“Broadbased adoption of ZEVs [electric vehicles] will increase air pollution and associated environmental costs relative to new internal combustion vehicles,” concludes a new study from the Manhattan Institute. Electric cars “will increase overall emissions of sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, and particulates, compared with the same number of new internal combustion vehicles, even after accounting for emissions from petroleum refineries.”
This appears to contradict Department of Energy claims that, “In general, EVs produce fewer emissions that contribute to climate change and smog than conventional vehicles.” However, “in general” does not mean “in particular.”
A study by several economists found that, in some parts of the country that rely mainly on hydroelectricity and other non-polluting electricity, electric cars are indeed cleaner than internal combustion cars. But, as reported by City Lab, in most of the country electric cars are dirtier than gasoline-powered cars, and in much of the rest of the country they are about the same (scroll down to “What They Found” in the City Lab article or to page 35 of the paper itself). Only in certain parts of the West are electric cars significantly cleaner than gasoline.
There are mixed bags levitra order of things that are known as erectile dysfunction medicines. Improper functioning of the neurons is observed by the damaging of the nerves.In the case of erectile dysfunction, in spite of the sexual activity. lowest price cialis is a very effective PDE5 inhibitor that works very efficiently in treating male erectile problems. Unlike other pills, viagra sale a greater duration say nearly 36 hours, hence it is named as 36 hour pill or weekend pill. Apcalis is used to treat men who have impotenceLike generic levitra uk, this pill is very easy to use, however it is more effective and has less side effects and is very much effective to increase your sex life.
Greenhouse gas emissions is another story, and the Manhattan Institute study admits that electric cars produce fewer emissions even if the source of electricity is fossil fuels. However, the study found that the savings are so small that, even if all internal combustion vehicles were replaced with electric ones, total energy-related CO2 emissions would be reduced by just 0.3 percent; this “reduction will have no measurable impact on world climate and thus no economic value.”
There are a lot of ways of reducing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions that are more cost-effective than giving out large tax credits to people who buy electric cars. Unfortunately, politicians are more interested in making highly visible gestures than in making the most effective decisions. That’s a major reason why markets work better than political systems. Fortunately, there is a market benefit to buying an electric car: the owner saves money on fuel. That should be enough to encourage this technology; the tax credits should be discarded.
70% of Washington’s electricity is generated using non carbon emitting power (Hydroelectric and nuclear) so if the antiplanner brings up energy consumption per capita it’s meaningless cause there’s no pollution if an electric driven train draws power from what’s most likely non-polluting (unless it’s diesel electric) vs. a car.
The average car emits 4.7 tons of co2 per year (11,400 average annual miles at a mileage of 21.6 miles per gallon)
An electric car example the Tesla Model S (335 mile range on a 100 kilowatt-hour battery equates 3.35 miles per kilowatt hour)
So accumulating 11,400 miles of Bolt driving equates to 3,402 kilowatt-hours per year of electric consumption.
Life cycle CO2 equivalent from selected electricity supply technologies. So charging your Tesla for a years worth of driving using the various power sources would emit depending on what you generate from.
Coal = 3.75 tons per year
Natural gas = 1.75 tons per year
Hydroelectric = ~30-150 pounds (While electric production incurs no CO2 emissions, anaerobic decomposition of vegetation at the bottom of a reservoir emits CO2 and methane when you inundate what used to be forest and vegetated habitat. Hoover dam however was built on a rocky canyon…..no vegetation so no decomposition.)
Wind = 90-100 pounds (manufacture of materials and transportation to remote sites and processing of rare earth meals used in magnets and and copper for the generator; doesn’t take into consideration natural gas backup for weather which harms capacity factor which may run up to 0.8 tons with gas backup running 50% of the time)
Nuclear = 40-50 pounds per year. (takes into consideration fuel mining and former processing, other than that, no emissions directly from power production, nuclear CO2 emissions per kw-h set to decrease with factoring of electrically driven fuel processing in the near future)
Solar PV = 300 pounds
Geothermal = 300 pounds per year
Correction, meant to say Tesla driving……
Here in the TRE (ERCOT Interconnection) we have a relatively large amount of on-grid wind power. Smart charging one’s electric car in the middle of a winter night could use 100% percent wind turbine motivated electrons; charging (haphazardly or by necessity) in the middle of a hot afternoon would use some mix of natural gas, coal, nuclear, wind, solar, biomass and hydro.
Unfortunately, politicians are more interested in making highly visible gestures than in making the most effective decisions.
And highly visible to their biggest campaign donors. Colorado has a long and successful history of oil and gas production yet the leading Democratic candidates for governor are running on “100% renewable energy” platforms. Such a ridiculous scheme would of course double or triple the cost of power as it has in Denmark, Germany, and South Australia. but the big, very rich Democratic donors don’t care because they can easily afford it. To hell with 90% of the population that can’t afford a tripling of energy prices. The most important thing to politicians is to keep those big campaign contributions rolling in which means keeping those virtue-signalling rich Dem’s happy.
What about “clean electric” trains in cities on the PJM (Pennsylvania-Jersey-Maryland) interconnection? Local air quality improvement in cities that was to result from those “clean electric” trains has long been cited as justification for spending large amounts of tax money to build and expand rail systems.
Like Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Washington, Norfolk, Cleveland and Chicago?
As of the time I write this, real-time statistics on the PJM Web site, show that coal and gas together make up well over half of the fuels used for electric generation on the PJM grid.
A member of my family purchased a new “plug-in” gas/hybrid car, and usually charges it off the solar panels on his house.
The “pure” electric range is not that far, about 10 or 20 miles (but probably good enough for the use that this car gets).
So much of his driving with this car (even though it has a gas tank) is probably zero-emission.
Electric cars aren’t selling well, Cause most of them are ugly as F**
Wanna sell electric and hybrid cars, don’t make them look like ugly toasters.
The more normal a car appears the more sensible it is to buyers.
And the hypocrisy in the environment groups that support electric cars, loudly tout their benefits, Virtue signal people that don’t possess them. At the same time lead opposition for the extraction for the resources critical to their manufacture. Namely Copper, lithium and rare earth metals. The Sierra Club recently denounced Trump Admins permitting process for a road in Alaska, the Ambler Road, 220 mile road for allowing vehicles and equipment to mine for copper in Alaska……
Typically vehicles range from compacts to SUV’s so they use between 18-50 pounds of copper in their manufacture for their wiring. A hybrid car on the other hand uses over 80-100 pounds copper, a Plug in hybrid uses about 132-150 pounds of copper and a Fully electric car uses between 180-250
POUNDS of copper; Over three or four times that of a normal car. Plus the charging infrastructure needed to recharge these babies requires copper. You want to deter the demand for copper…. Go back to gas. But don’t sit there and Virtue Signal us that your Tesla is better for the planet; Tesla uses Lithium-carbon-iron battery technology; innovative but to manufacture one Tesla battery puts out as much carbon as 8 years of auto driving and if the power used to run the car is fossil fuels you’ll probably never amortize it’s environmental cost unless you hold onto the car for decades and pass it on to your kids……Doubtful. A kilowatt-hour of coal electricity produces 2.07 pounds of CO2 so a 100 kw-h battery charging is 207 pounds of CO2. A strip mine for rare Earth metal is 1000 times bigger than a oil drilling location, the metals have to be chemically extracted from the rock; that requires toxic chemical catalysts; just like gold mining. The process also extracts Thorium and other isotopes from the soil which produces radioactive waste. In short, for every ton of rare earth metals, a ton or more of radioactive waste
is produced. China whom consolidates 90% of the global supply produces 100,000 tons of rare earth metals (and radioactive waste) per year. In comparison the US nuclear industry produces 3000 tons of spent fuel (of which 30 tons is actual fission waste). In 2012, the US installed 12,000 MW of nameplate capacity of wind turbines, with one ton of rare earth metals (used in their generator magnets) per turbine; that’s 8000 metric tons of radioactive waste.
LazyReader; The hypocrisy in the environment groups that support electric cars, loudly tout their benefits, Virtue signal people that don’t possess them.
THWM; The regressive left are just as bad as you teahadi’s and they are also anti-rail too! :$
https://www.socialistalternative.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/253218_10152404108056406_9021577328739230856_n.jpg
Yes, the use of rare earth elements is problematic but you don’t bring up the fact that much of their use is recyclable when the car is disposed of. When a Tesla is totaled we don’t throw everything into a landfill, we can recycle materials that can be used in the production of a new one. And, while right now much electricity is being generated by fossil fuels, as each year goes by more and more electricity will be generated from renewable sources. Of course, emissions from a rural power plant don’t impact the same number of people as emissions from a gridlocked car in Los Angeles.