Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I decided against electric when I read articles about the effects on the environment from the manufacturing of the batteries, which are worse than years of gas engine emissions. Most of the lithium for the batteries (80%) is imported as are many of the batteries themselves so it's a long way by air or ship. Meth labs use the lithium from old batteries in their drug manufacturing process.
There are plenty of energy, raw materials and enviromental effects that go into making an gas or diesel powered combustion engine. Most gas powered engines now are made of aluminum (where some diesel's still use cast iron for it's strength).
I work at a luxury vehicle manufacturing plant in the US and we import ALL of our engines. Which means that all come by ship (or air sometimes) and are then transported to us by truck or rail.
Your statements about electric cars are partly right and party wrong.
Let's take the Tesla Model S as an example.
In the US, the electric grid is about 40% coal, 25% natural gas, 20% nuclear and 10% renewable. So it’s fair to say that the Tesla (or any other EV car) is powered in large part by burning fossil fuels. That said, the Tesla is still far cleaner than an internal combustion engine car. Most modern EV cars are more efficient at converting stored energy to power. Tesla Model S has an official EPA miles-per-gallon equivalent of 89, which is far greater than even the Toyota Prius.
Truth is that the current performance of the Tesla cars depends on where you are charging the car. Charging the car in California is much cleaner than charging the car in Ohio because of the differences in the electric grids.
That said, there are many people who have used skewed data to make cars like the Tesla Model S look bad. Generally speaking, they fail to realize that tradeoffs between electric cars and their internal-combustion counterparts are changing by the day!
Environmental trade-offs are changing all the time and mostly in electric cars' favor. Natural gas is reducing the share of coal, solar is increasing, etc. And new power added to the US grid is heavily weighted towards renewables. If the current trends hold, cars like the Model S will be FAR more efficient than they already are.
Moreover, let us not discount the advances in battery and solar technology that will be made over the next few years. Companies like Nissan, Honda and Tesla are not fools to be spending Billions into R&D - battery tech, solar tech, etc!
So what happens to all those batteries that change when technology makes them obsolete? Do you think that a battery made 5 years from now will be the same as those produced now? Voltages will changes as will the requirement to charge them, so what happens to that Tesla battery then? Recycle it?
Has anyone figured out how much energy it takes to recycle an electric vehicle battery that is proprietary? Just because something can be recycled doesn't mean that is an efficient use of the material or the energy needed to recycle it.
Have you noticed the car makers using a standardized battery and charging system? Me neither. They don't and like all the laptops and mobile devices, batteries are designed to be just different enough not to work in anything else.
In contrast, gasoline hasn't really changed that much. You can take a 40 year old car and run it on the gasoline produced today. Will a 40 year old electric car be able to use the batteries 40 year from now? Hardly and very few of the electrical components will be usable then either, they are all vehicle and manufacturer specific.
The real benefit would have come from establishing some kind of standard. Instead, every maker does their own special thing making sure nothing works with anything else.
Electric cars are a fad. One day perhaps, there will be some standard and one battery might fit into many different electric cars but don't count on it. So just how "green" is the electric car? Not very. They've been around for quite a while now for those who remember. No standards.
When an electric car makes goes out of business what happens? When a car maker otherwise goes out of business you still use the same fuel- gasoline or diesel. I am not saying we should retain gasoline or diesel as the primary fuels but we would be much better off developing a standardized replacement fuel than playing around with electric cars on the taxpayers dime.
I think you would be more credible saying something like "My impression is that electric cars are a fad," rather than letting fly with such an absolute statement. There's no current way to tell if that will prove to be true or not. I've driven electric cars, and I've talked to electric car owners, and my impression is that they are a significant improvement over cars with gas engines. They are quiet, they are quick, they are smooth, they are clean, and in most cases they are cheaper to operate than conventional cars. The owners I've talked to love them.
Yep, power connector and voltage standards need to be hashed out, but that's typical for a technology that is this young. And batteries will need to be recycled, but that's no big deal. It's already happening.
Quote:
One day perhaps, there will be some standard and one battery might fit into many different electric cars but don't count on it. So just how "green" is the electric car? Not very. They've been around for quite a while now for those who remember. No standards.
And for those who care to check history there were electric cars made in the early 1900s which are still operational, some even with their original Edison batteries, and they still aren't smoking up the environment. There is something to be said for a basic concept that lasts so long. Electric cars are fundamentally far simpler than those utilizing internal combustion engines, and when it comes to machinery, simpler generally means more durable and less expensive to maintain.
Quote:
When an electric car makes goes out of business what happens? When a car maker otherwise goes out of business you still use the same fuel- gasoline or diesel. I am not saying we should retain gasoline or diesel as the primary fuels but we would be much better off developing a standardized replacement fuel than playing around with electric cars on the taxpayers dime.
There have been something like 2,000 different brands of automobile made and sold in the US, all but a few of which have gone out of business, so I'm sure we'll be able to figure it out. We may not develop a replacement "fuel" that works in current automobiles, and still meets future air quality standards. Maybe we'll settle on compressed hydrogen, feeding fuel cells to generate electricity to drive the electric motors in the wheels. But whatever we wind up doing, I think the current state of electric car development is exactly where we need to be to bring about whatever is coming next.
I am starting to note a trend on this thread. Most people who are opposed to electric cars seem to have a very rudimentary understanding of the technology and its rapid advances. And use random snippets of information to criticize the entire EV technology. The post below is an example of such an uninformed inquiry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife
So what happens to all those batteries that change when technology makes them obsolete? Do you think that a battery made 5 years from now will be the same as those produced now? Voltages will changes as will the requirement to charge them, so what happens to that Tesla battery then? Recycle it?
You are right about battery technology evolving rapidly, but you fail to understand that the changes in battery technology are making EV cars much much better. Is there a cost associated with such rapid progress? Yes. But should we abandon the technology just because it is making breakthrough progress and advances every year? No!
More importantly, are you truly concerned about the impact of batteries on the environment? If yes, you should voice equal opposition to a plethora of industries (e.g. plastics) that damage the environment even more. The battery R&D for cars is for the betterment of the environment, so there is no reason to oppose it citing environmental concerns.
If you build a facility by the river banks to clean the river .... you shouldn't be complaining about the impact of building the facility itself.
Furthermore, companies like TESLA and NISSAN have been offering 100s of dollars to recycle old batteries. They have advanced technology that let's them recycle these batteries safely. I am very sure that TESLA car owners are not dumping their used batteries on the side-walk.
Quote:
Has anyone figured out how much energy it takes to recycle an electric vehicle battery that is proprietary? Just because something can be recycled doesn't mean that is an efficient use of the material or the energy needed to recycle it.
Like I said. The companies TESLA and NISSAN are recycling the batteries in hi-tech facilities at no cost to the consumer. At the moment, the energy needed to recycle a battery is not the concern. The true concern are the chemicals in the battery.
Quote:
Have you noticed the car makers using a standardized battery and charging system? Me neither. They don't and like all the laptops and mobile devices, batteries are designed to be just different enough not to work in anything else.
What does this mean? Can you use an iphone battery to charge a laptop? Just because EV car batteries are not compatible with laptops and phones does not mean we should abandon EV cars.
Quote:
In contrast, gasoline hasn't really changed that much. You can take a 40 year old car and run it on the gasoline produced today.
Except gasoline is not unlimited and the price of gasoline has skyrocketed in the past many years! Except wars have been fought to protect oil fields. Except energy at the ratio 1:2 is being spent to extract oil from the Canadian Oil Sands.
Quote:
The real benefit would have come from establishing some kind of standard. Instead, every maker does their own special thing making sure nothing works with anything else.
Once the technology becomes popular, a standard will be established. There will be winning and losing technologies.
Quote:
Electric cars are a fad. One day perhaps, there will be some standard and one battery might fit into many different electric cars but don't count on it. So just how "green" is the electric car? Not very. They've been around for quite a while now for those who remember. No standards.
You cannot be serious??!?! EV cars are now winning awards!
[quote=sandman249;31769944]I am starting to note a trend on this thread. Most people who are opposed to electric cars seem to have a very rudimentary understanding of the technology and its rapid advances. And use random snippets of information to criticize the entire EV technology. The post below is an example of such an uninformed inquiry.
Don't Change What I Know!!!!
That seems to be the primary complaint of those that oppose EV technology. That's a common theme throughout history and when you look back in a decade or two, you will wonder why anyone complained. The advent of the car was treated as a joke that wouldn't last long. Airplanes? Who's going to risk going in one of those things? Some people are just opposed to change.
I am starting to note a trend on this thread. Most people who are opposed to electric cars seem to have a very rudimentary understanding of the technology and its rapid advances. And use random snippets of information to criticize the entire EV technology. The post below is an example of such an uninformed inquiry.
SNIP
Like I said. The companies TESLA and NISSAN are recycling the batteries in hi-tech facilities at no cost to the consumer. At the moment, the energy needed to recycle a battery is not the concern. The true concern are the chemicals in the battery.
SNIP
You cannot be serious??!?! EV cars are now winning awards!
There we have it. Yup, Tesla and Nissan are recycling batteries at no cost to the consumer. Tell me that was a joke.
EV cars are winning awards. Such a measure of anything more than something used to sell magazines.
Want to be the BMW new "clean" diesels will also win some awards. So what? Awards from a magazine now mean something other than what some editors who write to sell magazines want to hype? Really?
I am starting to note a trend on this thread. Most people who are opposed to electric cars seem to have a very rudimentary understanding of the technology and its rapid advances. And use random snippets of information to criticize the entire EV technology. The post below is an example of such an uninformed inquiry.
Don't Change What I Know!!!!
That seems to be the primary complaint of those that oppose EV technology. That's a common theme throughout history and when you look back in a decade or two, you will wonder why anyone complained. The advent of the car was treated as a joke that wouldn't last long. Airplanes? Who's going to risk going in one of those things? Some people are just opposed to change.
There were electric cars a long time ago, go ahead and do some research.
The battery is a middle-man technology. The battery itself produces nothing and is not a source of energy, it is a storage medium only. Surely we all know that right?
The most efficient uses of energy are realized when there are as few processes as possible between the source and the use. The battery is a solution to a problem better solved by fuels, not yet another storage layer between the fuel and the use.
Have you bothered to research how much of the battery capacity is actually available to the user for cars like the Volt and Tesla? What do you say, 80%, 90%? How about nearly half those numbers. That puts those batteries in the range of 50% efficient just for the storage medium itself.
As you might have read, I have said gasoline isn't the optimum or most desirable fuel for cars, quite the contrary but some seem to imply that is the case. Reading comes hard to some I guess.
I have yet to see the explanation for the infrastructure to charge all these wonderful electric cars. It can't happen without a standard. Lets put GM, Tesla, Nissan and all the other car makers together and see if they can develop a standard. It isn't going to happen and anyone should be able to figure out why. Car manufacturers didn't figure out gasoline standards so how are they going to figure out standards for batteries and charging infrastructure? You believe Tesla or anyone else is going to agree to use a certain voltage, capacity or charging rate for their batteries? Think Ford will use GM's? BMW will use Ford's?
Dream on.
Here is what it comes down to, pure and simple. How long does anyone think it will take to create electric car standards for batteries and charging? 5 more years? I hear laughter. 10 years?
Now what do you think is going on during this time? All the competing technologies that can replace gasoline much easier and use much of the existing infrastructure is going to sit idly by? The car makers and that entire industry now revolving around gasoline engines is going to move over to electric vehicles instead of a competing fuel that allows cars to be built much as they are now (they have reached a very high level of manufacturing competence)?
By the time a standard for EV vehicles is figured out, no one will want or need them. That is what will happen. We'll be around to see it.
I am starting to note a trend on this thread. Most people who are opposed to electric cars seem to have a very rudimentary understanding of the technology and its rapid advances. And use random snippets of information to criticize the entire EV technology.
Yes, I've noticed the same thing in a lot of discussions about different aspects of technology recently. People who are not well informed are criticizing technology they clearly don't understand. I think it would be a far better use of their time to use the internet to open-mindedly explore new material and possibly learn something, rather than than just narrowly searching for whatever shred of evidence they can find to support an already made-up mind.
Like you mentioned, they are still charged by carbon burning equipment.
The battery waste and chemicals involved with batteries is really bad too.
I personally think it's more of a marketing scheme and companies trying to cash in on the "Green" movement without most people really understanding the engineering/technical details.
Same goes for solar panels, which incredibly environmentally unfriendly at least the manufacturing and recycling process and same goes CFL light bulbs.
Like you mentioned, they are still charged by carbon burning equipment.
Yes, IF they are. But as more and more energy from renewable sources comes online, that reason will incrementally disappear. Where I live, on the Big Island of Hawai'i, over 40% of the electricity sold is already generated by non-fossil fuel "green" sources, such as hydro, wind, solar and geothermal. In Denmark 25% of their power generation is from wind power. In our own PNW region, hydroelectric power is king. Carbon fuel systems will decline and be replaced as renewable energy sources improve.
Quote:
The battery waste and chemicals involved with batteries is really bad too.
I think that's transitional. Those technologies are rapidly evolving. Many experts expect to see entirely different systems in use within 5 - 10 years.
Quote:
I personally think it's more of a marketing scheme and companies trying to cash in on the "Green" movement without most people really understanding the engineering/technical details.
Actually, I find that many of the early adopters of new technologies are quite better informed about them than is the general public. A "Green" label on household cleaning products may sell some merchandise, but the buyer of a $35,000 solar PV array or a $70,000 electric car are not interested in mere labels. They want detailed information on what they are buying.
Quote:
Same goes for solar panels, which incredibly environmentally unfriendly at least the manufacturing and recycling process and same goes CFL light bulbs.
CFL bulbs were a reasonable step away from incandescent lamps, which turned out to be an intermediate step on the way to LED lighting, which I expect will almost entirely capture the lighting market in the near future, because of their vastly better energy efficiency and very long life.
As far as the issues with PV solar panels, the risks are known and well managed. And most of the components, such as frame, glass, and silicon photocells are easily recyclable. Only the polyvinyl encapsulation is not recoverable at present, but that could change. PV panels are actually more highly recyclable than typical household products such as flat screen TVs and computer monitors, and they have far longer service life... 15 - 25 years typically.
Here's an interesting data sheet from the Oregon.gov website, with all the scary details spelled out, yet they conclude that...
[quote]According to the U.S. Department of Energy, few power-generating technologies have as little environmental impact as photovoltaic solar panels.
However, as with all energy sources, there are potential environmental, health and safety hazards
associated with the full product life cycle of photovoltaics. Recent news accounts have raised public
interest and concerns about those potential hazards.
A substantial body of research has investigated the life cycle impacts of photovoltaics including raw material production, manufacture, use and disposal. While some potentially hazardous materials are utilized in the life cycle of photovoltaic systems, none present a risk different or greater than the risks found routinely in modern society.
Yes, of course, each new technology has trade offs, but in the field of alternative energy much is trending toward the Improvement side of the balance sheet. Wind turbines, for example, have a high capital cost, and a shorter service life than carbon fuel turbines, but the trade off is that they use no fuel and create no CO2 emissions or toxic waste. And while they were initially very expensive to install and operate, more than 20 years ago when the first big wind farms were being created, by 2006 the wind power generation in the EU has been on a net cost of generation par with fossil fuel. The early trade off of higher expense for a ecologically superior system has begun to pay off in the long run as the technology has evolved.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
