Study finds electric cars worse for enviroment

[Misty]

Report: Electric cars worse for environment | JunkScience.com

"Chris Cherry, assistant professor in civil and environmental engineering, and graduate student Shuguang Ji, analyzed the emissions and environmental health impacts of five vehicle technologies in 34 major Chinese cities, focusing on dangerous fine particles. What Cherry and his team found defies conventional logic: electric cars cause much more overall harmful particulate matter pollution than gasoline cars."

 

[Mr. H.]

If my last name was Cherry, I'd never name a kid Chris.
Or Larry, Barry, Harry.

 

[RollingThunder]

Report: Electric cars worse for environment | JunkScience.com

"Chris Cherry, assistant professor in civil and environmental engineering, and graduate student Shuguang Ji, analyzed the emissions and environmental health impacts of five vehicle technologies in 34 major Chinese cities, focusing on dangerous fine particles. What Cherry and his team found defies conventional logic: electric cars cause much more overall harmful particulate matter pollution than gasoline cars."

From the retarded 'junk science' site you linked to...

"It seems EVs are only cleaner if powered by a “clean energy” source."

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.......well - DUH!

How retarded do you have to be to not understand that fact in the first place.

Of course electricity coming from coal fired power plants is 'dirty'. Coal is the most polluting source of energy.

The anti-science douche-bag who spews 'junk science' (quite literally) tries to distort the scientific study by twisting the results to supposedly indicate that "electric cars cause much more overall harmful particulate matter pollution than gasoline cars" but that is a lie as it stands. To be correct, it should read: 'electric cars can cause much more overall harmful particulate matter pollution than gasoline cars if the electricity comes from coal fired power plants but electric cars can also cause almost zero harmful pollution if the electricity comes from non-polluting renewable sources like solar and wind energy'.

Absurd, ridiculous distortions of fact like this are the reason Malloy's site is truly 'junk' science.

 

[FuelRod]

I guess we'll have to hold out for a wind powered car.

 

[Mr. H.]

 

[IanC]

Report: Electric cars worse for environment | JunkScience.com

"Chris Cherry, assistant professor in civil and environmental engineering, and graduate student Shuguang Ji, analyzed the emissions and environmental health impacts of five vehicle technologies in 34 major Chinese cities, focusing on dangerous fine particles. What Cherry and his team found defies conventional logic: electric cars cause much more overall harmful particulate matter pollution than gasoline cars."

From the retarded 'junk science' site you linked to...

"It seems EVs are only cleaner if powered by a “clean energy” source."

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.......well - DUH!

How retarded do you have to be to not understand that fact in the first place.

Of course electricity coming from coal fired power plants is 'dirty'. Coal is the most polluting source of energy.

The anti-science douche-bag who spews 'junk science' (quite literally) tries to distort the scientific study by twisting the results to supposedly indicate that "electric cars cause much more overall harmful particulate matter pollution than gasoline cars" but that is a lie as it stands. To be correct, it should read: 'electric cars can cause much more overall harmful particulate matter pollution than gasoline cars if the electricity comes from coal fired power plants but electric cars can also cause almost zero harmful pollution if the electricity comes from non-polluting renewable sources like solar and wind energy'.

Absurd, ridiculous distortions of fact like this are the reason Malloy's site is truly 'junk' science.

double standards again. I didnt read the OP article but I assume it found that chinese electric cars are powered by electricity from coal fire plants and therefore they are responsible for that fraction of pollution. reality. why do you think it is OK to compare fairytale solutions under nonexistent perfect conditions to reality based observations? why are possible doomsday scenarios with little chance of coming to pass so much more important to you that actual day-to-day observations? warmists always seem to think their explanations of evidence that is equivical is more intelligent than other explanations that dont draw catastrophic conclusions. even though their predictions are wrong time after time. there is a lot of junk science in climate science and most of it is CAGW agenda driven.

 

[RollingThunder]

Report: Electric cars worse for environment | JunkScience.com

"Chris Cherry, assistant professor in civil and environmental engineering, and graduate student Shuguang Ji, analyzed the emissions and environmental health impacts of five vehicle technologies in 34 major Chinese cities, focusing on dangerous fine particles. What Cherry and his team found defies conventional logic: electric cars cause much more overall harmful particulate matter pollution than gasoline cars."

From the retarded 'junk science' site you linked to...

"It seems EVs are only cleaner if powered by a “clean energy” source."

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.......well - DUH!

How retarded do you have to be to not understand that fact in the first place.

Of course electricity coming from coal fired power plants is 'dirty'. Coal is the most polluting source of energy.

The anti-science douche-bag who spews 'junk science' (quite literally) tries to distort the scientific study by twisting the results to supposedly indicate that "electric cars cause much more overall harmful particulate matter pollution than gasoline cars" but that is a lie as it stands. To be correct, it should read: 'electric cars can cause much more overall harmful particulate matter pollution than gasoline cars if the electricity comes from coal fired power plants but electric cars can also cause almost zero harmful pollution if the electricity comes from non-polluting renewable sources like solar and wind energy'.

Absurd, ridiculous distortions of fact like this are the reason Malloy's site is truly 'junk' science.

double standards again. I didnt read the OP article but I assume it found that chinese electric cars are powered by electricity from coal fire plants and therefore they are responsible for that fraction of pollution. reality. why do you think it is OK to compare fairytale solutions under nonexistent perfect conditions to reality based observations? why are possible doomsday scenarios with little chance of coming to pass so much more important to you that actual day-to-day observations? warmists always seem to think their explanations of evidence that is equivical is more intelligent than other explanations that dont draw catastrophic conclusions. even though their predictions are wrong time after time. there is a lot of junk science in climate science and most of it is CAGW agenda driven.

Oh lordie, more delusional garbage from someone too retarded to bother learning anything about this subject or even bothering to read the OP. LOL. So tell everybody, little clueless retard, just what are these "fairytale solutions under nonexistent perfect conditions" that you're talking about there? Driving electric vehicles using only solar and wind power? Something that is actually being done in many places around the world right now? That's what you're talking about? LOLOL. Just as an example close to home, there are a growing number of people here in California right now who have solar panels on their garages and/or homes that supply all of the power their electric vehicle needs for daily use. In many areas, a combination of home solar pv and wind generators can give ordinary people real energy independence in their homes as well as their cars. Why are you supposedly 'fiercely independent conservatives' so opposed to that? Do you not crave freedom from the centralized control of grid power and constantly rising prices? Do you like paying a big part of our national income to foreign nations who don't much like us?

Solar power for the home is dropping in price and increasing in efficiency. New developments abound.

Small scale wind power for the home is developing at an extraordinary rate as well. Several recent advances promise to increase the efficiency and lower the cost of wind energy. Here's one fairly new one for the home that can draw energy from very low wind speeds. There's some neat video evidence for that claim [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ko-_zAXNvYk&feature=player_embedded"]here[/ame].

New Honeywell Wind Turbine Coming to Hardware Stores, Rooftops Near You
New gearless wind turbine from WindTronics and Honeywell said to generate electricity at one-third the cost per kWh of any other wind turbine.
February 1, 2010
(excerpts)

The Honeywell Wind Turbine is lighter and quieter than turbines of comparable size. (Image: Windtronics)

The fan-like Honewywell WT6500 wind turbine can generate about 2,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity annually for a home with a strong wind resource; and up to 2,700 kWh for a location with a strong (class 4) wind resource. Depending on wind speed and energy use, a single unit can be expected to generate up to 20 percent of the annual electricity for the average American home.

But what sets the Honeywell Wind Turbine apart from others of similar size is that it starts spinning at winds of just 1 mph and generating electricity at 2 mph; generating power in low wind conditions, when others do not. In fact, Michigan-based WindTronics say it generates electricity at one-third the cost per kWh of any other wind turbine (in both class and size). A gearless turbine harnesses energy from the tips of the turbine blades, where they are moving the fastest. The low-vibrational impact of the gearless wind turbine means that the 95-pound, 6-foot diameter unit can be mounted on a pole, a rooftop, or even attached to a chimney .

 

[KissMy]

Oh lordie, more delusional garbage from someone too retarded to bother learning anything about this subject or even bothering to read the OP. LOL. So tell everybody, little clueless retard, just what are these "fairytale solutions under nonexistent perfect conditions" that you're talking about there? Driving electric vehicles using only solar and wind power? Something that is actually being done in many places around the world right now? That's what you're talking about? LOLOL. Just as an example close to home, there are a growing number of people here in California right now who have solar panels on their garages and/or homes that supply all of the power their electric vehicle needs for daily use. In many areas, a combination of home solar pv and wind generators can give ordinary people real energy independence in their homes as well as their cars. Why are you supposedly 'fiercely independent conservatives' so opposed to that? Do you not crave freedom from the centralized control of grid power and constantly rising prices? Do you like paying a big part of our national income to foreign nations who don't much like us?

Solar power for the home is dropping in price and increasing in efficiency. New developments abound.

Small scale wind power for the home is developing at an extraordinary rate as well. Several recent advances promise to increase the efficiency and lower the cost of wind energy. Here's one fairly new one for the home that can draw energy from very low wind speeds. There's some neat video evidence for that claim here.

New Honeywell Wind Turbine Coming to Hardware Stores, Rooftops Near You
New gearless wind turbine from WindTronics and Honeywell said to generate electricity at one-third the cost per kWh of any other wind turbine.
February 1, 2010
(excerpts)

The Honeywell Wind Turbine is lighter and quieter than turbines of comparable size. (Image: Windtronics)

The fan-like Honewywell WT6500 wind turbine can generate about 2,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity annually for a home with a strong wind resource; and up to 2,700 kWh for a location with a strong (class 4) wind resource. Depending on wind speed and energy use, a single unit can be expected to generate up to 20 percent of the annual electricity for the average American home.

But what sets the Honeywell Wind Turbine apart from others of similar size is that it starts spinning at winds of just 1 mph and generating electricity at 2 mph; generating power in low wind conditions, when others do not. In fact, Michigan-based WindTronics say it generates electricity at one-third the cost per kWh of any other wind turbine (in both class and size). A gearless turbine harnesses energy from the tips of the turbine blades, where they are moving the fastest. The low-vibrational impact of the gearless wind turbine means that the 95-pound, 6-foot diameter unit can be mounted on a pole, a rooftop, or even attached to a chimney.

Small wind turbines like those actually damage the environment. They consume more energy than they make. They have a major negative EROEI.

Urban windmills harm the environment

A small windmill on your roof or in the garden is an attractive idea. Unfortunately, micro wind turbines deliver hardly enough energy to power a light bulb. Their financial payback time is much longer than their life expectancy and in urban areas they will not even deliver as much energy as was needed to produce them. Sad, but true.

Remember - In order to have a positive effect on the environment a wind turbine must generate more useful energy than it took to mine the raw materials, manufacture, ship, install, re-wire power grid, maintain, decommission & recycle it. If it equals that, it gets an EROEI of 1:1. It needs to produce an EROEI of 8:1 to maintain our current standard of living. Large scale wind turbines in excess of 100kw can achieve a max EROEI of 40:1 when located on the windiest mountain in the USA.

 

[editec]

Electric cars are NOT a solution to the overall energy shortage.

Neither are hydrogen cars.

They might serve to reduce LOCAL pollution problems.

But as somebody pointed out both require ENERGY even if it is coming from sources other than hydrocarbons.

 

[skookerasbil]

Report: Electric cars worse for environment | JunkScience.com

"Chris Cherry, assistant professor in civil and environmental engineering, and graduate student Shuguang Ji, analyzed the emissions and environmental health impacts of five vehicle technologies in 34 major Chinese cities, focusing on dangerous fine particles. What Cherry and his team found defies conventional logic: electric cars cause much more overall harmful particulate matter pollution than gasoline cars."

From the retarded 'junk science' site you linked to...

"It seems EVs are only cleaner if powered by a “clean energy” source."

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.......well - DUH!

How retarded do you have to be to not understand that fact in the first place.

Of course electricity coming from coal fired power plants is 'dirty'. Coal is the most polluting source of energy.

The anti-science douche-bag who spews 'junk science' (quite literally) tries to distort the scientific study by twisting the results to supposedly indicate that "electric cars cause much more overall harmful particulate matter pollution than gasoline cars" but that is a lie as it stands. To be correct, it should read: 'electric cars can cause much more overall harmful particulate matter pollution than gasoline cars if the electricity comes from coal fired power plants but electric cars can also cause almost zero harmful pollution if the electricity comes from non-polluting renewable sources like solar and wind energy'.

Absurd, ridiculous distortions of fact like this are the reason Malloy's site is truly 'junk' science.

What a dolt............

Electric cars are gay..........nobody wants them ( especially Americans ). They are mega-expensive and worst of all, if you turn on the heat or a/c...........or even the ******* lights, you drive around the block and the batteries die!!!

Real smart investment there!!!!


But we are the retards!!!:

 

[skookerasbil]

Make no mistake......... environmental mental case nutters like Rolling Thunder will not be happy until EVERY American is driving around in one of these things..................

Cant make it up!!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

Report: Electric cars worse for environment | JunkScience.com

"Chris Cherry, assistant professor in civil and environmental engineering, and graduate student Shuguang Ji, analyzed the emissions and environmental health impacts of five vehicle technologies in 34 major Chinese cities, focusing on dangerous fine particles. What Cherry and his team found defies conventional logic: electric cars cause much more overall harmful particulate matter pollution than gasoline cars."

A very nice way of telling a lie, without actually telling a lie. If the electricity is generated by dirty coal plants, such as are most in China, yes, the electric car is responsible for more particulate pollution than a ICE. However, when there are reasonable pollution controls, the emissions of particulates from EVs is far less.

With the price of gasoline headed for $5 a gallon or higher, even as we are exporting gasoline, you gotta love the attacks by the 'Conservatives' on the idea of EVs. Particularly as the price of solar is coming down rapidly. The very idea of the average home owning citizen having the capability of not only powering his home, but also his vehicle without paying a king's ransom to the already very wealthy is an anthema to the very rich and their ass kissers.


Report: Electric cars worse for environment | JunkScience.com

For electric vehicles, combustion emissions occur where electricity is generated rather than where the vehicle is used. In China, 85 percent of electricity production is from fossil fuels, about 90 percent of that is from coal. The authors discovered that the power generated in China to operate electric vehicles emit fine particles at a much higher rate than gasoline vehicles. However, because the emissions related to the electric vehicles often come from power plants located away from population centers, people breathe in the emissions a lower rate than they do emissions from conventional vehicles.

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh lordie, more delusional garbage from someone too retarded to bother learning anything about this subject or even bothering to read the OP. LOL. So tell everybody, little clueless retard, just what are these "fairytale solutions under nonexistent perfect conditions" that you're talking about there? Driving electric vehicles using only solar and wind power? Something that is actually being done in many places around the world right now? That's what you're talking about? LOLOL. Just as an example close to home, there are a growing number of people here in California right now who have solar panels on their garages and/or homes that supply all of the power their electric vehicle needs for daily use. In many areas, a combination of home solar pv and wind generators can give ordinary people real energy independence in their homes as well as their cars. Why are you supposedly 'fiercely independent conservatives' so opposed to that? Do you not crave freedom from the centralized control of grid power and constantly rising prices? Do you like paying a big part of our national income to foreign nations who don't much like us?

Solar power for the home is dropping in price and increasing in efficiency. New developments abound.

Small scale wind power for the home is developing at an extraordinary rate as well. Several recent advances promise to increase the efficiency and lower the cost of wind energy. Here's one fairly new one for the home that can draw energy from very low wind speeds. There's some neat video evidence for that claim here.

New Honeywell Wind Turbine Coming to Hardware Stores, Rooftops Near You
New gearless wind turbine from WindTronics and Honeywell said to generate electricity at one-third the cost per kWh of any other wind turbine.
February 1, 2010
(excerpts)

The Honeywell Wind Turbine is lighter and quieter than turbines of comparable size. (Image: Windtronics)

The fan-like Honewywell WT6500 wind turbine can generate about 2,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity annually for a home with a strong wind resource; and up to 2,700 kWh for a location with a strong (class 4) wind resource. Depending on wind speed and energy use, a single unit can be expected to generate up to 20 percent of the annual electricity for the average American home.

But what sets the Honeywell Wind Turbine apart from others of similar size is that it starts spinning at winds of just 1 mph and generating electricity at 2 mph; generating power in low wind conditions, when others do not. In fact, Michigan-based WindTronics say it generates electricity at one-third the cost per kWh of any other wind turbine (in both class and size). A gearless turbine harnesses energy from the tips of the turbine blades, where they are moving the fastest. The low-vibrational impact of the gearless wind turbine means that the 95-pound, 6-foot diameter unit can be mounted on a pole, a rooftop, or even attached to a chimney.

Small wind turbines like those actually damage the environment. They consume more energy than they make. They have a major negative EROEI.

Urban windmills harm the environment

A small windmill on your roof or in the garden is an attractive idea. Unfortunately, micro wind turbines deliver hardly enough energy to power a light bulb. Their financial payback time is much longer than their life expectancy and in urban areas they will not even deliver as much energy as was needed to produce them. Sad, but true.

Remember - In order to have a positive effect on the environment a wind turbine must generate more useful energy than it took to mine the raw materials, manufacture, ship, install, re-wire power grid, maintain, decommission & recycle it. If it equals that, it gets an EROEI of 1:1. It needs to produce an EROEI of 8:1 to maintain our current standard of living. Large scale wind turbines in excess of 100kw can achieve a max EROEI of 40:1 when located on the windiest mountain in the USA.

So you are comparing a turbine that puts out 100 kwh to one that puts out 2700 kwh. Sounds to me as if you didn't bother to read the article.

Low-tech Magazine: Urban windmills harm the environment

Energy output: 100 kWh per year

All this sounds promising, but do the numbers add up? Home Energy states that the Energy Ball can deliver 500 kilowatt-hours of electricity per year, or 15 to 20 percent of the electricity use of an average Dutch household (which consumes 3,567 kWh per year). But these claims are based on an average wind speed of 7 metres per second (Beaufort 4) – highly optimistic.

 

[RollingThunder]

Oh lordie, more delusional garbage from someone too retarded to bother learning anything about this subject or even bothering to read the OP. LOL. So tell everybody, little clueless retard, just what are these "fairytale solutions under nonexistent perfect conditions" that you're talking about there? Driving electric vehicles using only solar and wind power? Something that is actually being done in many places around the world right now? That's what you're talking about? LOLOL. Just as an example close to home, there are a growing number of people here in California right now who have solar panels on their garages and/or homes that supply all of the power their electric vehicle needs for daily use. In many areas, a combination of home solar pv and wind generators can give ordinary people real energy independence in their homes as well as their cars. Why are you supposedly 'fiercely independent conservatives' so opposed to that? Do you not crave freedom from the centralized control of grid power and constantly rising prices? Do you like paying a big part of our national income to foreign nations who don't much like us?

Solar power for the home is dropping in price and increasing in efficiency. New developments abound.

Small scale wind power for the home is developing at an extraordinary rate as well. Several recent advances promise to increase the efficiency and lower the cost of wind energy. Here's one fairly new one for the home that can draw energy from very low wind speeds. There's some neat video evidence for that claim here.

New Honeywell Wind Turbine Coming to Hardware Stores, Rooftops Near You
New gearless wind turbine from WindTronics and Honeywell said to generate electricity at one-third the cost per kWh of any other wind turbine.
February 1, 2010
(excerpts)

The Honeywell Wind Turbine is lighter and quieter than turbines of comparable size. (Image: Windtronics)

The fan-like Honewywell WT6500 wind turbine can generate about 2,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity annually for a home with a strong wind resource; and up to 2,700 kWh for a location with a strong (class 4) wind resource. Depending on wind speed and energy use, a single unit can be expected to generate up to 20 percent of the annual electricity for the average American home.

But what sets the Honeywell Wind Turbine apart from others of similar size is that it starts spinning at winds of just 1 mph and generating electricity at 2 mph; generating power in low wind conditions, when others do not. In fact, Michigan-based WindTronics say it generates electricity at one-third the cost per kWh of any other wind turbine (in both class and size). A gearless turbine harnesses energy from the tips of the turbine blades, where they are moving the fastest. The low-vibrational impact of the gearless wind turbine means that the 95-pound, 6-foot diameter unit can be mounted on a pole, a rooftop, or even attached to a chimney.

Small wind turbines like those actually damage the environment. They consume more energy than they make. They have a major negative EROEI.

Total bullshit. Neither you nor the article you quoted present any actual evidence to support these idiotic contentions.

Urban windmills harm the environment

A small windmill on your roof or in the garden is an attractive idea. Unfortunately, micro wind turbines deliver hardly enough energy to power a light bulb. Their financial payback time is much longer than their life expectancy and in urban areas they will not even deliver as much energy as was needed to produce them. Sad, but true.

Remember - In order to have a positive effect on the environment a wind turbine must generate more useful energy than it took to mine the raw materials, manufacture, ship, install, re-wire power grid, maintain, decommission & recycle it. If it equals that, it gets an EROEI of 1:1. It needs to produce an EROEI of 8:1 to maintain our current standard of living. Large scale wind turbines in excess of 100kw can achieve a max EROEI of 40:1 when located on the windiest mountain in the USA.

LOLOL....an old article from a website called 'Low-tech Magazine' that is sub-titled 'Doubts on progress and technology' that examines one small wind generator of unusual design that produces only 100 kWh per year and needs fairly high wind speeds to operate and concludes that small scale wind energy doesn't work and is even bad for the environment, without actually showing any evidence of any environmental damage. LOL. So you see the article I posted about the new Honeywell design that can generate over 2000 kWh per year, that generates electricity at about one third of the cost of other wind generators, that costs about half as much as the 'energy ball' design they looked at, and you decide your article debunks mine? LOL. Get a clue, dumbass.

 

[skookerasbil]

Right now on DRUDGE..........

The Tesla electric car.........epic fAiL.............battery discharges causig catastrophic failure. Cost to repair? $40,000.00..............

http://jalopnik.com/5887265/tesla-motors-devastating-design-problem

Awesome!!!!

 

[RollingThunder]

Right now on DRUDGE..........

The Tesla electric car.........epic fAiL.............battery discharges causig catastrophic failure. Cost to repair? $40,000.00..............

Tesla Motors' Devastating Design Problem

Awesome!!!!

LOLOLOLOLOLOOL....you are such a funny moron, kookster. Always grasping at straws to support your braindead delusions.

What with all of the bells and whistles Tesla motors has included to notify owners if their batteries are running low, there will very likely be far fewer people in the future who let their batteries completely discharge then there are people now who let their cars completely run out of oil, turning their engine into a "brick" that requires total replacement.

Here's a couple of good debunkings of your idiotic article.

Tesla Battery 'Bricking': The Real Story Behind The Scare
Feb 22, 2012

The Tesla Bricking Story? It’s Nonsense
February 22nd, 2012

 

[skookerasbil]

Right now on DRUDGE..........

The Tesla electric car.........epic fAiL.............battery discharges causig catastrophic failure. Cost to repair? $40,000.00..............

Tesla Motors' Devastating Design Problem

Awesome!!!!

LOLOLOLOLOLOOL....you are such a funny moron, kookster. Always grasping at straws to support your braindead delusions.

What with all of the bells and whistles Tesla motors has included to notify owners if their batteries are running low, there will very likely be far fewer people in the future who let their batteries completely discharge then there are people now who let their cars completely run out of oil, turning their engine into a "brick" that requires total replacement.

Here's a couple of good debunkings of your idiotic article.

Tesla Battery 'Bricking': The Real Story Behind The Scare
Feb 22, 2012

The Tesla Bricking Story? It’s Nonsense
February 22nd, 2012

OK s0n.........


From YOUR article...................

"The Tesla Roadster runs on batteries that require lots of maintenance."


Nutters who sit around on a PC all day dont know what it is like to be busy..........maybe miss a maintenance visit. But if it happens with a Tesla???


Ooooooooooooooooooooops!!!!



Wallet's gonna take a big ass hit............how about 40K!!!


Yup.......ahhh.............we're all real sure everybody is now gonna be real confident going and buyng a Tesla because Rolling Thunder posted up his link in a nether-region of the internet. Clearly more significant than the 30 million people who saw the "Tesla Cars Blowing Up!!!" headline on DRUDGE today!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Thunder s0n............what keeps me coming back here to this forum???

I gotta tell you, it happens to be you who places a pumpkin on a tee for me every day...........like smashing multiple pumpkins with a baseball bat. What could be more of a ******* hoot than that????

And the dolt keeps coming back!!!!

 

[Obamerican]

Report: Electric cars worse for environment | JunkScience.com

"Chris Cherry, assistant professor in civil and environmental engineering, and graduate student Shuguang Ji, analyzed the emissions and environmental health impacts of five vehicle technologies in 34 major Chinese cities, focusing on dangerous fine particles. What Cherry and his team found defies conventional logic: electric cars cause much more overall harmful particulate matter pollution than gasoline cars."

From the retarded 'junk science' site you linked to...

"It seems EVs are only cleaner if powered by a “clean energy” source."

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.......well - DUH!

How retarded do you have to be to not understand that fact in the first place.

Of course electricity coming from coal fired power plants is 'dirty'. Coal is the most polluting source of energy.

The anti-science douche-bag who spews 'junk science' (quite literally) tries to distort the scientific study by twisting the results to supposedly indicate that "electric cars cause much more overall harmful particulate matter pollution than gasoline cars" but that is a lie as it stands. To be correct, it should read: 'electric cars can cause much more overall harmful particulate matter pollution than gasoline cars if the electricity comes from coal fired power plants but electric cars can also cause almost zero harmful pollution if the electricity comes from non-polluting renewable sources like solar and wind energy'.

Absurd, ridiculous distortions of fact like this are the reason Malloy's site is truly 'junk' science.

double standards again. I didnt read the OP article but I assume it found that chinese electric cars are powered by electricity from coal fire plants and therefore they are responsible for that fraction of pollution. reality. why do you think it is OK to compare fairytale solutions under nonexistent perfect conditions to reality based observations? why are possible doomsday scenarios with little chance of coming to pass so much more important to you that actual day-to-day observations? warmists always seem to think their explanations of evidence that is equivical is more intelligent than other explanations that dont draw catastrophic conclusions. even though their predictions are wrong time after time. there is a lot of junk science in climate science and most of it is CAGW agenda driven.

Why do you find it necessary to respond to a post about an article that you didn't even read? Can we say, "Jumping to conclusions"? Right or wrong, you should read the original article before jumping on the poster.

 

[Old Rocks]

Steve baby, gonna shut you down!

Welcome to Plasma Boy Racing, home of White Zombie, the world's quickest street legal electric door slammer in the 1/4 mile drag.

Welcome to the White Zombie History page. From it's humble beginning back in 1994 to today's low 10 second car, everything it took to make Plasma Boy's White Zombie the first street legal electric car to run a 10 second quarter mile, is chronicalled here. You can also view classic videos of White Zombie (and other Plasma Boy EVs) by clicking on the 'Videos' button. The latest and most popular videos of this high powered electric car taking out muscle cars and hot import drag racers, can be viewed on 'Youtube' by searching 'electric drag racing'. For the visual details of the various improvements we've done along the way, click on the 'Photos' button and navigate to 'Plasma Boy's various Electric Vehicles, then the sub album 'White Zombie'.