Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Electric Cars Will Not Decrease Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Says Federal Study
CNSNews ^ | June 25, 2009 | By Monica Gabriel

Posted on 06/25/2009 12:17:11 PM PDT by MaestroLC

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-58 next last

1 posted on 06/25/2009 12:17:11 PM PDT by MaestroLC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: MaestroLC

Just wait till the landfills start filling up with old lithium batteries.


2 posted on 06/25/2009 12:18:22 PM PDT by Drango (A liberal's compassion is limited only by the size of someone else's wallet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MaestroLC; OKSooner; honolulugal; Killing Time; Beowulf; Mr. Peabody; RW_Whacko; SideoutFred; ...
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

FReepmail me to get on or off

Ping me if you find one I've missed.



3 posted on 06/25/2009 12:18:33 PM PDT by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MaestroLC

Not to mention elecxtric motors produce ozone, which IS a greenhouse gas.


4 posted on 06/25/2009 12:18:39 PM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drango
"Just wait till the landfills start filling up with old lithium batteries."

Lithium? More like some kind of chemically altered nickle. Never mind the landfills, look at what manufacturing those batteries does to the environment from the nickle mines to battery plant pollution.

5 posted on 06/25/2009 12:21:28 PM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MaestroLC

Captain Obvious please...

how many years has FR been saying this? Jeez.


6 posted on 06/25/2009 12:24:03 PM PDT by Principled (Get the capital back! NRST!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MaestroLC

Duh. It is hard to believe has stupid people can be.


7 posted on 06/25/2009 12:27:04 PM PDT by HerrBlucher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MaestroLC

But it feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeels good.And, THAT’S what is really important here.


8 posted on 06/25/2009 12:27:09 PM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MaestroLC
Well, the point isn't to reduce pollution or CO2 emissions. The point is for Obama to seize control of this industry.
9 posted on 06/25/2009 12:32:24 PM PDT by colorado tanker ("Lastly, I'd like to apologize for America's disproportionate response to Pearl Harbor . . . ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MaestroLC
heh heh heh. Coulda had a V-8!

(Oops, sorry. Didn't mean to be sarcastic. Much.)

10 posted on 06/25/2009 12:33:11 PM PDT by TigersEye (0bama: "I can see Mecca from the WH portico." --- Google - Cloward-Piven Strategy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Puppage

Wait a minute. Gasoline and everything made from oil is bad, now the electric cars that the libbies demanded be produced to prevent pollution are bad. The EPA has deemed animal gas-passing to be pollution.

So, we can’t drive any type of automobile and riding horses won’t work because they, well, they might fart. I guess we’re down to riding bicycles or walking but only on days that we don’t consume beans (so as to not add to the pollution our ownselves!). Anybody have any idea how those truckers are going to haul stuff without their trucks? Better be investing in steroid stocks ‘cause those guys are gonna have to bulk up to pull those loads!


11 posted on 06/25/2009 12:37:07 PM PDT by RonInNaples
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Puppage

Exactly.

And then, after we put in a fee for all mileage travelled, people will drive less.

MA has already floated this idea, and I’ve heard that other states are also thinking the same thing.

Say, 5 cents a mile to start with for every mile driven.

Gonna have to account for the revenue drop from less gas usage.


12 posted on 06/25/2009 12:38:46 PM PDT by swarthyguy ("We may be crazy in Pakistan, but not completely out of our minds," ISI Gen. Ahmed Shujaa Pasha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Drango

Lithium is valuable just like lead, it will not be landfilled, it will be reused.

I would be very happy driving a car indirectly powered by domestic coal rather than imported oil!

Bring on the electric cars!


13 posted on 06/25/2009 12:45:59 PM PDT by dangerdoc (dangerdoc (not actually dangerous any more))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Drango

Every cure a new curse.

Don’t worry - the Planners have everything under control.


14 posted on 06/25/2009 12:46:17 PM PDT by 1010RD (First Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MaestroLC
The real advantage of electric cars is that done right they can go fast and are easier to maintain. I have a friend who has driven a Tesla roadster and reports it was awesome. He is signed up for their sedan.

That alone sells me, I could care less about their environmental impact. Hell I have a V12 BMW I call my “little carbon footprint”...

15 posted on 06/25/2009 12:54:24 PM PDT by ejonesie22 (Mitt Romney is a more subtle version of Arlen Specter with better hair...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MaestroLC

Electric cars, combined with increased use of nukes for public power, is an excellent idea.

The concern about “greenhouse gases” is misplaced, but the concern about emissions in general is reasonable. The fact that modern power plants hardly pollute at all is the reason that the luddites have had to move the goal-post, but they are going to complain no matter what any of us do or don’t do, so they should be ignored. After promoting solar and wind energy for decades, they are suddenly against both. Now, as in this article, after promoting electric transportation for decades, they are suddenly going to discover that this is bad also.

Luddites suffer from a mental disorder. You can treat these people with kindness especially if you’re related to them, but never, and I mean never, let them enter a voting booth under any circumstance. Never elect them into higher office. Never trust them with anything more than pocket change.


16 posted on 06/25/2009 12:57:35 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MaestroLC
To do that, the report argues, the United States would have to switch from coal-burning plants to lower-emission sources to generate electricity such as nuclear power.

Which, by itself, would decrease greenhouse gas emission, without switching cars, of course.

17 posted on 06/25/2009 1:03:46 PM PDT by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MaestroLC
"If you are using coal fired power plants and half the country’s electricity comes from coal powered plants, are you just trading one greenhouse gas emitter for another?”

Actually it's worse then that. Modern steam power plants consume about 7% to 10% of the generated power internal to the plant to power all the pumps, fans, and fuel processing machinery needed to run the plant. You lose energy in transmission from the power plant to your home. Utilities estimate that about 20% is lost to resistance in the transmission lines and the various step and step down transformers along the way. You also lose energy when you convert it to "chemical storage" by charging the car's batteries, regardless of the technology involved. (Some are better and some are worse, with "better" generally costing a lot more!) When you go out for a spin you loose more energy in converting the chemical potential back to electricity. And then of course there is the loss at the electric motor converting the electricity to torque and speed.

Every time energy is "converted" from one form to another, there is a loss because real world devices are not 100% efficient, as a matter of fact some devices are remarkably inefficient and the more of them you stack together the worse the overall efficiency becomes. The overall efficiency being the product of multiplying all of the subordinate efficiencies together. To overcome this it is necessary to burn even more coal to make up for all the losses. You would be further ahead if you had a steam car and burned the coal in a boiler to propel the car.

Also unspoken is the cost of maintaining the storage batteries. All storage batteries have a finite number of charge/discharge cycles before they need replacement. That is a result of the electrochemical reaction that first stores and then recovers electrical energy not being 100% reversible.

Clean energy, green energy, pipe dream...

Regards,
GtG

18 posted on 06/25/2009 1:18:55 PM PDT by Gandalf_The_Gray (I live in my own little world, I like it 'cuz they know me here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MaestroLC
Guess I won't be trading this baby in for plug-in Prius after all...


19 posted on 06/25/2009 1:20:04 PM PDT by GalaxieFiveHundred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MaestroLC
It isn't about greenhouse gases or man-made global warming. It is about control.

Reducing our cars, our mobility, our level of production, our level of comfort, and our freedom.

20 posted on 06/25/2009 1:20:42 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (There is no truth in the Pravda Media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-58 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson