Electric Cars....Bogus!

[Mad_Cabbie]

PC, less than half of electricity is generated from coal -- not "most of it."

 

[Old Rocks]

And the use of wind and solar is rapidly rising as wind is already cheaper than dirty coal, and solar is within half a cent per kilowatt of dirty coal, far cheaper than clean coal, and getting cheaper every day.

Already in the labs, we have batteries that in the present Tesla, would give us a thousand miles of range. Moving from the lab to manufacturing at a reasonable price is often a major challenge, but somebody is going to make it. And make a very large fortune. Capitalism at it's best.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, no real research on your parts, gals? They just suck, eh?

You seems not able to understand that the article itself IS research.

Buy a dictionary.

Right ... let me guess, some right-wing funded "think tank?"

Stop guessing.....get an education.



Start here:
"Bjørn Lomborg (Danish: [bjɶɐ̯n ˈlʌmbɒˀw]; born 6 January 1965) is the director of theCopenhagen Consensus Center and a former director of the Environmental Assessment Institute in Copenhagen. He became internationally known for his best-selling and controversial book, The Skeptical Environmentalist (2001).

In 2002, Lomborg and the Environmental Assessment Institute founded the Copenhagen Consensus, a project-based conference where prominent economists sought to establish priorities for advancing global welfare using methods based on the theory of welfare economics."
Bj rn Lomborg - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia





Or....you can continue your benighted journey through life.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Green Energy????

Just one more fake Liberal plan to grow government.



1. "....Green Cars Have a Dirty Little Secret
Producing and charging electric cars means heavy carbon-dioxide emissions.

2. Electric cars are promoted as the chic harbinger of an environmentally benign future. Ads assure us of "zero emissions," and President Obama has promised a million on the road by 2015. ... that million-car figure is a pipe dream.



3. But for those who do own an electric car, at least there is the consolation that it's truly green, right? Not really.

4. For proponents ... the main argument is that their electric cars—whether it's a $100,000 Fisker Karma (Mr. DiCaprio's ride) or a $28,000 Nissan Leaf—don't contribute to global warming.

5. ....electric cars don't emit carbon-dioxide on the road. But the energy used for their manufacture and continual battery charges certainly does—far more than most people realize.


6. .... [half the]carbon-dioxide emissions from an electric car come from the energy used to produce the car, especially the battery.
The mining of lithium, for instance, is a less than green activity. By contrast, the manufacture of a gas-powered car accounts for 17% of its lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions. When an electric car rolls off the production line, it has already been responsible for 30,000 pounds of carbon-dioxide emission. The amount for making a conventional car: 14,000 pounds.

a. If a typical electric car is driven 50,000 miles over its lifetime, the huge initial emissions from its manufacture means the car will actually have put more carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere than a similar-size gasoline-powered car driven the same number of miles.

b..... the energy used to recharge the electric car comes mostly from coal-fired power plants, it will be responsible for the emission of almost 15 ounces of carbon-dioxide for every one of the 50,000 miles it is driven—three ounces more than a similar gas-powered car.




7. ...they still recharge using electricity overwhelmingly produced with fossil fuels. Thus, the life-cycle analysis shows that for every mile driven, the average electric car indirectly emits about six ounces of carbon-dioxide. This is still a lot better than a similar-size conventional car, which emits about 12 ounces per mile. But remember, the production of the electric car has already resulted in sizeable emissions—the equivalent of 80,000 miles of travel in the vehicle.



8. ...the Nissan Leaf. It has only a 73-mile range per charge. Drivers attempting long road trips, as in one BBC test drive, have reported that recharging takes so long that the average speed is close to six miles per hour—a bit faster than your average jogger/

a. ...the batteries in electric cars fade with time, just as they do in a cellphone. Nissan estimates that after five years, the less effective batteries in a typical Leaf bring the range down to 55 miles. As the MIT Technology Review cautioned last year: "Don't Drive Your Nissan Leaf Too Much."

If a typical electric car is driven 50,000 miles over its lifetime, the huge initial emissions from its manufacture means the car will actually have put more carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere than a similar-size gasoline-powered car driven the same number of miles.

9.....the U.S. federal government essentially subsidizes electric-car buyers with up to $7,500. In addition, more than $5.5 billion in federal grants and loans go directly to battery and electric-car manufacturers like California-based Fisker Automotive and Tesla Motors . This is a very poor deal for taxpayers.




10. ....as a way to tackle global warming now it does virtually nothing. The real challenge is to get green energy that is cheaper than fossil fuels. ...Spending instead on subsidizing electric cars is putting the cart before the horse, and an inconvenient and expensive cart at that."
Bjorn Lomborg Green Cars Have a Dirty Little Secret - WSJ



Oh, noooozzzzzz!!

Another Liberal bubble burst.

Another cut and paste masterpiece.

Simply writing 'cut and paste' says nothing about the substance.

Is that why you wrote it?

You lack substance?

I was just sort of noticing how you're never actually the author of anything.

I was just sort of noticing how you're never actually able to discuss a subject.....only lil' ol' moi.


Actually, I noticed it long ago.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Electric cars are over 100 year old technology. That it never caught on should tell us all we need to know. That, and to produce more electricty to power cars using it means increasing electric power generation. Unless for every additional electric generating station you're eliminating a fossil-fuels one you're actually adding enviromental harm instead of reducing it.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Worth asking what enviromental impact lies in making the batteries electric vehicles use. That's a lot of battery acid needing to make and I don't believe making it has zero impact on the enviroment.

 

[mudwhistle]

Hey hey. They now have wind powered factories producing green carbon fiber electric cars.

True story.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

"But according to Bloomberg, electric cars actually increase pollution in places like China, which produces the largest proportion of the world's lithium-ion battery cells--and, more importantly, their precursor materials.

A typical electric car can use 110 pounds of graphite, hybrid cars around 22 lbs, and even e-bikes use a couple of pounds. Laptops and smartphones use proportionally smaller amounts, but basically anything containing a battery with a graphite anode increases demand for the substance.

China supplies much of that demand, but graphite production is the cause of significant pollution in the country--a land already choked by smog, airborne pollution and other environmentally-damaging detritus."
Electric-Car Batteries Graphite And Pollution In China

rest at link

 

[Liminal]

Green Energy????

Just one more fake Liberal plan to grow government.



1. "....Green Cars Have a Dirty Little Secret
Producing and charging electric cars means heavy carbon-dioxide emissions.

2. Electric cars are promoted as the chic harbinger of an environmentally benign future. Ads assure us of "zero emissions," and President Obama has promised a million on the road by 2015. ... that million-car figure is a pipe dream.



3. But for those who do own an electric car, at least there is the consolation that it's truly green, right? Not really.

4. For proponents ... the main argument is that their electric cars—whether it's a $100,000 Fisker Karma (Mr. DiCaprio's ride) or a $28,000 Nissan Leaf—don't contribute to global warming.

5. ....electric cars don't emit carbon-dioxide on the road. But the energy used for their manufacture and continual battery charges certainly does—far more than most people realize.


6. .... [half the]carbon-dioxide emissions from an electric car come from the energy used to produce the car, especially the battery.
The mining of lithium, for instance, is a less than green activity. By contrast, the manufacture of a gas-powered car accounts for 17% of its lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions. When an electric car rolls off the production line, it has already been responsible for 30,000 pounds of carbon-dioxide emission. The amount for making a conventional car: 14,000 pounds.

a. If a typical electric car is driven 50,000 miles over its lifetime, the huge initial emissions from its manufacture means the car will actually have put more carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere than a similar-size gasoline-powered car driven the same number of miles.

b..... the energy used to recharge the electric car comes mostly from coal-fired power plants, it will be responsible for the emission of almost 15 ounces of carbon-dioxide for every one of the 50,000 miles it is driven—three ounces more than a similar gas-powered car.




7. ...they still recharge using electricity overwhelmingly produced with fossil fuels. Thus, the life-cycle analysis shows that for every mile driven, the average electric car indirectly emits about six ounces of carbon-dioxide. This is still a lot better than a similar-size conventional car, which emits about 12 ounces per mile. But remember, the production of the electric car has already resulted in sizeable emissions—the equivalent of 80,000 miles of travel in the vehicle.



8. ...the Nissan Leaf. It has only a 73-mile range per charge. Drivers attempting long road trips, as in one BBC test drive, have reported that recharging takes so long that the average speed is close to six miles per hour—a bit faster than your average jogger/

a. ...the batteries in electric cars fade with time, just as they do in a cellphone. Nissan estimates that after five years, the less effective batteries in a typical Leaf bring the range down to 55 miles. As the MIT Technology Review cautioned last year: "Don't Drive Your Nissan Leaf Too Much."

If a typical electric car is driven 50,000 miles over its lifetime, the huge initial emissions from its manufacture means the car will actually have put more carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere than a similar-size gasoline-powered car driven the same number of miles.

9.....the U.S. federal government essentially subsidizes electric-car buyers with up to $7,500. In addition, more than $5.5 billion in federal grants and loans go directly to battery and electric-car manufacturers like California-based Fisker Automotive and Tesla Motors . This is a very poor deal for taxpayers.




10. ....as a way to tackle global warming now it does virtually nothing. The real challenge is to get green energy that is cheaper than fossil fuels. ...Spending instead on subsidizing electric cars is putting the cart before the horse, and an inconvenient and expensive cart at that."
Bjorn Lomborg Green Cars Have a Dirty Little Secret - WSJ



Oh, noooozzzzzz!!

Another Liberal bubble burst.

Another cut and paste masterpiece.

Simply writing 'cut and paste' says nothing about the substance.

Is that why you wrote it?

You lack substance?

I was just sort of noticing how you're never actually the author of anything.

I was just sort of noticing how you're never actually able to discuss a subject.....only lil' ol' moi.


Actually, I noticed it long ago.

You never actually noticed anything, your too busy congratulating yourself all the time.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Green Energy????

Just one more fake Liberal plan to grow government.



1. "....Green Cars Have a Dirty Little Secret
Producing and charging electric cars means heavy carbon-dioxide emissions.

2. Electric cars are promoted as the chic harbinger of an environmentally benign future. Ads assure us of "zero emissions," and President Obama has promised a million on the road by 2015. ... that million-car figure is a pipe dream.



3. But for those who do own an electric car, at least there is the consolation that it's truly green, right? Not really.

4. For proponents ... the main argument is that their electric cars—whether it's a $100,000 Fisker Karma (Mr. DiCaprio's ride) or a $28,000 Nissan Leaf—don't contribute to global warming.

5. ....electric cars don't emit carbon-dioxide on the road. But the energy used for their manufacture and continual battery charges certainly does—far more than most people realize.


6. .... [half the]carbon-dioxide emissions from an electric car come from the energy used to produce the car, especially the battery.
The mining of lithium, for instance, is a less than green activity. By contrast, the manufacture of a gas-powered car accounts for 17% of its lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions. When an electric car rolls off the production line, it has already been responsible for 30,000 pounds of carbon-dioxide emission. The amount for making a conventional car: 14,000 pounds.

a. If a typical electric car is driven 50,000 miles over its lifetime, the huge initial emissions from its manufacture means the car will actually have put more carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere than a similar-size gasoline-powered car driven the same number of miles.

b..... the energy used to recharge the electric car comes mostly from coal-fired power plants, it will be responsible for the emission of almost 15 ounces of carbon-dioxide for every one of the 50,000 miles it is driven—three ounces more than a similar gas-powered car.




7. ...they still recharge using electricity overwhelmingly produced with fossil fuels. Thus, the life-cycle analysis shows that for every mile driven, the average electric car indirectly emits about six ounces of carbon-dioxide. This is still a lot better than a similar-size conventional car, which emits about 12 ounces per mile. But remember, the production of the electric car has already resulted in sizeable emissions—the equivalent of 80,000 miles of travel in the vehicle.



8. ...the Nissan Leaf. It has only a 73-mile range per charge. Drivers attempting long road trips, as in one BBC test drive, have reported that recharging takes so long that the average speed is close to six miles per hour—a bit faster than your average jogger/

a. ...the batteries in electric cars fade with time, just as they do in a cellphone. Nissan estimates that after five years, the less effective batteries in a typical Leaf bring the range down to 55 miles. As the MIT Technology Review cautioned last year: "Don't Drive Your Nissan Leaf Too Much."

If a typical electric car is driven 50,000 miles over its lifetime, the huge initial emissions from its manufacture means the car will actually have put more carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere than a similar-size gasoline-powered car driven the same number of miles.

9.....the U.S. federal government essentially subsidizes electric-car buyers with up to $7,500. In addition, more than $5.5 billion in federal grants and loans go directly to battery and electric-car manufacturers like California-based Fisker Automotive and Tesla Motors . This is a very poor deal for taxpayers.




10. ....as a way to tackle global warming now it does virtually nothing. The real challenge is to get green energy that is cheaper than fossil fuels. ...Spending instead on subsidizing electric cars is putting the cart before the horse, and an inconvenient and expensive cart at that."
Bjorn Lomborg Green Cars Have a Dirty Little Secret - WSJ



Oh, noooozzzzzz!!

Another Liberal bubble burst.

Another cut and paste masterpiece.

Simply writing 'cut and paste' says nothing about the substance.

Is that why you wrote it?

You lack substance?

I was just sort of noticing how you're never actually the author of anything.

I was just sort of noticing how you're never actually able to discuss a subject.....only lil' ol' moi.


Actually, I noticed it long ago.

You never actually noticed anything, your too busy congratulating yourself all the time.

Actually.....I'm more than capable of doing both.

 

[Liminal]

Another cut and paste masterpiece.

Simply writing 'cut and paste' says nothing about the substance.

Is that why you wrote it?

You lack substance?

I was just sort of noticing how you're never actually the author of anything.

I was just sort of noticing how you're never actually able to discuss a subject.....only lil' ol' moi.


Actually, I noticed it long ago.

You never actually noticed anything, your too busy congratulating yourself all the time.

Actually.....I'm more than capable of doing both.

I can hardly wait to see you do either.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Simply writing 'cut and paste' says nothing about the substance.

Is that why you wrote it?

You lack substance?

I was just sort of noticing how you're never actually the author of anything.

I was just sort of noticing how you're never actually able to discuss a subject.....only lil' ol' moi.


Actually, I noticed it long ago.

You never actually noticed anything, your too busy congratulating yourself all the time.

Actually.....I'm more than capable of doing both.

I can hardly wait to see you do either.

But you said "... your (sic) too busy congratulating yourself all the time."


You're really not too bright, are you.


You’re probably the right one to ask this….do illiterate folks get the full effect of alphabet soup?

 

[koshergrl]

Fifty years from now they'll be laughing at us and our gasoline powered cars.

You mean like how the French laughed at us for not accommodating Muslims to the degree that they have?

Oh, NO!

 

[AquaAthena]

So, no real research on your parts, gals? They just suck, eh?

You seems not able to understand that the article itself IS research.

Buy a dictionary.

Ain't dat da trut?!?!!?!!?

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

So, no real research on your parts, gals? They just suck, eh?

You seems not able to understand that the article itself IS research.

Buy a dictionary.

Ain't dat da trut?!?!!?!!?

No, it actually is not anything approaching the truth.

When I repeatedly point out glaring inconsistencies and misleading half-truths, you eventually have to concede that you are now the proud owner of a purple cow that is leaving purple streaks everywhere it wonders.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

"But according to Bloomberg, electric cars actually increase pollution in places like China, which produces the largest proportion of the world's lithium-ion battery cells--and, more importantly, their precursor materials.

A typical electric car can use 110 pounds of graphite, hybrid cars around 22 lbs, and even e-bikes use a couple of pounds. Laptops and smartphones use proportionally smaller amounts, but basically anything containing a battery with a graphite anode increases demand for the substance.

China supplies much of that demand, but graphite production is the cause of significant pollution in the country--a land already choked by smog, airborne pollution and other environmentally-damaging detritus."
Electric-Car Batteries Graphite And Pollution In China

rest at link

So, carbon dioxide is a bogus and false cause of climate change, but batteries are minions of Satan and could very well mark the beginning of the end times?

I see....

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

But you said "... your (sic) too busy congratulating yourself all the time."


You're really not too bright, are you.


You’re probably the right one to ask this….do illiterate folks get the full effect of alphabet soup?

If only you could defend your threads with the same ferociousness that you defend your large brain.

 

[PoliticalChic]

But you said "... your (sic) too busy congratulating yourself all the time."


You're really not too bright, are you.


You’re probably the right one to ask this….do illiterate folks get the full effect of alphabet soup?

If only you could defend your threads with the same ferociousness that you defend your large brain.

Defend???


Against what?

Everything I post is clearly true.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

But you said "... your (sic) too busy congratulating yourself all the time."


You're really not too bright, are you.


You’re probably the right one to ask this….do illiterate folks get the full effect of alphabet soup?

If only you could defend your threads with the same ferociousness that you defend your large brain.

Defend???


Against what?

Everything I post is clearly true.

I (as well as others) have already pointed out that, amongst other things:

1 Obama never 'predicted" that there WOULD BE one million cars by the year 2015.

2 Obama never "promised" one million cars, either

3 That 2015 is far from over.

4 That you quite erroneously claimed that 'most electricity" is generated from coal.

Is that enough or do need to hurl a bunch of insults and character charges as per your usual M.O.?

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Bjorn Lomborg Green Cars Have a Dirty Little Secret - WSJ

While taken from The Wall Street Journal, this is a complete opinion piece and not a very unbiased one at that.

Bjorn Lomborg

Lomborg Errors

Lomborg's errors in his discussion of climate change have been well-documented by many ... For example, one notable website Lomborg-errors.dk is dedicated to documenting his errors (the site also maintains a timeline documenting the events leading to Lomborg's fame, and how he is regarded among his fellow Danes).

P. 164 right: (COMMENT)

"The British environmental scientist Peter Brimblecombe has produced a model . . ". Comment: Brimblecombe did not produce a model, but used a model already described by F. B. Smith in 1976. This model has been applied to cities of varying sizes at the present time, and it turns out that it gives values of air pollution which lie within about 20 % of the mean values measured at stations in those cities. Therefore, it is not acceptable that Lomborg "adjusts" the values produced by this model by mulitplying them with a factor of 4 to 5 (see remarks to note 1163).

P. 164 right: ERROR

" . . such that the levels of the 1980s-1990s are below the levels of the late sixteenth century . . " Error: This is not true. Lomborg has manipulated Brimblecombe´s data by multiplying them with a factor of 4 to 5. Actually, Brimblecombe´s data are that the smoke concentration in the late sixteenth century was about 10 µg/m³, whereas recent levels (around 1990) seem to be slightly higher than this.Therefore, Lomborg´s conclusion that smoke pollution has been much worse in previous centuries than in the 20th century, is not warranted.

P. 164 bottom right: ERROR

About sulphur dioxide pollution: " . . such that again the levels of the 1980s-1990s are below the levels of the late sixteenth century." Error: This is not true. Lomborg has manipulated Brimblecombe´s data by multiplying them with a factor of 4 to 5. Actually, brimblecombe´s data are that SO2 concentrations in the late sixteenth century were 10 - 20 µg/m³, which is certainly lower than the values found in the 1980s, which were at about 50 µg/m³. Therefore, Lomborg´s conclusion, that air pollution is an old problem, is not warranted.

P. 165, fig. 86 and note 1163: ERROR

"Data for 1585-1935 are estimated from coal imports and have been adjusted to the average of the measured data." In the note: "This necessitates an upwards adjustment of Brimblecombe´s data by approximately a factor of 4." Error: Actually, the directly measured SO2 concentrations during the period 1934 to 1964 were fairly constant around an average of abut 330 µg/m³, probably with a somewhat higher average around 400 µg/m³ in the first years. There also exist data based on another method, in which the concentration was not measured directly, but inferred from the amount deposited. A conversion factor has been applied to transform these latter data into concentration data, but the validity of this conversion is uncertain. Data are presented in fig. 1 in Laxen & Thompson (1987): Environmental pollution 43: 103-114 (see also example 3 here in Lomborg-errors). From their figure it is evident that the deposition method gives higher values than direct measurement. What Lomborg has done, is to use only the measurement that gives high values around 1935, and only the measurement that gives low values around 1960. In this way, the curve artificially is made steeper. Next, this steeper slope has consequences for the calibration with the coal import data, and this distorted calibration then leads to that Lomborg mulitplies Brimblecombe´s curve with a factor of 4. Without this erroneous multiplication, there would not have been higher values from 1700 to 1900 than in the middle of the 1900s, and the whole point in Lomborg´s argumentation would collapse. Also, it is not true that "it must be assumed that central London was much more polluted". The SO2 data are from the most polluted part of central London. Altogether, the figure is a case of deliberate manipulation.