Electric cars 'pose environmental threat'
Discussion
Just seen this on the BBC NEWS website. All I would say is good. I have always think they are a load of bullocks. Especially if the power stations are burning fossil fuels. Its a farce, I can only imagine how much emmisions in the country would rocket if everyone switched to electric car tommorow.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19830232
Electric cars 'pose environmental threat'Comments (228) Electric car production creates much carbon emissions as well as toxic pollution Continue reading the main story
Global Car IndustryMcLaren unveils P1 supercar
Jaguar's F-type launches victory debate
Gloomy carmakers gather in Paris
Changing attitudes transform Ferrari
Electric cars might pollute much more than petrol or diesel-powered cars, according to new research.
The Norwegian University of Science and Technology study found greenhouse gas emissions rose dramatically if coal was used to produce the electricity.
Electric car factories also emitted more toxic waste than conventional car factories, their report in the Journal of Industrial Energy said.
However, in some cases electric cars still made sense, the researchers said.
Big impact
The team looked at the life-cycle impact of conventional and electric vehicles.
In essence, they considered how the production, the use and the end-of-life dismantling of a car affects the environment, explained co-author Prof Anders Hammer Stromman.
"The production phase of electric vehicles proved substantially more environmentally intensive," the report said, comparing it to how petrol and diesel cars are made.
"The global warming potential from electric vehicle production is about twice that of conventional vehicles."
In addition, producing batteries and electric motors requires a lot of toxic minerals such as nickel, copper and aluminium.
Hence, the acidification impact is much greater than that of conventional car production.
"Across the other impacts considered in the analysis including potential for effects related to acid rain, airborne particulate matter, smog, human toxicity, ecosystem toxicity and depletion of fossil fuel and mineral resources, electric vehicles consistently perform worse or on par with modern internal combustion engine vehicles, despite virtually zero direct emissions during operation," according to Prof Stromman.
'Counterproductive' efforts
Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote
A battery electric vehicle, with electricity produced by the power generation mix we currently have in Europe, compares favourably in the magnitude of 10% or so with diesel”
End Quote
Dieter Zetsche
Chief executive, Daimler
With electric car production being so damaging to the environment, these cars have already polluted a great deal by the time they hit the road, the report says.
However, if the cars were then powered by electricity made from low-carbon electricity sources, they could nevertheless offer "the potential for substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and exposure to tailpipe emissions" over time.
However, in regions where fossil fuels are the main sources of power, electric cars offer no benefits and may even cause more harm, the report said.
"It is counterproductive to promote electric vehicles in regions where electricity is primarily produced from lignite, coal or even heavy oil combustion."
European benefits
In Europe, where electricity is produced in a number of different ways, electric cars do offer environmental benefits when compared with cars with internal combustion engines, according to the study.
"Electric vehicles powered by the present European electricity mix offer a 10% to 24% decrease in their global warming potential relative to conventional diesel or petrol vehicles."
This is in line with calculations made by some carmakers.
Cars powered by electricity produced in coal power stations pollute more than petrol or diesel cars
"According to our results, a battery electric vehicle, with electricity produced by the power generation mix we currently have in Europe, compares favourably in the magnitude of 10% or so with diesel," Daimler's chief executive Dieter Zetsche told the BBC.
Longer lives
The report pointed out that the longer an electric car in Europe stays mobile, the greater its "lead" over petrol and diesel engines.
"Assuming a vehicle lifetime of 200,000km exaggerates the global warming benefits of electric vehicles to 27-29% relative to petrol and 17-20% relative to diesel," it said.
"An assumption of 100,000km decreases the benefit of electric vehicles to 9-14% with respect to petrol vehicles and results in impacts indistinguishable from those of a diesel vehicle."
An electric car's longevity depends a great deal on how long its battery lasts, not least since it is very expensive to replace them.
Batteries are gradually getting better, which could result in electric cars being used for longer.
However, as petrol and diesel engines are also improving, the relationships between the different types of vehicles are not constant.
"A more significant reduction in global warming could potentially be achieved by increasing fuel efficiency or shifting from petrol to diesel," the report said.
"If you are considering purchasing an electric vehicle for its environmental benefits, first check your electricity source and second look closely at the warranty on the batteries," said Professor Stromman.
Those in power, meanwhile, should recognise "the many potential advantages of electric vehicles [which] should serve as a motivation for cleaning up regional electricity mixes".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19830232
Electric cars 'pose environmental threat'Comments (228) Electric car production creates much carbon emissions as well as toxic pollution Continue reading the main story
Global Car IndustryMcLaren unveils P1 supercar
Jaguar's F-type launches victory debate
Gloomy carmakers gather in Paris
Changing attitudes transform Ferrari
Electric cars might pollute much more than petrol or diesel-powered cars, according to new research.
The Norwegian University of Science and Technology study found greenhouse gas emissions rose dramatically if coal was used to produce the electricity.
Electric car factories also emitted more toxic waste than conventional car factories, their report in the Journal of Industrial Energy said.
However, in some cases electric cars still made sense, the researchers said.
Big impact
The team looked at the life-cycle impact of conventional and electric vehicles.
In essence, they considered how the production, the use and the end-of-life dismantling of a car affects the environment, explained co-author Prof Anders Hammer Stromman.
"The production phase of electric vehicles proved substantially more environmentally intensive," the report said, comparing it to how petrol and diesel cars are made.
"The global warming potential from electric vehicle production is about twice that of conventional vehicles."
In addition, producing batteries and electric motors requires a lot of toxic minerals such as nickel, copper and aluminium.
Hence, the acidification impact is much greater than that of conventional car production.
"Across the other impacts considered in the analysis including potential for effects related to acid rain, airborne particulate matter, smog, human toxicity, ecosystem toxicity and depletion of fossil fuel and mineral resources, electric vehicles consistently perform worse or on par with modern internal combustion engine vehicles, despite virtually zero direct emissions during operation," according to Prof Stromman.
'Counterproductive' efforts
Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote
A battery electric vehicle, with electricity produced by the power generation mix we currently have in Europe, compares favourably in the magnitude of 10% or so with diesel”
End Quote
Dieter Zetsche
Chief executive, Daimler
With electric car production being so damaging to the environment, these cars have already polluted a great deal by the time they hit the road, the report says.
However, if the cars were then powered by electricity made from low-carbon electricity sources, they could nevertheless offer "the potential for substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and exposure to tailpipe emissions" over time.
However, in regions where fossil fuels are the main sources of power, electric cars offer no benefits and may even cause more harm, the report said.
"It is counterproductive to promote electric vehicles in regions where electricity is primarily produced from lignite, coal or even heavy oil combustion."
European benefits
In Europe, where electricity is produced in a number of different ways, electric cars do offer environmental benefits when compared with cars with internal combustion engines, according to the study.
"Electric vehicles powered by the present European electricity mix offer a 10% to 24% decrease in their global warming potential relative to conventional diesel or petrol vehicles."
This is in line with calculations made by some carmakers.
Cars powered by electricity produced in coal power stations pollute more than petrol or diesel cars
"According to our results, a battery electric vehicle, with electricity produced by the power generation mix we currently have in Europe, compares favourably in the magnitude of 10% or so with diesel," Daimler's chief executive Dieter Zetsche told the BBC.
Longer lives
The report pointed out that the longer an electric car in Europe stays mobile, the greater its "lead" over petrol and diesel engines.
"Assuming a vehicle lifetime of 200,000km exaggerates the global warming benefits of electric vehicles to 27-29% relative to petrol and 17-20% relative to diesel," it said.
"An assumption of 100,000km decreases the benefit of electric vehicles to 9-14% with respect to petrol vehicles and results in impacts indistinguishable from those of a diesel vehicle."
An electric car's longevity depends a great deal on how long its battery lasts, not least since it is very expensive to replace them.
Batteries are gradually getting better, which could result in electric cars being used for longer.
However, as petrol and diesel engines are also improving, the relationships between the different types of vehicles are not constant.
"A more significant reduction in global warming could potentially be achieved by increasing fuel efficiency or shifting from petrol to diesel," the report said.
"If you are considering purchasing an electric vehicle for its environmental benefits, first check your electricity source and second look closely at the warranty on the batteries," said Professor Stromman.
Those in power, meanwhile, should recognise "the many potential advantages of electric vehicles [which] should serve as a motivation for cleaning up regional electricity mixes".
"Greenhouse Gases"? "Global Warming"?
Metaphorically, "yesterday's article" - surprised at the BBC using such terms and going against the "climate change" grain
. Ah, but what's this? "Substantially more environmentally intensive" as regards production??? That's a "bulls
t bingo" phrase!
And still they (electric vehicles) can make sense in some circumstances?? (They will only make environmental sense if they do mileages approaching a trip to the moon per set of batteries and using non-Carbon electricity sources 
.)
No, I'm not surprised at this garbage from the Beeb!
Metaphorically, "yesterday's article" - surprised at the BBC using such terms and going against the "climate change" grain
. Ah, but what's this? "Substantially more environmentally intensive" as regards production??? That's a "bullst bingo" phrase!And still they (electric vehicles) can make sense in some circumstances??
(They will only make environmental sense if they do mileages approaching a trip to the moon per set of batteries and using non-Carbon electricity sources .)No, I'm not surprised at this garbage from the Beeb!
Ain't we overlooking the fact that changing 10,000,000 cars individually to be greener (when the technology is available) is a very expensive and is going to be a nightmare, but having 10,000,000 electric cars that draw their power from a dozen or so sources means just those electricity generating stations need to be upgraded.
So, when it happens, it'll be massively cheaper as a whole, quicker, and so less impact on our lives and wallets.
So, when it happens, it'll be massively cheaper as a whole, quicker, and so less impact on our lives and wallets.
fkinhell why piss all the funds up the wall on electric cars when we can now create petrol from air n CO2 . If i were runnin the show id buy fields and cover them in solar pannels,some of those snake looking things that gather energy from movement plonk them in the sea and then spend the rest on creating petrol from air 'n' CO2 .
kinhell why piss all the funds up the wall on electric cars when we can now create petrol from air n CO2 . If i were runnin the show id buy fields and cover them in solar pannels,some of those snake looking things that gather energy from movement plonk them in the sea and then spend the rest on creating petrol from air 'n' CO2 .
Not sure how I missed this original thread...
As an environmental engineer and an in the blood pistonhead, this has been known for a very long time. I have ran many calcs' on electric car polution levels calc'd on cradle to grave modelling and the reading's not at all good -even with nuclear power. Include power losses, and therefore additional polution levels, in getting power to point of distribution for the user and the figures are shocking where traditional power distribution losses run at between 68% and 82%.
I am a big supporter of all things environmental providing they make economic and environmental sense. That their business models and 'green' credibility stack up to scrutiny. This is something that does not stack up with electrically powered vehicles.
The real way forward is hydrogen powered vehicles. Little difference in equipment needed to an LPG system and there are proven technologies available today that enable us all to produce hydrogen at home in our gardens and store the hydrogen in LPG-type tanks. Very straight forward, very clean energy and produced in pence per litre. Of course this would cause overnight collapse with most western Governments whose revenue reliance on petroleum based economic product is so accute. Simple fact folks, no western country can afford to completely alter the current [no pun intended] supply model as the economic values are too great...from the point of oil extraction right the way through to us filling up at Tesco or Sainsbury's.
As with all 'green' vehicles, the only way of ensuring minimum polution from any vehicle is to produce its fuel at the vehicles point of usage. This means at home, at the office, at the supermarket, at the public car park...or even better...on the vehicle itself
As an environmental engineer and an in the blood pistonhead, this has been known for a very long time. I have ran many calcs' on electric car polution levels calc'd on cradle to grave modelling and the reading's not at all good -even with nuclear power. Include power losses, and therefore additional polution levels, in getting power to point of distribution for the user and the figures are shocking where traditional power distribution losses run at between 68% and 82%.
I am a big supporter of all things environmental providing they make economic and environmental sense. That their business models and 'green' credibility stack up to scrutiny. This is something that does not stack up with electrically powered vehicles.
The real way forward is hydrogen powered vehicles. Little difference in equipment needed to an LPG system and there are proven technologies available today that enable us all to produce hydrogen at home in our gardens and store the hydrogen in LPG-type tanks. Very straight forward, very clean energy and produced in pence per litre. Of course this would cause overnight collapse with most western Governments whose revenue reliance on petroleum based economic product is so accute. Simple fact folks, no western country can afford to completely alter the current [no pun intended] supply model as the economic values are too great...from the point of oil extraction right the way through to us filling up at Tesco or Sainsbury's.
As with all 'green' vehicles, the only way of ensuring minimum polution from any vehicle is to produce its fuel at the vehicles point of usage. This means at home, at the office, at the supermarket, at the public car park...or even better...on the vehicle itself
From what I have learnt recently is the people buying them are typically eco home owners producing their own power, be that solar, wind or hydro or a combination. This would make sense, plugging the things into a coal fired powered station is not the solution obviously.
Still at least the Renault Zoe looks quite smart, possibly the first electric car any discerning non blind person might consider as an everyday car.
Still at least the Renault Zoe looks quite smart, possibly the first electric car any discerning non blind person might consider as an everyday car.
v8250 said:
Not sure how I missed this original thread...
As an environmental engineer and an in the blood pistonhead, this has been known for a very long time. I have ran many calcs' on electric car polution levels calc'd on cradle to grave modelling and the reading's not at all good -even with nuclear power. Include power losses, and therefore additional polution levels, in getting power to point of distribution for the user and the figures are shocking where traditional power distribution losses run at between 68% and 82%.
I am a big supporter of all things environmental providing they make economic and environmental sense. That their business models and 'green' credibility stack up to scrutiny. This is something that does not stack up with electrically powered vehicles.
The real way forward is hydrogen powered vehicles. Little difference in equipment needed to an LPG system and there are proven technologies available today that enable us all to produce hydrogen at home in our gardens and store the hydrogen in LPG-type tanks. Very straight forward, very clean energy and produced in pence per litre. Of course this would cause overnight collapse with most western Governments whose revenue reliance on petroleum based economic product is so accute. Simple fact folks, no western country can afford to completely alter the current [no pun intended] supply model as the economic values are too great...from the point of oil extraction right the way through to us filling up at Tesco or Sainsbury's.
As with all 'green' vehicles, the only way of ensuring minimum polution from any vehicle is to produce its fuel at the vehicles point of usage. This means at home, at the office, at the supermarket, at the public car park...or even better...on the vehicle itself
Other than needing to store hydrogen cryogenically and hydrogen cracking of many metals means the current supply infrastructure won't work with hydrogen.As an environmental engineer and an in the blood pistonhead, this has been known for a very long time. I have ran many calcs' on electric car polution levels calc'd on cradle to grave modelling and the reading's not at all good -even with nuclear power. Include power losses, and therefore additional polution levels, in getting power to point of distribution for the user and the figures are shocking where traditional power distribution losses run at between 68% and 82%.
I am a big supporter of all things environmental providing they make economic and environmental sense. That their business models and 'green' credibility stack up to scrutiny. This is something that does not stack up with electrically powered vehicles.
The real way forward is hydrogen powered vehicles. Little difference in equipment needed to an LPG system and there are proven technologies available today that enable us all to produce hydrogen at home in our gardens and store the hydrogen in LPG-type tanks. Very straight forward, very clean energy and produced in pence per litre. Of course this would cause overnight collapse with most western Governments whose revenue reliance on petroleum based economic product is so accute. Simple fact folks, no western country can afford to completely alter the current [no pun intended] supply model as the economic values are too great...from the point of oil extraction right the way through to us filling up at Tesco or Sainsbury's.
As with all 'green' vehicles, the only way of ensuring minimum polution from any vehicle is to produce its fuel at the vehicles point of usage. This means at home, at the office, at the supermarket, at the public car park...or even better...on the vehicle itself
Making hydrogen at home by sequestration of natural gas isn't really fixing the issue either.
Pence per litre? It's $5 a kilo.
Mr Viking said:
i remember an article claiming a study where jeep wranglers had the least impact because until you got to high mileages, the energy used to create the car was still the major source of pollution. Think they were claiming a quite low lifespan of 70k miles though
Manufacturing and transporting of a new car accounts for up to 28percent of the overall emissions generated in a cars life span. This also doesn't take into consideration of the environmental impact when scrapping. Also. Hybrids use more energy during the manufacturing process along with scrappage. Yes it's more ecological to hold onto your old car.
Do the government know this? Of course.
Speedy1995 said:
fkinhell why piss all the funds up the wall on electric cars when we can now create petrol from air n CO2 . If i were runnin the show id buy fields and cover them in solar pannels,some of those snake looking things that gather energy from movement plonk them in the sea and then spend the rest on creating petrol from air 'n' CO2 .
Air 'and' CO2?kinhell why piss all the funds up the wall on electric cars when we can now create petrol from air n CO2 . If i were runnin the show id buy fields and cover them in solar pannels,some of those snake looking things that gather energy from movement plonk them in the sea and then spend the rest on creating petrol from air 'n' CO2 .This Norwegian Study was discredited by pro-EV dude, Robert Llewellyn (see https://plus.google.com/u/0/+RobertLlewellyn/posts... a widely-respected opinion, based on the fact Statoil funded the "research". They had their maths all wrong. And the BBC really ought to have exercised more scrutiny on the fact-checking front.
As a comparison it would be interesting to look at how the power generation/supply and energy losses when distributing the HV supply to A. the London Tube network and B. Main Line national railways. I would expect the energy costs and 'losses' distributing HV power continually (from 5am through to 1am or so next day with underground) to be horrific.
We just know don't we that once a significant number of people buy and use electric vehicles the nation grid will become overloaded (and it is close to capacity right now) and then what seemed like a 'cheap' idea (even though a faff) to charge-up at home will be banned - we'll have to have an equivalent of a 'white' electricity meter with unique plugs and supply voltage etc. The current news about expanding road charging would help HMG recoup losses from fuel taxation - it all stinks!
We just know don't we that once a significant number of people buy and use electric vehicles the nation grid will become overloaded (and it is close to capacity right now) and then what seemed like a 'cheap' idea (even though a faff) to charge-up at home will be banned - we'll have to have an equivalent of a 'white' electricity meter with unique plugs and supply voltage etc. The current news about expanding road charging would help HMG recoup losses from fuel taxation - it all stinks!
Robb F said:
Speedy1995 said:
fkinhell why piss all the funds up the wall on electric cars when we can now create petrol from air n CO2 . If i were runnin the show id buy fields and cover them in solar pannels,some of those snake looking things that gather energy from movement plonk them in the sea and then spend the rest on creating petrol from air 'n' CO2 .
Air 'and' CO2?kinhell why piss all the funds up the wall on electric cars when we can now create petrol from air n CO2 . If i were runnin the show id buy fields and cover them in solar pannels,some of those snake looking things that gather energy from movement plonk them in the sea and then spend the rest on creating petrol from air 'n' CO2 .What we need, to be brutal, is a massive reduction in the global population, and stringent birth control to stop the human race from growing in numbers that are not sustainable in terms of resources available.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff