Study: Electric cars no greener than gasoline vehicles

[JoeBlam]

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.)

This may be true when the VOLT is using the gas engine to either power the electric engine or in a power-assist on a hill, but in straight e-mode, the VOLT costs nowhere near that to operate.

 

[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?

Please correct my math and factual errors then..

Nope, you've created a completely false scenario and I've played (and won) this game before....not interested.

 

[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.)

This may be true when the VOLT is using the gas engine to either power the electric engine or in a power-assist on a hill, but in straight e-mode, the VOLT costs nowhere near that to operate.

The figure assumes a charge from a 120 set-up. (a 240 WOULD be more economical admittedly) and is an average including different driving conditions. I use it because it represents a better "real-world" average. I have absolutely no doubt that better numbers can be achieved.

 

[JoeBlam]

16 October, 2012
By Nathan Bomey

Free Press Business Writer


General Motors plans to build the all-new Cadillac ELR extended-range electric vehicle at its Detroit-Hamtramck Assembly plant.

The automaker expects to start production of the luxury coupe in late 2013, GM North America President Mark Reuss was set to announce today at the SAE Convergence conference in Detroit.

The ELR will vault Cadillac into direct competition with other luxury electric vehicles like Fisker Automotive&#8217;s Karma and Tesla Motors&#8217; Model S.

The vehicle, based on the same extended-range electric powertrain as the Chevrolet Volt, is based on the Cadillac Converj concept vehicle that was introduced at the 2009 North American International Auto Show in Detroit.

GM said it would spend $35 million to upgrade equipment at the Detroit-Hamtramck plant, which already produces the Volt and is gearing up to make the redesigned 2014 Chevrolet Impala. A spokesman said the automaker does not plan to add any jobs to the 27-year-old plant&#8217;s 1,400 hourly and 160 salary employees.

Production volumes for the two-door, four-seat ELR are expected to be relatively low. GM hasn&#8217;t revealed pricing or details on the vehicle&#8217;s electric-only range. The $40,000 2013 Volt&#8217;s T-shaped lithium-in battery pack allows the vehicle to travel 38 miles on a single charge of electricity before a gasoline engine-generator kicks in and powers an electric motor.

The ELR will similarly rely on an extended-range system that provides all-electric drive with the option to switch to gasoline.

Reuss hinted that GM would reveal the production version of the ELR at the 2013 Detroit auto show.

&#8220;The ELR will be in a class by itself, further proof of our commitment to electric vehicles and advanced technology,&#8221; Reuss said, according to a copy of his prepared remarks. &#8220;People will instantly recognize it as a Cadillac by its distinctive, signature look and true-to-concept exterior design.

The news comes as GM is also expected to unveil a redesigned Cadillac Escalade in 2013 after delivering the all-new Cadillac ATS compact sedan and Cadillac XTS large sedan in 2012.

&#8220;ELR will contribute mightily to the brand momentum of Cadillac, as it continues a big product push in the global luxury market,&#8221; Reuss said

 

[flacaltenn]

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.)

Absolutely correct about that. Did ya notice that your comparison ignores the $0.80/gal ROAD taxes that inevitably WILL be shifted to plug-in batterywagons?

Or that if you want to charge your batterywagon in less than 8 hours that you will likely pay a very high for sucking the equivalent of 40 or 50 homes trying to charge it in 1/2 hour?

Or at 40mi/hr --- every 4 minutes --- you are using the equiv of the average 1 hour household draw?

None of these future "adaptations" are currently part of the calculations..........

 

[thanatos144]

Green agenda the new way for fascism.

 

[JoeBlam]

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.)

This may be true when the VOLT is using the gas engine to either power the electric engine or in a power-assist on a hill, but in straight e-mode, the VOLT costs nowhere near that to operate.

The figure assumes a charge from a 120 set-up. (a 240 WOULD be more economical admittedly) and is an average including different driving conditions. I use it because it represents a better "real-world" average.

Well, you have to factor in where you're buying your electricity, when you're powering up the battery-pack, the amount of tire-spin on wet or icy surfaces, the terrain you drive on, and how often you have your foot into it. I've never seen numbers offered by any source not HOSTILE to the car because of the bailout. So, I'm almost hostile to attempts to paint it in a negative light. I've driven one and would tell you it's like riding in a space-ship.

 

[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.

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?

The study WAS LINKED in the IEEE article you dense clod....

 

[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.)

Absolutely correct about that. Did ya notice that your comparison ignores the $0.80/gal ROAD taxes that inevitably WILL be shifted to plug-in batterywagons?

Or that if you want to charge your batterywagon in less than 8 hours that you will likely pay a very high for sucking the equivalent of 40 or 50 homes trying to charge it in 1/2 hour?

Or at 40mi/hr --- every 4 minutes --- you are using the equiv of the average 1 hour household draw?

None of these future "adaptations" are currently part of the calculations..........

Nor should any assumptions or "what ifs" be included imho.

But I also painted pretty close to a worse-case scenario for the Volt expenses. But I used worst-case set-ups that actually exist today.

 

[nodoginnafight]

So anyone producing a link to a study I can read without paying for?

 

[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...

Your math (and electrical engineering) blows.

REALLY?? Please correct it.. Let's make it easy.. Numbers taken from the Nissan Leaf. 75mi range and 29KWhrs battery capacity to go that far.. Average household draw is about 1KW.. The rest is elementary school math.. Go for it....

I'll reserve the normal epithets and ad hominems until you check my work and correct me.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

battery cars will become useless after Obama shuts down coal and then natural gas....unless you got a windmill...

 

[flacaltenn]

This may be true when the VOLT is using the gas engine to either power the electric engine or in a power-assist on a hill, but in straight e-mode, the VOLT costs nowhere near that to operate.

The figure assumes a charge from a 120 set-up. (a 240 WOULD be more economical admittedly) and is an average including different driving conditions. I use it because it represents a better "real-world" average.

Well, you have to factor in where you're buying your electricity, when you're powering up the battery-pack, the amount of tire-spin on wet or icy surfaces, the terrain you drive on, and how often you have your foot into it. I've never seen numbers offered by any source not HOSTILE to the car because of the bailout. So, I'm almost hostile to attempts to paint it in a negative light. I've driven one and would tell you it's like riding in a space-ship.

Can't help myself man.. With your calling my math analysis a conspiracy and bailing and all without ATTEMPTING to do the 6th grade thing --- I picture your "space ship" something like ----

Good fun for a dime eh???

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

REALLY?? Please correct it.. Let's make it easy.. Numbers taken from the Nissan Leaf. 75mi range and 29KWhrs battery capacity to go that far.. Average household draw is about 1KW.. The rest is elementary school math.. Go for it....

I'll reserve the normal epithets and ad hominems until you check my work and correct me.

already did.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.)

Absolutely correct about that. Did ya notice that your comparison ignores the $0.80/gal ROAD taxes that inevitably WILL be shifted to plug-in batterywagons?

Or that if you want to charge your batterywagon in less than 8 hours that you will likely pay a very high for sucking the equivalent of 40 or 50 homes trying to charge it in 1/2 hour?

Or at 40mi/hr --- every 4 minutes --- you are using the equiv of the average 1 hour household draw?

None of these future "adaptations" are currently part of the calculations..........

Nor should any assumptions or "what ifs" be included imho.

But I also painted pretty close to a worse-case scenario for the Volt expenses. But I used worst-case set-ups that actually exist today.

Societies that railroad technological solutions thru without "what - ifs" are doomed to waste a LOT of time and money... How can you ignore that almost $1.00/gal of road tax man?

I guarantee you --- your STATE won't ignore it for long if this stuff starts to cut into their revenues...

BTW: Gave you a link to the IEEE articles that lists these studies the OP refers to...

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


And your "corrections" to my simple math problems are nowhere to be found...

 

[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.

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.

You don&#8217;t need to buy the article. That is if you want the entire thing in paper. If you click the top link second tab (table of contents) you can view the article for free. Or, conversely, under the buy button there is a read button that states &#8220;or read this article for free.&#8217; Summery is on page 350.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Absolutely correct about that. Did ya notice that your comparison ignores the $0.80/gal ROAD taxes that inevitably WILL be shifted to plug-in batterywagons?

Or that if you want to charge your batterywagon in less than 8 hours that you will likely pay a very high for sucking the equivalent of 40 or 50 homes trying to charge it in 1/2 hour?

Or at 40mi/hr --- every 4 minutes --- you are using the equiv of the average 1 hour household draw?

None of these future "adaptations" are currently part of the calculations..........

Nor should any assumptions or "what ifs" be included imho.

But I also painted pretty close to a worse-case scenario for the Volt expenses. But I used worst-case set-ups that actually exist today.

Societies that railroad technological solutions thru without "what - ifs" are doomed to waste a LOT of time and money... How can you ignore that almost $1.00/gal of road tax man?

I guarantee you --- your STATE won't ignore it for long if this stuff starts to cut into their revenues...

BTW: Gave you a link to the IEEE articles that lists these studies the OP refers to...

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


And your "corrections" to my simple math problems are nowhere to be found...

you linked a news stoiry - it included links to studies that concluded:
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."

Of copurse the news article assumed bias because it was partially funded by auto comapnies that produce hybrid and electric cars. But those companies also produce gas cars, so why is there an assumed bias against gas??? Doesn't make sense.

OK, I'll clarify - any links to a study that supports OP ????

Still haven't seen one.

And if you missed my correction to your erroneous electrical engineering assumptions and math - you weren't paying attention. Your bad - not mine.

 

[FA_Q2]

OK, I'll clarify - any links to a study that supports OP ????

Still haven't seen one.

I gave you one. You don’t have to pay for it. Check the post above the one I quoted.

 

[JoeBlam]

Can't help myself man.. With your calling my math analysis a conspiracy and bailing and all without ATTEMPTING to do the 6th grade thing --- I picture your "space ship" something like ----

Good fun for a dime eh???

I compiled a damn DOSSIER on electrical costs/ratios/comparisons a year ago and can't find it. It's an ageless game sucking an opponent into an unsourced math quiz, denying any refutation, and then declaring victory. I got the jump on ya with this one is all.

As to the spaceship comment, there is literally NO NOISE...no engine noise, no tire noise, no wind noise....no noise. Folks walk out in front of the VOLT often enough that a beep-sensor is being installed on them near crosswalks. Drive one....it's free and you'll see what I'm talking about....and it's got muscle car low-end torque....take it from a guy who's first ride was a '64 389 Tempest GTO....the VOLT is fun as hell.

 

[Old Rocks]

yes--only conservatives drive cars

No, but only conservatives want to castrate the EPA, lower environmental standards, fight any move to clean energy and reward polluters with more subsidies.

The real irony; you CLAIM that liberals are communists, but your vision of America looks EXACTLY the same as Russia...

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.

There was no study sited or linked to. That makes the whole OP bullshit. Show the study, referances, and where the study was published.