadership or success is for your ideas to be right or workable 100% of the time. Who knew? Mind: blown.
DS
Electric cars are great idea if a couple of challenges are met. You don’t have to be a CO2 alarmist to like them – they’re just better.
But… only if:
1) The battery energy density is significantly increased so that the range is improved. I am not enough of an electro-chemist to know if this is feasible. Note that fuel cells may sneak back in if they can beat batteries.
2) You can “re-fuel” quickly – for example, by battery exchange.
Recharging large numbers of electric cars presents a huge capital investment – especially if battery exchange stations are needed all over the place. Capital is not free, especially once the Fed ever returns interest rates to normal.
Electric cars are better than ICE cars because they’re mechanically much simpler, and they don’t require a transmission. They also produce no combustion pollution.
There is, however, nothing inherently “clean” about them. Electric or not, they require energy. They are “clean”” in a CO2 sense (if one cares) if the inefficiencies of power transmission and battery power loss are overcome by the CO2 economies of scale of grid power. They are economic if their advantages are such that people are willing to pay the true cost for their purchase and use – and their economy is a better gauge of their value than any CO2 measure.