Electric cars not so green

[Tempest]

Quote:
The study was commissioned by the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership, which is jointly funded by the British government and the car industry. It found that a mid-size electric car would produce 23.1 tonnes of CO2 over its lifetime, compared with 24 tonnes for a similar petrol car. Emissions from manufacturing electric cars are at least 50 per cent higher because batteries are made from materials such as lithium, copper and refined silicon, which require much energy to be processed.

Many electric cars are expected to need a replacement battery after a few years. Once the emissions from producing the second battery are added in, the total CO2 from producing an electric car rises to 12.6 tonnes, compared with 5.6 tonnes for a petrol car. Disposal also produces double the emissions because of the energy consumed in recovering and recycling metals in the battery. The study also took into account carbon emitted to generate the grid electricity consumed.

And:
Quote:
An electric car owner would have to drive at least 129,000km before producing a net saving in CO2. Many electric cars will not travel that far in their lifetime because they typically have a range of less than 145km on a single charge and are unsuitable for long trips. Even those driven 160,000km would save only about a tonne of CO2 over their lifetimes.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/hea...6-1226073103576

These seem to use a lot more energy than is advertised.

 

[97prizm]

I try to look at both sides of the picture as many "green" environmentalists will say that they are good and others will argue that they are bad. Looking at strictly electric cars without gasoline engines you do have to look at more than savings of fuel. "There is no free lunch" remember that. Many cities in the USA are still receiving their power via coal power plants which spew nasty chemicals into the air. I will say that the TOyota Prius is a joke, and would like to see them removed from the road. Correct me if I;m wrong but from what I've read the nickel plant in Sudbury Ontario has killed the environment. Toyota owned it from what it sounds like. I met a gust who checked into the hotel that I work at and he is from Sudbury and he said that yes it haSs done major damage. Couple that with this article from the Orlando Sentinel "But there's more. From the Sudbury plant, the smelted nickel is shipped to Europe, where it's refined in Wales. Next, it's sent to China, where it's manufactured in nickel foam. The nickel is then moved to Japan, where Prius batteries are made.

But the long, fossil-fuel-burning journey doesn't end there. After the batteries are placed in the Prius, some of the nickel is round-tripped back to North America while some is shipped to Europe in cars sold outside Japan."

 

[mechtech2]

The overall picture [at this present level of instituted technology] is that they are less green than your Grandpa's Packard.

 

[d00df00d]

Since the article cites no source, here it is -- or, at least, here's the only thing I could find on the Internet that seems to be an approximation of the source in question:

http://www.lowcvp.org.uk/assets/pressreleases/LowCVP_Lifecycle_Study_June2011.pdf

That presentation doesn't bear much resemblance to what The Australian is talking about. For one thing, it shows a delta between full-electric and full-petrol cars MUCH bigger than 0.9 tons of CO2. For another thing, the presentation cautions that this kind of analysis is in its infancy, needs to be standardized before it is meaningful, and so on; in other words, as decisive as the report's results seem, they are simply a demonstration of that one organization's methods and should not be considered authoritative. In sum, it both appears more decisive and actually is less so than The Australian claims.

Most puzzling is the 23.1 figure that The Australian cites. I can't seem to find that number anywhere, except on decidedly agenda-driven websites that are simply parroting the same text as the article you linked (often without attribution).

If you can demonstrate otherwise, please do so. I share your suspicion that electric cars are not as green as they seem, so I'm really interested to hear if there's anything that will back up that assertion with any degree of certainty.

 

[tig1]

It cost a lot of green to buy them.

 

[JHZR2]

I agree that the battery mining and manufacturing process is NOT green by any stretch. However, the way that batteries are defined as end of life (80% of initial capacity) for autos means that there is a lotof actual life left. The issue is that a car is so volumetrically and gravametrically constrained. Those batteries may go on to another application like utility frequency regulation or grid backup.

Also, the materials are generally recyclable or incnerable. The organic electrolytes can be burned to generate heat/power, as can the carbon anode. The nickel/cobalt/aluminum/manganese can all be recycled, so it's not like the mini g inefficiency is in place everytime.

Longe term as we move from intercalation batteries to air cathode batteries, the. The anode is LI metal, which can readily be recycled at end of life using aqueous precipitation reactions which are very easy to deal with.

So while I agree to a point, the article doesn't really grasp the long term progression of the technology, and where it is going in order to be energetically competitive with fossil fuels on a Wh/kg and Wh/L basis.

 

[dparm]

I think many people go for "green" cars to make a political statement about oil dependence.

 

[JHZR2]

What's to say it is political?

If I said that I want to live debt free because I dont want to be reliant on the credit that banks profit so heavily from, would that be a political statement too? It IS the same point.

And we dont want to get political here...

 

[Silk]

Originally Posted By: tig1
It cost a lot of green to buy them.


We had the Mitsubishi i MiEV down last week - they are sending them around the dealers.It came down from our other branch 40km away,and only had a 1/4 tank left in it...we had to fit another socket to our wall plug to charge it. They couldn't take it back that night in the rain - using the lights,wipers and heater would drain it completely.

You can get an i-Car for NZ$16,000....the i MiEV costs NZ$60,000. The i-Car is very economical,there is no way the i MiEV offers any savings.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: dparm
I think many people go for "green" cars to make a political statement about oil dependence.

It sure seems that way sometimes.

I think it's more that they aren't thinking too deeply about it, and just leaping from vague notions of fuel economy to conclusions of overall cost savings and/or environmental impact without actually doing any math.

 

[exranger06]

Originally Posted By: 97prizm
I will say that the TOyota Prius is a joke, and would like to see them removed from the road. Correct me if I;m wrong but from what I've read the nickel plant in Sudbury Ontario has killed the environment. Toyota owned it from what it sounds like.


Toyota does NOT own the Sudbury mine. That mine has been mining in that location for over 100 years (LONG before the Prius was built) and Toyota buys only about 0.5% of the nickel prodcued there. The rest is sold to other companies and industries. It is obvious your quotes came from the CNW "study" that says a Hummer is more environmentally friendly than the Prius.

AKA the study that has no scientific data whatsoever and has been laughed at all over the internet...

 

[dparm]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
What's to say it is political?

If I said that I want to live debt free because I dont want to be reliant on the credit that banks profit so heavily from, would that be a political statement too? It IS the same point.

And we dont want to get political here...


I'm not steering the conversation that way at all. I'm merely stating that there are people who buy hybrids knowing it may not actually be that much more green. Not everyone gets a hybrid for the improved mileage is all I'm saying.

In fact, I believe Top Gear had a good segment with a Prius against an M3.

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d

http://www.lowcvp.org.uk/assets/pressreleases/LowCVP_Lifecycle_Study_June2011.pdf

Thanks for the additional information. I especially like:
Quote:
Ricardo Chief Technology & Innovation Officer and Chairman of the LowCVP, Prof. Neville Jackson, said “There is an emerging consensus that we need to move towards a more holistic analysis of whole life CO2 emissions in order to make more informed and better long term decisions on future technologies.
“Life cycle analysis is still in its infancy, with little defined process and standards. The Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership report is an important contribution to this type of analysis and highlights the need to work toward a common methodology and approach to deliver consistent and robust life cycle data on CO2 emissions.”

This is an admission that the push for "green" cars by government is occurring without any meaningful research into the effectiveness of the policies, and that there isn't even a standard to judge them by. I.e., completely arbitrary policies.

Typical.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: dparm
In fact, I believe Top Gear had a good segment with a Prius against an M3.

Summary:

- Intro by Clarkson on hideous environmental impact of battery production
- Stig drives Prius at its limit on the test track while M3 follows
- M3 gets better fuel economy

The outcome of the track test was not surprising considering the Prius was being driven well outside its most efficient range of RPM and speeds, while the M3 was bumbling along in high gears.

It was a good way to drive home the potential impact of driving style on fuel economy, but not something that translates well into real experience.

 

[brianl703]

They'll be a lot more green when the coal power plants are all shut down and electricity goes up 60%.

 

[Silk]

We only have one coal powered plant in our country,and it doesn't even burn coal most of the time. Everyone would cheer if it got shut down.

 

[crinkles]

Can't believe I am agreeing with Tempest.

 

[friendly_jacek]

Originally Posted By: 97prizm

I will say that the TOyota Prius is a joke, and would like to see them removed from the road.


Could you please explain why? I had one for several months and have a lifetime MPG of 51 MPG. No maintenance, except oil every 10000 miles. I paid for that the "astronomical" price of 21k in 2010 (brand new 2010 car). Batteries are not failing as the naysayers said they would and are recycled easily (toyota pays core for return). Due to those naysayers, I delayed my purchase to have more data on batteries. That was a good thing as I purchased Prius when no one wanted then in 2010 ("cheap" gas then) and 3rd generation is much nicer that previous ones.

I will never go back to gas guzzlers. My next car will be plug in hybrid.

I don't know why there is so much hatred of Prius on BITOG, is it a red neck thing?

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: crinkles
Can't believe I am agreeing with Tempest.

 

[grampi]

Every time someone comes out with something new, the naysayers hen peck the he!! out of it. The bottom line is this; man MUST develop vehicles and other devices that use energy other than the energy produced by fossil fuels as fossil fuels are in finite supply, or man goes back to living in the stone age. The process of developing alternative energy sources is going to take time, and there will be many stumbling blocks along the way. Ridiculing every attempt at what must be done is counterproductive.