Electric cars 'pollute more than petrol or diesel'
151 replies, posted
[B]Electric cars might pollute much more than petrol or diesel-powered cars, according to new research.
[/B][URL="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x/abstract"]The Norwegian University of Science and Technology study[/URL] found greenhouse gas emissions rose dramatically if coal was used to produce the electricity.Electric car factories also emitted more toxic waste than conventional car factories, their report in the Journal of Industrial Ecology said.
[B]However, in some cases electric cars still made sense, the researchers said.
[/B]The team looked at the life-cycle impact of conventional and electric vehicles.
In essence, they considered how the production, the use and the end-of-life dismantling of a car affects the environment, explained co-author Prof Anders Hammer Stromman.
"The production phase of electric vehicles proved substantially more environmentally intensive," the report said, comparing it to how petrol and diesel cars are made.
[B]
"The global warming potential from electric vehicle production is about twice that of conventional vehicles."
[/B]
In addition, producing batteries and electric motors requires a lot of toxic minerals such as nickel, copper and aluminium.
Hence, the acidification impact is much greater than that of conventional car production.
"Across the other impacts considered in the analysis including potential for effects related to acid rain, airborne particulate matter, smog, human toxicity, ecosystem toxicity and depletion of fossil fuel and mineral resources, electric vehicles consistently perform worse or on par with modern internal combustion engine vehicles, despite virtually zero direct emissions during operation," according to Prof Stromman.
[B]With electric car production being so damaging to the environment, these cars have already polluted a great deal by the time they hit the road, the report says.[/B]
However, if the cars were then powered by electricity made from low-carbon electricity sources, they could nevertheless offer "the potential for substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and exposure to tailpipe emissions" over time.
However, in regions where fossil fuels are the main sources of power, electric cars offer no benefits and may even cause more harm, the report said.
"It is counterproductive to promote electric vehicles in regions where electricity is primarily produced from lignite, coal or even heavy oil combustion."
[URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19830232[/URL]
[quote]found greenhouse gas emissions rose dramatically [B]if coal[/B] was used to produce the electricity.[/quote]
no shit sherlock
also a good reason why romney supporting coal is fucking retarded.
Isn't it clear by now that we need to use and advance clean nuclear energy?
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;37924379]no shit sherlock
also a good reason why romney supporting coal is fucking retarded.[/QUOTE]
Romney saying he supports "clean coal" is just another way of saying fuck future generations lets burn out the planet now.
At least you still don't have to spend money on gas.
[editline]5th October 2012[/editline]
As the car owner, of course
[QUOTE]However, in regions where fossil fuels are the main sources of power, electric cars offer no benefits and may even cause more harm, the report said.[/QUOTE]
But powerplants are far more efficient at using those fossil fuels than gasoline cars are.
He's definitely right, though I'm not sure if there's anything excitingly new about it. I thought we knew this for years, especially the process of making the batteries for the cars, which is polluting quite a lot. I do fancy electric cars, don't get me wrong, but it's getting a bit gimmicky at points. Electric cars always boast about being electric -which is fine. However when you design the paintjob on it, from factory, and decide that all cars needs to have huge blue lightnings on the side saying "I AM ELECTRIC", then it gets a bit too much.
Electric cars are neat but they aren't the future just yet. I'd like to fill up my car at the gas station, which takes me roughly 4 minutes. I don't want it to take 10 hours, or 15 minutes if you want a new battery in it. Also with the near-zero amount of battery-changing stations, at least in my country, it's just not worth it. Running dry somewhere and you're boned.
[editline]edit[/editline]
Except for Tesla. I like what Tesla's doing with electric cars, actually having them look subtle, have good performance and be electricity powered. That's all just my two cents or opinion or whatever you want to call it.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;37924379]
also a good reason why romney supporting coal is fucking retarded.[/QUOTE]
Clean coal, it's also currently our most abundantly feasible energy resource.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;37924379]no shit sherlock
also a good reason why romney supporting coal is fucking retarded.[/QUOTE]
Romney must have played lots of Runescape.
[QUOTE=MightyMax;37924402]Romney saying he supports "clean coal" is just another way of saying fuck future generations lets burn out the planet now.[/QUOTE]
You realize this is just as sensationalist as me claiming that environmentalists want humans extinct to preserve the environment.
[QUOTE=Strider*;37924443]Clean coal, it's also currently our most abundantly feasible energy resource.[/QUOTE]
Same with natural gas, which people tend to be up in arms with for much the same reason as coal.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;37924379]no shit sherlock
also a good reason why romney supporting coal is fucking retarded.[/QUOTE]
Meh, this article was either another sad attempt at increasing the sales of the magazine, or just another oil company bribing to drive public opinion against green technology.
[QUOTE=Strider*;37924443]Clean coal, it's also currently our most abundantly feasible energy resource.[/QUOTE]
ahahahhahahahahahahaaa
"clean" coal
an oxymoron
Electric cars are too expensive for people to want them at the moment, the Nissan Leaf is £23,000 whereas the Nissan Micra 1.2 Petrol is £10,000
[QUOTE=Chernarus;37924392]Isn't it clear by now that we need to use and advance clean nuclear energy?[/QUOTE]
So much this; we need to embrace a new Atomic Age, preferably with Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors. However, we probably shouldn't have LFTRs in our cars, since adding radioactive fluid leaks to a car crash is a recipe for environmental upset, though having them generate the electricity we need is a viable and important thing.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;37924484]Same with natural gas, which people tend to be up in arms with for much the same reason as coal.[/QUOTE]
at least natural gas mining isn't nearly as destructive as coal mining.
[editline]5th October 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=ironman17;37924558]So much this; we need to embrace a new Atomic Age, preferably with Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors. However, we probably shouldn't have LFTRs in our cars, since adding radioactive fluid leaks to a car crash is a recipe for environmental upset, though having them generate the electricity we need is a viable and important thing.[/QUOTE]
an LFTR in a car is a horrible idea but I'm all for the development of new nuclear energy technology.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;37924508]ahahahhahahahahahahaaa
"clean" coal
an oxymoron[/QUOTE]
"cleaner" I guess.
That's because electric car tech hasn't had nearly the time to develop as the combustion engine. I'm sure that if we start using them companies will up the R&D dept's funds and we'll find alternate battery tech in no time.
[QUOTE=Strider*;37924591]"cleaner" I guess.[/QUOTE]
Carbon Sequestration is a technology that while is necessary shouldn't be even be in consideration for development in the US. In nations like China, where coal is huge, sure. But the US should focus on developing energies of the future, not the past.
Allow Elon Musk to explain something here:
[url]http://vimeo.com/36534892#t=410[/url]
[editline]5th October 2012[/editline]
The biggest problem with electric cars is the battery.
[QUOTE=OvB;37924630]Allow Elon Musk to explain something here:
[url]http://vimeo.com/36534892#t=410[/url]
[editline]5th October 2012[/editline]
The biggest problem with electric cars is the battery.[/QUOTE]
what's a better energy storage technology then?
let's cover roads with that thing that powers bumper cars
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;37924700]what's a better energy storage technology then?[/QUOTE]
I don't know. I'm not an electrical engineer. It's just a known fact that the dirty production, and small life span of the big heavy EV batteries are the elephant in the room when it comes to electric.
I would still buy the fuck out of a Tesla if I had the money though. It's a developing technology that will only get better with time.
[QUOTE=OvB;37924730]I don't know. I'm not an electrical engineer. It's just a known fact that the dirty production, and small life span of the big heavy EV batteries are the elephant in the room when it comes to electric.
I would still buy the fuck out of a Tesla if I had the money though. It's a developing technology that will only get better with time.[/QUOTE]
well I wasn't asking for a definitive answer haha.
perhaps fuel cells?
The thing is that there are a thousand times more CO2 emitting cars in the world than factories.
[QUOTE=latin_geek;37924710]let's cover roads with that thing that powers bumper cars[/QUOTE]
You mean the metal mesh in the ceiling?
I literally stopped reading at "If Coal".
[quote]electric vehicles consistently perform worse or on par with modern internal combustion engine vehicles, despite virtually zero direct emissions during operation[/quote]
roflmao
why is the tesla roadster in GT5 then.
[QUOTE=latin_geek;37924710]let's cover roads with that thing that powers bumper cars[/QUOTE]
They're actually making something like that in a UK city, it's essentially a tram but with wheels. So imagine if this had wheels and looked like a bus:
[img]http://www.simplonpc.co.uk/Tram-Barcelona/Tram06-02-Diagonal.jpg[/img]
Electric motors can more efficiently and reliably outperform fossil fuel engines, but the battery technology isn't there to power them.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.