Study: Electric cars no greener than gasoline vehicles

[Vox]

It has been known long time that EV re not the panacea for the environment or people but a real one for the pockets of selected groups.

"it's the money, stupid" - just paraphrasing

 

[Freewill]

It seems to me that this "study" really isn't a "study" at all. It's a statement of opinion. And there's no evidence presented to support that opinion.

And all these people who are flocking to the pavilion to drink this Kool-Aid, are the same ones who line up behind an oil company's geologist to say the "science" is uncertain on anthropogenic climate change.

When the real science doesn't support your position, I'd suggest changing your position rather than trying to change the science. I'm not saying science can't be wrong - it can (and has been in the past). I am suggesting that you base your actions on the best information available and be ready to change course when better information becomes available.

I think it's a better way to make decisions than stuffing your fingers in your ears and humming loudly.

Just my humble opinion.

You are correct, it is your opinion. Think about the "opinion" presented in the OP. Does it make sense to you? Does it make sense that charging a battery using todays electric grid cause pollution? Does the by-products of making batteries and the disposal of those batteries cause pollution? Both logically are yes.

Those who dismiss the OP are doing so because they want electiric to be feasible, so do I. But reality is reality. When 4 9V batteries cost 10 bucks I am thinking batteries are not the way to go.

 

[Freewill]

Nice deflections. Now, will consider actually responding to the OP where political bullshit WAS NOT ADDRESSED but rather the research that electric cars do NOT help pollution was.

What research? Please point out the research presented in the article.

Unclean at Any Speed - IEEE Spectrum


You have to be smarter than the computer you sit at. Seems the error in the report sits between your chair and monitor.

They want to believe so badly that rational discussion is impossible.

 

[Duped]

Let the market decide which is greener, and if it gives a shit.

 

[Bfgrn]

I see chinese people in flushing wearing masks on a cold winter day with zero air pollution.

Show me the report of the day with the air conditions and pollutant index then i will concede those shots are indeed of smog.

BBC NEWS | Europe | Report outlines Russia's deadly pollution

Yes russia has pollution, but that doesnt tie the picture to a smog event. Got data for the day in question?

You right wing turds always create some hurdle that allows an escape. Hey moron, maybe we can consult the United States Environmental Protection Agency to provide the air quality index for Russia...

 

[jwoodie]

The conservative dream America...

Looks like SMUG. (Liberals can't smell their own farts.)

 

[Bfgrn]

The conservative dream America...

The liberal response to a non-political post...lies.

Your response is so off topic and so ridicules it really makes me wonder how low a low information voter can go.

REALLY? If all those vehicles were battery powered the air would be crystal clear. Are there any environmental concerns with batteries? Yes. Do batteries create a daily smog filled with carcinogens that causes severe respiratory problems, cardiac arrests and KILL people prematurely and exacerbates chronic diseases like asthma? NO.

Cars, Trucks, & Air Pollution

Transportation is the largest single source of air pollution in the United States. It caused over half of the carbon monoxide, over a third of the nitrogen oxides, and almost a quarter of the hydrocarbons in our atmosphere in 2006.¹ With the number of vehicles on the road and the number of vehicle miles traveled escalating rapidly, we are on the fast lane to smoggy skies and dirty air.

Clean vehicle and fuel technologies—including improved fuel efficiency, better biofuels, and advanced vehicle designs—can significantly reduce this air pollution from our cars and trucks and put America on a path to cut projected U.S. oil use in half within the next 20 years.

The Ingredients of Air Pollution

Air pollution is associated with the full life-cycle of cars and trucks. This includes air pollution emitted during vehicle operation, refueling, manufacturing, and disposal. Additional emissions are associated with the refining and distribution of vehicle fuel. Motor vehicles cause both primary and secondary pollution. Primary pollution is emitted directly into the atmosphere; secondary pollution results from chemical reactions between pollutants in the atmosphere. The following are the major pollutants from motor vehicles:

• Particulate matter (PM). These particles of soot and metals give smog its murky color. Fine particles, PM that is less than one-tenth the diameter of a human hair, pose the most serious threat to human health as they can penetrate deep into lungs. In addition to direct emissions of fine particles, automobiles release nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, and sulfur dioxide, which generate additional fine particles as secondary pollution.

• Hydrocarbons (HC). These pollutants react with nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight to form ground level ozone, a primary ingredient in smog. Though beneficial in the upper atmosphere, at the ground level this gas irritates the respiratory system, causing coughing, choking, and reduced lung capacity.

• Nitrogen oxides (NOx). These pollutants cause lung irritation and weaken the body's defenses against respiratory infections such as pneumonia and influenza. In addition, they assist in the formation of ground level ozone and particulate matter.

• Carbon monoxide (CO). This odorless, colorless, and poisonous gas is formed by the combustion of fossil fuels such as gasoline and is emitted primarily from cars and trucks. When inhaled, CO blocks the transport of oxygen to the brain, heart, and other vital organs in the body. Fetuses, newborn children, and people with chronic illnesses are especially susceptible to the effects of CO.

• Sulfur dioxide (SO2). Power plants and motor vehicles create this pollutant by burning sulfur-containing fuels, especially diesel. Sulfur dioxide can react in the atmosphere to form fine particles and poses the largest health risk to young children and asthmatics.

• Hazardous air pollutants (toxics). These chemical compounds, which are emitted by cars, trucks, refineries, gas pumps, and related sources, have been linked to birth defects, cancer, and other serious illnesses. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the air toxics emitted from cars and trucks account for half of all cancers caused by air pollution. Benzene, acetaldehyde, and 1,3-butadiene are examples of toxic air pollutants associated with motor vehicle emissions.

• Greenhouse gases. Motor vehicles also emit pollutants, such as carbon dioxide, that contribute to global climate change. The transportation sector currently accounts for over a quarter of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

 

[flacaltenn]

The title of the article is "Study: Electric cars no greener than gasoline vehicles"

Yet, the link provided contains no study. Why is that?

I read that article a couple weeks ago.. It's from the Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineers (IEEE) -- one of my prof. orgs. They (we) SHOULD know a thing or two about electric cars and electrical power generation...

It DID cite SEVERAL studies including one from the National Academy of Sciences.. I'm sure that should be easy to find..

 

[flacaltenn]

It seems to me that this "study" really isn't a "study" at all. It's a statement of opinion. And there's no evidence presented to support that opinion.

And all these people who are flocking to the pavilion to drink this Kool-Aid, are the same ones who line up behind an oil company's geologist to say the "science" is uncertain on anthropogenic climate change.

When the real science doesn't support your position, I'd suggest changing your position rather than trying to change the science. I'm not saying science can't be wrong - it can (and has been in the past). I am suggesting that you base your actions on the best information available and be ready to change course when better information becomes available.

I think it's a better way to make decisions than stuffing your fingers in your ears and humming loudly.

Just my humble opinion.

And I value your "humble opinion" == $0.02.. Obviously we have an epidemic of poor reading habits and comprehension.. (It's not just you nodog, so I'm not piling on)

More than 6 studies were cited and ALL are linked in the article.
<<<<<EDIT -- my apologies on the next page.. The quotes below are from the article quoted BUT NOT LINKED in the OP >>>

Our "opinion" crowd forced me to go cut and paste for them..

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/unclean-at-any-speed

For instance, Richard Pike of the Royal Society of Chemistry provocatively determined that electric cars, if widely adopted, stood to lower Britain&#8217;s carbon dioxide emissions by just 2 percent, given the U.K.&#8217;s electricity sources. Last year, a U.S. Congressional Budget Office study found that electric car subsidies &#8220;will result in little or no reduction in the total gasoline use and greenhouse-gas emissions of the nation&#8217;s vehicle fleet over the next several years.&#8221;

Others are more supportive, including the Union of Concerned Scientists. Its 2012 report [PDF] on the issue, titled &#8220;State of Charge,&#8221; notes that charging electric cars yields less CO2 than even the most efficient gasoline vehicles. The report&#8217;s senior editor, engineer Don Anair, concludes: &#8220;We are at a good point to clean up the grid and move to electric vehicles.&#8221;

One study (linked HERE) attempted to paint a complete picture. Published by the National Academies in 2010 and overseen by two dozen of the United States&#8217; leading scientists, it is perhaps the most comprehensive account of electric-car effects to date. Its findings are sobering.It&#8217;s worth noting that this investigation was commissioned by the U.S. Congress and therefore funded entirely with public, not corporate, money. As with many earlier studies, it found that operating an electric car was less damaging than refueling a gasoline-powered one. It isn&#8217;t that simple, however, according to Maureen Cropper, the report committee&#8217;s vice chair and a professor of economics at the University of Maryland. &#8220;Whether we are talking about a conventional gasoline-powered automobile, an electric vehicle, or a hybrid, most of the damages are actually coming from stages other than just the driving of the vehicle,&#8221; she points out.

In a study released last year, a group of MIT researchers calculated that global mining of two rare earth metals, neodymium and dysprosium, would need to increase 700 percent and 2600 percent, respectively, over the next 25 years to keep pace with various green-tech plans.

The National Academies&#8217; assessment didn&#8217;t ignore those difficult-to-measure realities. It drew together the effects of vehicle construction, fuel extraction, refining, emissions, and other factors. In a gut punch to electric-car advocates, it concluded that the vehicles&#8217; lifetime health and environmental damages (excluding long-term climatic effects) are actually greater than those of gasoline-powered cars. Indeed, the study found that an electric car is likely worse than a car fueled exclusively by gasoline derived from Canadian tar sands!

 

[nodoginnafight]

It seems to me that this "study" really isn't a "study" at all. It's a statement of opinion. And there's no evidence presented to support that opinion.

And all these people who are flocking to the pavilion to drink this Kool-Aid, are the same ones who line up behind an oil company's geologist to say the "science" is uncertain on anthropogenic climate change.

When the real science doesn't support your position, I'd suggest changing your position rather than trying to change the science. I'm not saying science can't be wrong - it can (and has been in the past). I am suggesting that you base your actions on the best information available and be ready to change course when better information becomes available.

I think it's a better way to make decisions than stuffing your fingers in your ears and humming loudly.

Just my humble opinion.

You are correct, it is your opinion. Think about the "opinion" presented in the OP. Does it make sense to you? Does it make sense that charging a battery using todays electric grid cause pollution? Does the by-products of making batteries and the disposal of those batteries cause pollution? Both logically are yes.

Those who dismiss the OP are doing so because they want electiric to be feasible, so do I. But reality is reality. When 4 9V batteries cost 10 bucks I am thinking batteries are not the way to go.

So your position is based on economics - not the science of which is more polluting?
Same can be said for most on that side of the issue - I applaud you for being up front about that.

Of course both methods have an environmental impact. But without hard numbers it is impossible to say one method pollutes more than the other. Wanting to believe something can be the problem - when wanting to believe becomes more important than the best information available.

IMHO: Our technology is nowhere near the point of being able to supply our demands for power without some environmental impact. Maybe we will never get to that point. And we do have to balance environmental impact with economic impact. But let's stop pretending we are making an environmental choice when we are really making an economic one.

 

[JoeBlam]

Here's a RANT I wrote almost 2 years ago about the VOLT. Now that GM has paid back the majority of what they borrowed, first from Dubya then Hussein, it seems the anger against them has subsided. So anyway, I found this and thought it might be useful in this thread.

Seems the VOLT has fake-conservatives's panties in a twist. Fake conservatives incidentally are known by those jap pieces of shit sitting in their driveways while they bray about UAW "thugs" making a decent living. Real conservatives believe in American products made by American workers. Real conservatives know we need GM to be a viable company in case this Nation gets into another world war. Real conservatives didn't like the GM bailout because they think we won't get paid back, but know the Chevy VOLT is a stupid target for their hatred of Obama. Is everybody following me so far?

The VOLT project began in 2004. Where was Obama in 2004? So it's just stupid to pin the VOLT on Obama right? The VOLT has a tax-rebate attached to it. Is that the problem? Well so does your mortgage, and after a house, an automobile is the second biggest purchase we make. So given all the other incentives the government hands out to promote what it believes is a good idea, the VOLT is hardly worth mentioning. Oh, and ALL the electric hybrids get the rebate so no favoritism is shown to GM. Do I like toyoda and nissan getting U.S. tax rebates? NO I do not.

Does every other country that produces cars get government money and free research? Yes. All but our companies. Fake cons scream "that's the free market"....is it? You mean our car companies are "free" to be crushed by below-cost predators like the japs, right? They did it to our electronics, motorcycle, musical instruments, lawnmower, power tools, etc etc industries. But as long as fake cons can get a cheap product, they could care less who makes it. What are fake cons good for anyway? Creating Obama voters.

Jap cars are not "made" here...they are "assembled" here. Repeat that 40 times or write it on your wrist. Their plants were built with TAXPAYER dollars...didn't know that did ya? They are non-union...which means if the UAW goes down, those workers' wages and benefits will be cut in half. Sound good? Do we need blue-collar guys making good money? "NO" scream the fake cons...one of our lil peckerwoods actually called his imaginary workers "tools" the other day. Imagine that.

Back to the VOLT. The VOLT costs around $15 a month to charge up and drive using a 240v 16 amp charger during the night. That energy drives the VOLT around 1,200 miles during that month with ZERO tail-pipe emissions. I don't believe in "global warming" but I do believe in air-pollution.. cough cough. Is the VOLT a good buy? Not if you want a pickup truck or plan on pulling a boat. Does it claim it's what it's not? No. It's a pricey little commuter for the average $170K a year type of person. Why this is a problem I don't understand. But then I don't understand fake cons either....they appear to be everything those on the liberal side say they are.

p.s. The VOLT will not set your garage on fire or electrocute you in a wreck either....sorry.

 

[FA_Q2]

What research? Please point out the research presented in the article.

It seems to me that this "study" really isn't a "study" at all. It's a statement of opinion. And there's no evidence presented to support that opinion.

And all these people who are flocking to the pavilion to drink this Kool-Aid, are the same ones who line up behind an oil company's geologist to say the "science" is uncertain on anthropogenic climate change.

When the real science doesn't support your position, I'd suggest changing your position rather than trying to change the science. I'm not saying science can't be wrong - it can (and has been in the past). I am suggesting that you base your actions on the best information available and be ready to change course when better information becomes available.

I think it's a better way to make decisions than stuffing your fingers in your ears and humming loudly.

Just my humble opinion.

No offense but your opinion is completely unsubstantiated while his is. I will give you a study though:
Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use

This would be the conclusion that study made as it pertains to the TOTAL pollutant effect of various vehicles as well as some projections with changing tech/law. It is a fairly in depth look at the issue and is a total of 506 pages but page 350 sums up this thread nicely. After that, they give some actual recommendations.


Now, we have several studies, noe linked in this post, would all of you naysayers like to actually discuss the TOPIC now rather than deny that there are studies showing this reality.

 

[flacaltenn]

Here's a RANT I wrote almost 2 years ago about the VOLT. Now that GM has paid back the majority of what they borrowed, first from Dubya then Hussein, it seems the anger against them has subsided. So anyway, I found this and thought it might be useful in this thread.

Seems the VOLT has fake-conservatives's panties in a twist. Fake conservatives incidentally are known by those jap pieces of shit sitting in their driveways while they bray about UAW "thugs" making a decent living. Real conservatives believe in American products made by American workers. Real conservatives know we need GM to be a viable company in case this Nation gets into another world war. Real conservatives didn't like the GM bailout because they think we won't get paid back, but know the Chevy VOLT is a stupid target for their hatred of Obama. Is everybody following me so far?

The VOLT project began in 2004. Where was Obama in 2004? So it's just stupid to pin the VOLT on Obama right? The VOLT has a tax-rebate attached to it. Is that the problem? Well so does your mortgage, and after a house, an automobile is the second biggest purchase we make. So given all the other incentives the government hands out to promote what it believes is a good idea, the VOLT is hardly worth mentioning. Oh, and ALL the electric hybrids get the rebate so no favoritism is shown to GM. Do I like toyoda and nissan getting U.S. tax rebates? NO I do not.

Does every other country that produces cars get government money and free research? Yes. All but our companies. Fake cons scream "that's the free market"....is it? You mean our car companies are "free" to be crushed by below-cost predators like the japs, right? They did it to our electronics, motorcycle, musical instruments, lawnmower, power tools, etc etc industries. But as long as fake cons can get a cheap product, they could care less who makes it. What are fake cons good for anyway? Creating Obama voters.

Jap cars are not "made" here...they are "assembled" here. Repeat that 40 times or write it on your wrist. Their plants were built with TAXPAYER dollars...didn't know that did ya? They are non-union...which means if the UAW goes down, those workers' wages and benefits will be cut in half. Sound good? Do we need blue-collar guys making good money? "NO" scream the fake cons...one of our lil peckerwoods actually called his imaginary workers "tools" the other day. Imagine that.

Back to the VOLT. The VOLT costs around $15 a month to charge up and drive using a 240v 16 amp charger during the night. That energy drives the VOLT around 1,200 miles during that month with ZERO tail-pipe emissions. I don't believe in "global warming" but I do believe in air-pollution.. cough cough. Is the VOLT a good buy? Not if you want a pickup truck or plan on pulling a boat. Does it claim it's what it's not? No. It's a pricey little commuter for the average $170K a year type of person. Why this is a problem I don't understand. But then I don't understand fake cons either....they appear to be everything those on the liberal side say they are.

p.s. The VOLT will not set your garage on fire or electrocute you in a wreck either....sorry.

So many errors.. So little time..

1200 mi / (2.6 mi/KWhr) == 461.5 KWhr <<<2.6 number comes from Nissan Leaf>>

461.5KWhrs * $0.12/KWhr == $55.00. <<Nowhere near $15 is it?>>

No tailpipe emissions ---- Just powered by that coal plant in the "poor part" of town..

MORE MATH _---- Ugghhh eh?
At 40mph, ---- every 4 minutes, that car will use the amount of electricity that an average household uses in one hour..
HOW MUCH do you want ME to conserve so that you can do this???


I'll leave the rest for you to find some day...

 

[nodoginnafight]

Here's a RANT I wrote almost 2 years ago about the VOLT. Now that GM has paid back the majority of what they borrowed, first from Dubya then Hussein, it seems the anger against them has subsided. So anyway, I found this and thought it might be useful in this thread.

Seems the VOLT has fake-conservatives's panties in a twist. Fake conservatives incidentally are known by those jap pieces of shit sitting in their driveways while they bray about UAW "thugs" making a decent living. Real conservatives believe in American products made by American workers. Real conservatives know we need GM to be a viable company in case this Nation gets into another world war. Real conservatives didn't like the GM bailout because they think we won't get paid back, but know the Chevy VOLT is a stupid target for their hatred of Obama. Is everybody following me so far?

The VOLT project began in 2004. Where was Obama in 2004? So it's just stupid to pin the VOLT on Obama right? The VOLT has a tax-rebate attached to it. Is that the problem? Well so does your mortgage, and after a house, an automobile is the second biggest purchase we make. So given all the other incentives the government hands out to promote what it believes is a good idea, the VOLT is hardly worth mentioning. Oh, and ALL the electric hybrids get the rebate so no favoritism is shown to GM. Do I like toyoda and nissan getting U.S. tax rebates? NO I do not.

Does every other country that produces cars get government money and free research? Yes. All but our companies. Fake cons scream "that's the free market"....is it? You mean our car companies are "free" to be crushed by below-cost predators like the japs, right? They did it to our electronics, motorcycle, musical instruments, lawnmower, power tools, etc etc industries. But as long as fake cons can get a cheap product, they could care less who makes it. What are fake cons good for anyway? Creating Obama voters.

Jap cars are not "made" here...they are "assembled" here. Repeat that 40 times or write it on your wrist. Their plants were built with TAXPAYER dollars...didn't know that did ya? They are non-union...which means if the UAW goes down, those workers' wages and benefits will be cut in half. Sound good? Do we need blue-collar guys making good money? "NO" scream the fake cons...one of our lil peckerwoods actually called his imaginary workers "tools" the other day. Imagine that.

Back to the VOLT. The VOLT costs around $15 a month to charge up and drive using a 240v 16 amp charger during the night. That energy drives the VOLT around 1,200 miles during that month with ZERO tail-pipe emissions. I don't believe in "global warming" but I do believe in air-pollution.. cough cough. Is the VOLT a good buy? Not if you want a pickup truck or plan on pulling a boat. Does it claim it's what it's not? No. It's a pricey little commuter for the average $170K a year type of person. Why this is a problem I don't understand. But then I don't understand fake cons either....they appear to be everything those on the liberal side say they are.

p.s. The VOLT will not set your garage on fire or electrocute you in a wreck either....sorry.

So many errors.. So little time..

1200 mi / (2.6 mi/KWhr) == 461.5 KWhr <<<2.6 number comes from Nissan Leaf>>

461.5KWhrs * $0.12/KWhr == $55.00. <<Nowhere near $15 is it?>>

No tailpipe emissions ---- Just powered by that coal plant in the "poor part" of town..

MORE MATH _---- Ugghhh eh?
At 40mph, ---- every 4 minutes, that car will use the amount of electricity that an average household uses in one hour..
HOW MUCH do you want ME to conserve so that you can do this???


I'll leave the rest for you to find some day...

Your math (and electrical engineering) blows.

 

[nodoginnafight]

What research? Please point out the research presented in the article.

It seems to me that this "study" really isn't a "study" at all. It's a statement of opinion. And there's no evidence presented to support that opinion.

And all these people who are flocking to the pavilion to drink this Kool-Aid, are the same ones who line up behind an oil company's geologist to say the "science" is uncertain on anthropogenic climate change.

When the real science doesn't support your position, I'd suggest changing your position rather than trying to change the science. I'm not saying science can't be wrong - it can (and has been in the past). I am suggesting that you base your actions on the best information available and be ready to change course when better information becomes available.

I think it's a better way to make decisions than stuffing your fingers in your ears and humming loudly.

Just my humble opinion.

No offense but your opinion is completely unsubstantiated while his is. I will give you a study though:
Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use

This would be the conclusion that study made as it pertains to the TOTAL pollutant effect of various vehicles as well as some projections with changing tech/law. It is a fairly in depth look at the issue and is a total of 506 pages but page 350 sums up this thread nicely. After that, they give some actual recommendations.


Now, we have several studies, noe linked in this post, would all of you naysayers like to actually discuss the TOPIC now rather than deny that there are studies showing this reality.

I'd have to purchase the article you linked to review it. No thanks.
Have anything else? I'll be happy to take a look.

 

[flacaltenn]

HOLY CRAP FOLKS.. I APOLOGIZE to RDD and nodog... I screwed up...

The OP was quoting the guy who wrote the IEEE article I snipped.. I THOUGHT the OP was linked to the IEEE article directly -- but it's NOT...

ALL of the studies and the analysis is HERE
Unclean at Any Speed - IEEE Spectrum

Not in the OP link..

I'm going now for an EEG to find out why FlaCalTenn had a rare error of comprehension. Wish me luck.

 

[JoeBlam]

So many errors.. So little time..

1200 mi / (2.6 mi/KWhr) == 461.5 KWhr <<<2.6 number comes from Nissan Leaf>>

461.5KWhrs * $0.12/KWhr == $55.00. <<Nowhere near $15 is it?>>

No tailpipe emissions ---- Just powered by that coal plant in the "poor part" of town..

MORE MATH _---- Ugghhh eh?
At 40mph, ---- every 4 minutes, that car will use the amount of electricity that an average household uses in one hour..
HOW MUCH do you want ME to conserve so that you can do this???


I'll leave the rest for you to find some day...

Bullshit.... anything else?

 

[nodoginnafight]

The cost to operate a Volt depends on a lot of things and there are plenty of variables. The pretty fair/ average is $0.07 per mile while using the battery. (as opposed to $0.11 for a comparable gas-powered auto.)

 

[Bfgrn]

It seems to me that this "study" really isn't a "study" at all. It's a statement of opinion. And there's no evidence presented to support that opinion.

And all these people who are flocking to the pavilion to drink this Kool-Aid, are the same ones who line up behind an oil company's geologist to say the "science" is uncertain on anthropogenic climate change.

When the real science doesn't support your position, I'd suggest changing your position rather than trying to change the science. I'm not saying science can't be wrong - it can (and has been in the past). I am suggesting that you base your actions on the best information available and be ready to change course when better information becomes available.

I think it's a better way to make decisions than stuffing your fingers in your ears and humming loudly.

Just my humble opinion.

And I value your "humble opinion" == $0.02.. Obviously we have an epidemic of poor reading habits and comprehension.. (It's not just you nodog, so I'm not piling on)

More than 6 studies were cited and ALL are linked in the article.

Our "opinion" crowd forced me to go cut and paste for them..

For instance, Richard Pike of the Royal Society of Chemistry provocatively determined that electric cars, if widely adopted, stood to lower Britain’s carbon dioxide emissions by just 2 percent, given the U.K.’s electricity sources. Last year, a U.S. Congressional Budget Office study found that electric car subsidies “will result in little or no reduction in the total gasoline use and greenhouse-gas emissions of the nation’s vehicle fleet over the next several years.”

Others are more supportive, including the Union of Concerned Scientists. Its 2012 report [PDF] on the issue, titled “State of Charge,” notes that charging electric cars yields less CO2 than even the most efficient gasoline vehicles. The report’s senior editor, engineer Don Anair, concludes: “We are at a good point to clean up the grid and move to electric vehicles.”

One study (linked HERE) attempted to paint a complete picture. Published by the National Academies in 2010 and overseen by two dozen of the United States’ leading scientists, it is perhaps the most comprehensive account of electric-car effects to date. Its findings are sobering.It’s worth noting that this investigation was commissioned by the U.S. Congress and therefore funded entirely with public, not corporate, money. As with many earlier studies, it found that operating an electric car was less damaging than refueling a gasoline-powered one. It isn’t that simple, however, according to Maureen Cropper, the report committee’s vice chair and a professor of economics at the University of Maryland. “Whether we are talking about a conventional gasoline-powered automobile, an electric vehicle, or a hybrid, most of the damages are actually coming from stages other than just the driving of the vehicle,” she points out.

In a study released last year, a group of MIT researchers calculated that global mining of two rare earth metals, neodymium and dysprosium, would need to increase 700 percent and 2600 percent, respectively, over the next 25 years to keep pace with various green-tech plans.

The National Academies’ assessment didn’t ignore those difficult-to-measure realities. It drew together the effects of vehicle construction, fuel extraction, refining, emissions, and other factors. In a gut punch to electric-car advocates, it concluded that the vehicles’ lifetime health and environmental damages (excluding long-term climatic effects) are actually greater than those of gasoline-powered cars. Indeed, the study found that an electric car is likely worse than a car fueled exclusively by gasoline derived from Canadian tar sands!

That last paragraph is total bullshit. Provide a link to the study that makes those ridiculous claims?

 

[flacaltenn]

So many errors.. So little time..

1200 mi / (2.6 mi/KWhr) == 461.5 KWhr <<<2.6 number comes from Nissan Leaf>>

461.5KWhrs * $0.12/KWhr == $55.00. <<Nowhere near $15 is it?>>

No tailpipe emissions ---- Just powered by that coal plant in the "poor part" of town..

MORE MATH _---- Ugghhh eh?
At 40mph, ---- every 4 minutes, that car will use the amount of electricity that an average household uses in one hour..
HOW MUCH do you want ME to conserve so that you can do this???


I'll leave the rest for you to find some day...

Bullshit.... anything else?

Please correct my math and factual errors then..