Ping.
Odd, I have heard just the opposite.
Most electric cars will be powered by coal.
Points for remembering to say "climate change" in lieu of "global warming", Professor Cahill. But we're still laughing. Another example of bovine flatulence from the hallowed halls of academe, where the buffaloed roam and never is heard a dissenting word.
I suppose that the proponents of the electric roller skates “feel” that the electricity that will charge the not-quite-so “eco-friendly” batteries will be delivered by the “Electric Bunny” (or Electric Fairy), right? No “carbon footprint” there if I’m not mistaken.
Idiots!
Not burning gasoline here just means someone in China gets to burn it. These guys never do real world economics.
Since AGW is a fraud, the carbon footprint argument is meaningless. Considering cradle to grave environmental impact, the electrics may have more impact due to the creation and ultimate disposal of batteries. Then of course most will be powered by coal anyway so we are back to the drawing board.
"Kind of" an intersting name. Tom McCahill used to be an automotive writer back in the Goodle Days.
How far we have fallen! I miss those days!
“...even when emissions from generating the electricity are taken into account, electric vehicles have a much smaller carbon footprint than gas-powered vehicles because they are much more efficient.”
Carbon dioxide emissions (not that they really matter) and energy efficiency are two different (if related) things.
Internal combustion engines are (if I remember correctly) about 30% efficient, maybe a bit better if running close to their thermodynamic ideal. Using electric energy to power a drive train is, in fact, a lot more efficient, in terms of the fraction of the total energy that ends up moving the vehicle (somewhere in the neighborhood of 80%, if I remember correctly).
BUT the energy in the battery doesn’t magically appear there - it has to be generated somewhere. If it comes from a coal-fired plant (our most common generation source), you’re talking somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 to 70% energy wasted in generation losses and transmission losses, which wipes out the benefits described above.
Now if you’re getting your electrons from nukes, it’s a different story - no greenhouse gases, little generation loss, mostly just transmission losses.
But I don’t think people pushing electric cars are going to lobby for a whole bunch of new nuclear plants.
It’s going to be terrible for the environment, think of all those Energizer Bunnies it will take to run them all!
Take your “Carbon Footprint” and stick it where the sun doesn’t shine.
I like electric cars, they let you know who’s not right without having to talk to them. (paraphrase of an old Hank Hill saying regarding piercings.)
Chevy Volt burn only small amounts of gasoline,
...........................................................
I guess this guy hasn’t been keeping up.
Andrew Farah, said in a briefing yesterday that not only was the 2011 Volt achieving its target of 40 miles of electric range, but it was also meeting the goal of 50 miles per gallon in so-called range-extending mode.
I can get that on a Prius without having to plug it in, and at half the cost to me and no cost of $7500 dollars to the Government.
Of course that is better than the 35 I get on my Camry, but I lose room and when I have to buy a battery it doesn’t cost $4,000 dollars.
sure... if it can run on static electricity it pulls out of the airAlot of the people who push for electric vehicles don’t understand where or how electricity is generated.
>> “Will buying an electric car make an environmental difference?” <<
.
No.
(until the batteries have to be disposed of)
Up here in the People’s Republic of Oregon, there is a proposal in the legislature to impose a mileage tax on electric vehicles. The intent is to offset the revenue lost from gas taxes!
Up here in the People’s Republic of Oregon, there is a proposal in the legislature to impose a mileage tax on electric vehicles. The intent is to offset the revenue lost from gas taxes!