Report: Electric cars are not clean enough

[AVANTI R5]

Until electric cars rely less on electricity produced from conventional coal-fired power plants, they can’t be considered significantly cleaner than fossil-fuel-powered cars. Jared Cohon, the chair of a National Research Council report, last Monday release the report titled: “Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use.” Cohon stated that electric vehicles will only become a major green alternative when the power fuel mix moves away from coal, or when cleaner coal technologies are developed and utilized. Cohon added that about half of U.S.. power is generated by burning coal, which emits many times more of traditional pollutants, such as particulates and smog components, than natural gas, and about twice as much of the main greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.

[via indiatimes]

http://www.4wheelsnews.com/report-el...-clean-enough/

* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.

[Spenk]

Well....DUH!

[sxotty]

But they are already cleaner even on coal generated electricity. Just not "significantly" whatever the heck that means.

[rypt]

So get the useless politicians to finally build more nuclear plants.

[jigga]

Wasn't the real point of this exercise to reduce dependence on foreign oil?

At the end of the day, the furniture is simply being re-arranged around the room. You can't have your cake and eat it too....

Unless of course they have unlocked the secrets to perpetual motion....

[shikataganai]

see this thread: http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show....php?t=1754766

also this link from the above thread of mine is very relevant, a map depicting power generation on a state by state basis: http://www.npr.org/news/graphics/200...electric-grid/

nationwide assumptions from the MIT Energy Lab study discussed above:
52% coal
28% natural gas
10% nuclear
9% renewables
1% petroleum

washington
71% hydro(electric)
10% coal
8% gas
8% nuclear

california
47% gas
20% hydro
18% nuclear
7% geothermal

texas
49% gas
37% coal
10% nuclear

west virginia
98% coal
2% hydro

new york
29% nuclear
22% gas
17% hydro
16% oil

vermont
71% nuclear
21% hydro
7% biomass

as you can see the states are all over the map! at one end you have states such as vermont (99% renewable) and washington (79% renewable with an option for individuals like myself to buy credits for 100% renewable), and at the other you have states such as west virginia (2% renewable) and texas (10% renewable).

in conclusion: whether or not driving an electric car benefits the environment depends on several factors. the first is whether you choose an efficient vehicle—an Aptera 2e instead of an electric Hummer H2, for instance—and the second is where you choose to live. if you live in west virginia chances are that driving a Prius would be a better proposition than stoking your state's coal-fired powerplants all the brighter. if you live in vermont or washington state, on the other hand, going electric might truly be a green proposition indeed.

[dan az]

more nukes, look at france, aprx 80% of there electricity is from nuclear plants

[Tim-H]

Yeah that study seems like a load of BS to me. It's less pollutive to fuel a car only on coal electricity than the average gas engine. On top of that clean, renewable energy sources are making advances all the time. We should push electric cars now so when it is significantly cleaner, we wont be decades behind in the technology.

[Chromer]

What's the attraction with nuclear power?

Nuclear power can't exist in this country without massive government subsidies. Nuclear power can't exist in this country without federal loan guarantees equal to the entire cost of the powerplant, because no bank is willing to take the risk and offer 50-year payback terms, and because no utility wants to tie up their own capital for the 50 years it takes to pay back the investment in the plant (10 years before you even see a dime come back from it). Nuclear power can't exist in this country without the federal government running the liability insurance program the plants buy into because no private insurer will touch it.

Nuclear power == big government. You'd think the usual nuclear proponents would run screaming from that...

[RichM]

Originally Posted by rypt

So get the useless politicians out of the way so industry can finally build more nuclear plants.

Fixed it for you.

[rypt]

Originally Posted by RichM

Fixed it for you.

Government need to help with financing of these power stations though, and to help by-pass certain planning issues with regards to the locals.

[sxotty]

Building nuclear and coal plants is practically impossible in this country. BTW Nuclear plants are some of the most profitable plants there are. They are just quite expensive in terms of capital costs. The companies that bought used nukes when the markets deregulated are making a killing selling electricity.

[boxerinside]

Clean! nothing is clean about an electric car, where do you think the dead batteries will end up?!
Its all a marketing lie.

[Tim-H]

Originally Posted by boxerinside

Clean! nothing is clean about an electric car, where do you think the dead batteries will end up?!
Its all a marketing lie.

Recycling or Re-use? Just because the battery doesn't hold a charge anymore doesnt mean the materials it's made of are worthless.

[rypt]

98% of a battery can now be recycled

[sxotty]

Originally Posted by boxerinside

Clean! nothing is clean about an electric car, where do you think the dead batteries will end up?!
Its all a marketing lie.

New lithium ion batteries are not even toxic waste. So even if you did decide to throw it away or burn it then it would be cleaner than gasoline which you burn every time. A battery is only thrown away once.

[AVANTI R5]

General Motors has committed to lithium-ion technology for all of its future battery applications in hybrids, plug-ins, extended-range electrics, and fuel cell vehicles. The company has “no future plans to develop nickel-metal-hydride batteries,” according to lead battery systems engineer Andrew Leutheuser.


Lithium-ion batteries have roughly two times the energy density of the nickel-metal-hydride batteries found in hybrids today. That means engineers can retain the performance of existing battery packs while cutting weight in half. Most auto manufacturers intend to use lithium-ion batteries in their newest products, but some are hesitant to abandon the large financial investment already made to put nickel-metal hydride in existing hybrids.

Following the Volt’s launch in late 2010, GM will introduce its second-generation belt-alternator hybrid system using lithium-ion batteries. GM won’t state what vehicle the new lithium-ion system will first appear in, but said the vehicle will launch in 2011 and hinted that it will likely be a sedan. That time frame means the hybrid system will launch before a
face-lifted Chevy Malibu in mid-2012, leading us to believe the new BAS will debut in a Buick.

While the energy capacity between the new and old batteries is essentially
the same, GM expects to see a 12- to 15-percent boost in fuel efficiency
with the second-generation technology. For a midsize sedan, that could mean fuel economy around 29 mpg in the city and 38 mpg on the highway. The belt-alternator system, sometimes called a “mild hybrid,” is currently used in the Chevrolet Malibu, Saturn Aura, and Saturn Vue.

In addition to the belt-alternator system, the upcoming plug-in hybrid and
next-generation two-mode hybrid systems will use lithium-ion batteries.
-Eric Tingwall

[Hites]

I knew West Virginians were dirty, but jeez...

[AVANTI R5]

Kimiko de Freytas-Tamura writing for AFP reported on Hydrogen cars in Japan. Imagine a car that can be refuelled in minutes but emits only water. Sounds like science fiction? In fact it already exists — Hollywood star Jamie Lee Curtis has one. So does Honda president Takanobu Ito. Yet while some see them as the ultimate environmentally-friendly automobiles, the high production cost means that affordable hydrogen-powered fuel-cell cars are still more of a dream than reality.

Manufacturers such as Honda, however, are making a renewed push behind the vehicles, which run on electricity generated by a reaction between hydrogen and oxygen, belching out nothing more harmful than water vapour.

“We believe that the fuel-cell electric vehicle will be the ultimate form for automobiles in the future,” Ito said at the Tokyo Motor Show which opened Wednesday.

“It has advantages such as zero CO2 emissions in use, can travel considerable distances without refuelling and can be quickly refuelled,” he said.

Honda last year began delivering about 200 FCX Clarity hydrogen-powered cars on lease to US and Japanese customers, including some Hollywood celebrities.
Other automakers have also been pouring money into the technology, invented in the 19th century by the Welsh scientist William Robert Grove.

Toyota, pioneer of hybrids powered by a petrol engine and an electric motor, has said it plans to launch a fuel-cell car by 2015. It is applying its hybrid technology to the vehicles, swapping the petrol engine for a fuel-cell stack.

“We can’t concentrate on just one technology,” said Takeshi Uchiyamada, the chief engineer of the first-generation Prius hybrid.

Toyota president Akio Toyoda says he expects that eventually electric cars will be used for short distances and fuel-cell hybrids for long journeys.

Nissan and Mazda have developed their own fuel-cell vehicles and leased them to governments and corporate clients, while Suzuki Motor is showcasing a car, a wheelchair and scooter — all powered by fuel cells — at the Tokyo Motor Show.

The big challenge for manufacturers is to reduce the production cost of hydrogen-powered vehicles — currently several hundred thousand dollars each.

“There is a feeling that by 2050 fuel cells will eventually surpass electric cars,” said Ashvin Chotai, managing director of Intelligence Automotive Asia.

“In a lot of countries where electricity is generated with fossil fuels electric cars are still not an ideal solution, especially in places like China and India where a lot of the energy is produced using dirty coal,” he said.

The goal of carmakers is for hydrogen for cars to be produced by electrolysing water using renewable energy such as solar power.

Fuel cells have long been seen as an eco-friendly alternative to petrol, but for now most automakers are focusing their attention on hybrids and plug-in electric cars.

Supporters, however, see hydrogen-powered cars as the natural next step because they also use electricity but can be refuelled more quickly than plug-in cars and can travel further before the power runs out.

Some industry experts see a day when compact electric cars are used for short distances and fuel cells for bigger vehicles such as trucks, because hydrogen tanks require a lot of space.

As well as the high cost, the lack of filling stations and the size and weight of the fuel-cell vehicles also present hurdles.

Last month, Toyota, Honda, Renault-Nissan, Hyundai, Ford, General Motors, Daimler and Kia issued a joint plea for a sufficient hydrogen infrastructure network to be built by 2015, from when they believe “a few hundred thousand” of the cars could be commercialised worldwide.

The cause got a vital boost last week when the US Congress approved 187 million dollars in funding for research into fuel cells, seen by supporters as the ultimate zero-emission solution.

“There’s no way around it. A fuel-cell car gives you power, distance… It gives you short refuelling time,” said George Hansen, GM’s head of fuel-cell commercialisation in the Asia-Pacific.

“The technology is there and ready to be used. Now it depends on whether governments are willing to put in place the infrastructure, and whether volume production will bring costs down,” he told

http://allworldcars.com/wordpress/?p=15367