Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Hybrid Vehicles Electric Vehicles Electric Vehicle Pros & Cons
1586 messages, Last post on Oct 23, 2009 at 4:19 PM
You are in the Electric Vehicles Forum. Your Host is pf_flyer
|
Replying to: rorr (Aug 03, 2006 2:50 pm) Is it? I'd like to see the figures that support that. Here is a Canadian study: http://evworld.com/library/CanadaFuelCycle.pdf "battery electric vehicles operating in provinces which rely primarily on electricity generated from coal, will produce 55% to 59% less greenhouse gas emissions compared to a gasoline internal combustion engine vehicle, and will produce between 80% and 92% less total other (non-CO2) emissions depending on the specific type of coal used." |
|
|
Replying to: tpe (Aug 03, 2006 3:34 pm) Ditto that. I just paid over 19 cents per kWh for a good part of my bill last month (the rate steps up with usage). That makes the 27 cents per kWh for a sunny location not sound so out of line. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: prm2000 (Aug 03, 2006 4:35 pm) Based on your comments, I feel safe to conclude: 1. Electric is less polluting and will continue to improve, 2. Battery technology will continue to improve to allow for longer range and less interruption for re-charge, 3. Those of us that are able to generate our own power will have an increased motivation to do so, which should also help drive down the price, 4. Gas prices will increase to the point that even those that would prefer to keep their old polluting vehicles, would have to let their wallets dictate a cheaper solution.
|
|
|
Replying to: tpe (Aug 03, 2006 3:34 pm) You can't. But you are ENTIRELY missing my point. If one buys an electric vehicle, and PLUGS INTO THE GRID, the odds that the electricity they use will be from solar PV will be essentially ZERO. Why? Because utility companies can produce electricity all day long at 3-5 cents per kWh using fossil fuels. Now, if one were to install their OWN set of PV cells (which is where all the explosive growth that you mentioned is coming from), and THEN plugged their electric car in, this would be the 'cleaner' solution. Please understand, I'm not AGAINST electric cars. I'm just saying that those who go that route and pull energy off the public grid MAY NOT be reducing pollution/demand for fossil fuels as much as they think.
|
|
|
Replying to: rorr (Aug 04, 2006 5:10 am) I agree with that. The terms "green" or "clean" are not absolute. It would be more accurate for a person driving an EV to state that he has made a "greener" choice. He is still impacting the environment, just not as much as if he was driving an ICE.
|
|
|
Replying to: prm2000 (Aug 03, 2006 4:35 pm) I'm going to dig a little deeper on this issue but I have this comment to make regarding one of their assumptions: They've comparing the emmissions from various types of power sources supplying electricity for EVs against the vehicle emmissions from an AVERAGE fleet of cars using ICEs. Is this a valid assumption to make? How likely are owners of large trucks/SUVs to move to EVs? And how likely are the owners of EVs to be migrating from current LEV and ULEV cars? I'm going to try and dig up the emissions numbers for the vehicles which are actually USED by those most likely to make the step from ICEs to pure EVs. I'll then compare THOSE emissions numbers to the emission numbers used in that analysis.
|
|
|
Replying to: tpe (Aug 04, 2006 6:22 am) Again, we don't know that. The EV study reference above compared the emissions from various power plants to the emissions of AVERAGE vehicles. If one is already driving a LEV or ULEV Honda (or perhaps a hybrid like the Prius), if THOSE people make the jump to EV, what is the comparison of their current ICE emissions to that of a power plant? In all honesty: who is more likely to make the jump to a 100% EV - the current owner of a Prius or the owner of a 10-year old Chevy Malibu?
|
|
|
Replying to: rorr (Aug 04, 2006 5:10 am) The 50% of electricity that is coal generated might not reduce emissions as much as people think (although it still reduces emissions), but the other 50% of generated electricity would reduce emissions dramatically. In this whole discussion I don't hear enough talk about how electric cars would dramatically reduce the amount of oil we import. At the moment the national security issue is the most important factor to me. The increased efficiency and dramatically reduced emissions are gravy. I think it is criminal that politicians help Detroit and Big Oil to suppress the electric car, and then spend many billions to fight foreign wars to stabilize the middle east oil fields.
|
|
|
Replying to: prm2000 (Aug 04, 2006 6:38 am) For a very good reason, I will not contribute to such a discussion. Discussions regarding emissions comparisons and energy production can be done in a (somewhat) level-headed means. Facts and data can be presented and mulled over. Agreements can be reached (I think) without too much animosity. However, if some individuals simply feel COMPELED to drag politics into this discussion, it can ONLY end up with one side wanting to pull the ears off the folks on the other side. If your INTENT is to run me off, then by all means let's have this discussion degenerate into whining about 'Big Oil' and 'foreign wars to stabilize oil fields'.
|
|
|
Replying to: rorr (Aug 04, 2006 6:37 am) Tesla Motors has an arrangement with solar installers for buyers interested in re-charging their Roadster with the sun's energy. People that can afford this car can probably also afford a PV system. That represents closing the loop.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Hybrid Vehicles Electric Vehicles Electric Vehicle Pros & Cons
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
