GAO: Electric cars won’t reduce carbon emissions
posted at 9:22 pm on July 9, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
The push for conversion to plug-in electric cars will do nothing to stop carbon emissions, a report by the GAO warns, throwing cold water on a push by Democrats to get more plug-ins on the road. In fact, the problem could be made worse as demand goes up at coal-fired electrical plants. Plus, the need for batteries may just have the US changing the dictators to which we’re chained, as IBD reports:
It’s a beautiful theory — highways full of electric cars emitting no greenhouse gases or pollutants after being plugged into an outlet in our garages overnight. The problem, according to a new Government Accountability Office report, is that the effort may only shift the problem somewhere else.
“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?” asks Mark Gaffigan, co-author of the GAO report. The report itself notes: “Reductions in CO2 emissions depend on generating electricity used to charge the vehicles from lower-emission sources of energy.”
The GAO report says a plug-in compact car, if recharged at an outlet drawing its power from coal, provides a carbon dioxide savings of only 4% to 5%. If the feeling of saving the environment from driving an electric car causes people to drive more, that small amount of savings vanishes entirely.
This misses another point as well, one I mentioned during the campaign. Obama wants the US to decrease its electrical demand over the next several years as a means of conservation as we switch away from coal and other fossil fuels as a source for power. Transferring cars from gasoline to electricity would vastly increase demand for power at the outlet, which would conflict with the decrease Obama wants to mandate. The result would be prices skyrocketing even higher, and people unable to use their vehicles from a lack of ability to pay for recharging them.
Of course, we have a source for electricity in abundance: nuclear power. IBD suggests that a program to rapidly expand our nuclear-power generation could fill the gap while generating zero carbon emissions. The Obama administration and the Democrats don’t want that, though. They shut down the Yucca Mountain nuclear storage facility, which would have recycled used fuel rods into material for more nuclear power, giving us an almost-completely renewing resource for decades into the future.
The GAO also points out that electric cars would have the US trading one set of dictators for another in order to power our cars. The batteries for electric vehicles are lithium-ion, and for the experimental production levels in the US at this moment, we have enough lithium resources to keep pace. However, once we start building electric cars in mass numbers, we will quickly run through our proven stores of lithium. We would most likely have to do business with Hugo Chavez lackey Evo Morales of Bolivia, where half of the world’s proven stores of lithium reside. Even if we didn’t buy directly from the leftist leader, Morales has the ability to set the global price — just as Saudi Arabia and OPEC do with oil.
Plug-in electrics just trade one carbon source for another, one dictator for another, and deliver a lower-standard vehicle. It’s about as lose-lose as it gets, at least without nuclear power to fuel it.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
This will always be true except in the magical mind of liberals who think it is all about how we feel, not about physics.
MikeA on July 9, 2009 at 10:47 PM
true..the liberals of today would have been the alchmists of the dark ages trying to change lead into gold.
unseen on July 9, 2009 at 10:49 PM
O-Dub on July 9, 2009 at 10:20 PM
Yeah, I think Ed is conflating the storage site at Yucca Mountain with the reprocessing that has been suggested elsewhere. My understanding (from folks who work in the industry in another state) is that the plan was to seal spent radioactive material in casks, transport it to Yucca, and bury it essentially forever.
Closing Yucca basically means we reprocess, or we stop using it as the on-site storage gets filled up, from what I can tell.
cs89 on July 9, 2009 at 10:50 PM
Green on the outside, red all the way through.
It’s about control.
spmat on July 9, 2009 at 10:52 PM
This is all much ado about nothing, Ed.
We have our own supply, for one thing. All it takes is a moderate price increase.
Bolivia and China may have the easiest to get, but lithium is somewhat plentiful.
silverfox on July 9, 2009 at 10:52 PM
Tommylotto,
I hope you have won the lotto or you are rich because that Tesla electric car said that the price starts at $101,500 and goes up from there. That’s about 4 times the average price of a gasoline powered car.
TruthToBeTold on July 9, 2009 at 10:54 PM
Zero-emission electric cars that require electricity generated by pollution-belching, eeeevil coal plants.
Green on the outside, brown on the inside.
TheMightyMonarch on July 9, 2009 at 10:55 PM
I swear if I see one of these damn things in my town I’m gonna do like college days. Find two other guys, pick the damn thing up and set it down between two immovable objects!
ie. trees or preferably fire hydrants and trees!
Then set a safe distance away and watch the owners scratch their heads wondering what the hell to do.
I know, fools, call your Presidente Pinnochio. Maybe he will send the New Black Panthers over to move it!
dhunter on July 9, 2009 at 10:56 PM
Close. FIFY
MikeA on July 9, 2009 at 10:56 PM
Obama had his acolytes believing electricity comes from a hole in the wall!
drjohn on July 9, 2009 at 10:59 PM
The “father” of the Chevy Volt, Bob Lutz, got his sef in “trouble” by candidly saying he thought, and presumably still thinks, that man-caused global warming is a total crock of sh*t. Like he said :
“I’m motivated more by the desire to replace imported oil than by the CO2 [argument].”
silverfox on July 9, 2009 at 11:02 PM
Call around for an electric tow truck.
WashJeff on July 9, 2009 at 11:09 PM
The whole point of plug-in cars is to use off-peak electricity, which is essentially going to waste:
Michael Morris, Chairman and CEO of American Electric Power, believes that the U.S. electrical grid is capable of supporting up to 60 million plug-in hybrid vehicles right now. In a speech at the Detroit Economic Club, the chief of the biggest electricity supplier in the United States said that up to 20 percent of the U.S. vehicle fleet could be switched over to plug-in capability and the grid would be fine. Like other proponents of plug-in vehicles, Morris feels that PHEVs would actually help improve load balancing on the grid if they are plugged in during off-peak hours.
silverfox on July 9, 2009 at 11:10 PM
I am for the electric vehicles in urban areas but at same time we need to cut the red tape on nuclear power (possibly even subsidize it), and we need to drill here now to stop the flow of money to dictators. We need an “all of the above” energy policy not because of the global warming farc but for our survival. I live in the most red state in cow country, right now I do not invision elecric tractors and trucks.
farright on July 9, 2009 at 11:13 PM
Democrats don’t know math
golfballs03 on July 9, 2009 at 11:13 PM
If you convert the amount of oil used for transportation to Kilowatt hours…
You would need 140% of all electricity generated in the US last year JUST to run transportation.
With the line loss inherent with and electric grid… you would need to TRIPLE the amount of electricity generated to run transportation with electricty, and maintain current usage rates.
But the Obama admin does not seem to know anything about basic math, or physics.
Romeo13 on July 9, 2009 at 11:15 PM
The depressing thing is that the GAO actually has to publish a study to get this point across. How dumb is Congress to not even ask where the electricity comes from?
didymus on July 9, 2009 at 11:17 PM
So, how will we get the eklecriscity after jughears has, in his own words “Bankrupted the coal industry”??
Oh, silly me, I forgot, Electricity comes from unicorn farts.
Of course, the kleptocracy will continue to ride in their Zil Limousines.
bullseye on July 9, 2009 at 11:18 PM
Dammit I’m waiting for bungee power.
gooddad on July 9, 2009 at 11:18 PM
Sorry, that was just begging to be ‘fixed’
In addition to the math you mentioned, they sure as hell don’t know geology. 14k years ago, the great lakes didn’t exist. they were covered by a freaking glacier. I suppose if Ogg and Zorg used smart clown kars to hunt the wooly mammoth, the ice would never have melted and the great lakes would still be under a glacier.
bullseye on July 9, 2009 at 11:21 PM
As for production, the EV will roll off of the lines at the Oppama plant located in Japan during the winter of 2010. According to Nissan, additional production facilities could be used if demand requires them to ramp up production. The company set their target at 50,000 units per year initially, but is open to increasing production by 2012 or 2013 if need be. The electric motor for the vehicle will be made in Yokohama.
According to the company, this vehicle will be priced near that of the average compact vehicle. Research has shown that typically equipped compact models come in around $27,000.
silverfox on July 9, 2009 at 11:21 PM
Ahhhh man…..And I would have looked so hot with both my asscheeks taking up the front seat and my head hanging out the window to breathe.
proudteadrinker on July 9, 2009 at 11:26 PM
Unfortunately, as sexy as the Tesla cars look, only the $100K+ car is available. The rest are still 2-3 years out before production starts (the <$50K cars). Plus, their production quantities are REALLY low.
The rest of us will be motoring around in our clown cars of death. Well, the massive deaths on the highways will reduce the population and thus reduce our overall cost of health care! See, it all works out in the end. He does have a master plan don’t you know!
Mo_mac on July 9, 2009 at 11:28 PM
Tesla’s sedan is supposed to be around 40k but its been in development sense the dawn of time….
liquidflorian on July 9, 2009 at 11:30 PM
Algore Goebbles will find the perfect way to make this work. This is why he will be a billionaire within the next ten years….
DL13 on July 9, 2009 at 11:31 PM
Not all electric vehicles have to be clown cars.
silverfox on July 9, 2009 at 11:35 PM
Ever been to a circus. Clown cares are surprisingly roomy.
Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 11:37 PM
I’m not so certain about the numbers concerning energy savings; the lithium ion battery is no more efficient than any other battery, i.e. you get back about 60% of the energy you put in-the loss is heat generation (just like a light bulb).
The Tesla car, by the way loses battery efficiency over time; I believe Tesla reported that at 40K miles you have a 20% loss in charge capacity. The replacement battery pack, by the way, is $20K. Good luck with that one.
mad scientist on July 9, 2009 at 11:37 PM
cares=cars
Jeff from WI on July 9, 2009 at 11:37 PM
GM spent 8 years and a billion dollars to prove that electric cars would work, then gave up. Why are they back? Government funding of course.
Maybe we can put postal workers (union of course) into GM plants to build them; the perfect solution.
/sarc
mad scientist on July 9, 2009 at 11:40 PM
Screw the GAO, here’s what the DOE said in 2006:
A new study by the Department of Energy demonstrates that America’s power grid could accommodate converting 84% of all vehicles into plug-in hybrids. Since plug-in hybrids could handle the average daily commute of most Americans, the study assumed owners would primarily fill up during non-peak hours – such as after 5.
silverfox on July 9, 2009 at 11:41 PM
No. It’s not lose lose, it is in fact win win.
We have the off-peak electricity, unused.
We have the lithium, it’s in Nevada.
It’s a brilliant solution… y’all just need to recognize that.
silverfox on July 9, 2009 at 11:48 PM
silverfox on July 9, 2009 at 11:41 PM
Screw the hybrids; you’re just using a gasoline engine to charge a battery that gives you back 60% of what you put in. Convert to a plug-in hybrid and you’re using a coal-fired power plant to charge even more batteries. Again, a 40% loss. The answer is a more efficient fuel-burning internal combustion engine. MIT had an 8-cylinder Ford Explorer with a calculated 40mpg.
There are stories about using hydrogen as a fuel in an internal combustion engine; it’s theoretically possible but I don’t know if it has actually been successfully tried. The problem is generating the hydrogen in the first place. What readily available fuel already has all that energy stored in it? gasoline, LP, you get the picture.
mad scientist on July 9, 2009 at 11:54 PM
Please, go do the math yourself…
Do a quick internet search for the amount of oil we use for transportation.
Then a search to convert the energy of a barrel of oil to Kilowatt hours…
Then check the total amount of Electricity generated in America…
Spend a few minutes looking at the base numbers… not the spin of politicians.
And off peak electricity? You do know that they take Electricity production OFFLINE during offpeak hours? Not every source runs at full capacity 24 hours a day…
So, the energy savings you speak of are a crock.
Romeo13 on July 9, 2009 at 11:57 PM
GM and its executives were not to blame for the credit mess.
They weren’t to blame for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
That crap was brought to you by Raines, Dodd and Frank.
Actually, GM was just doing its capitalist thing by making brilliant innovations to, y’know, try and make a ton of dough the old fashioned way.
Y’all need to recognize that.
silverfox on July 9, 2009 at 11:58 PM
You are confusing capacity with generation… there are two entirely different things… if you fire up plants idling during off peak hours, guess what… unless you have magical electricity generating unicorns, you burn more coal… hence more CO2…
elgeneralisimo on July 10, 2009 at 12:00 AM
So if they’re taken OFFLINE… why we can just keep them ONLINE… without even having to build anything new.
silverfox on July 10, 2009 at 12:01 AM
Or slightly less at the report suggests…
elgeneralisimo on July 10, 2009 at 12:01 AM
Romeo13. From what I know of the electrical grid, you are correct. If a significant number of klown kars are plugged in during the peak hours, then there must be a correspondng increase in generating capacity. Perhaps the Chappaquiddick Frogman will have to look at those windmills in his backyard after all.
If you are restricted to off peak charging what happens when you receive a call that a relative is in the hospital and your klown Kar is down to 1 amp hour and off peak is 6 hours away??
bullseye on July 10, 2009 at 12:05 AM
Well, I’m with “Maximum Bob” Lutz on the CO2 thing.
It’s about the imported oil…
The Chevy Volt still needs the gas (sometimes, when you want to leave your county), just a whole lot less.
silverfox on July 10, 2009 at 12:08 AM
I guess we are all distracted by the facts of the case.
Democrats don’t care if this is true or not. It just has to be plausible enough to insert their (futile) government solution.
The facts are self-evident. Challenge them on their intentions.
virgo on July 10, 2009 at 12:09 AM
One thing I heard about was regenerative breaking. IOW, when I come to a stop sign with my SUV, I hit the break pedal causing friction. The momentum of the vehicle is converted to heat which gets disappated. Then I have to burn gas to get back up to speed.
In regenerative breaking, hitting the brake stores the energy in a flywheel, spring or battery (or perhaps a mongo bungee cord). When you want to go again, the car taps that energy.
Just a rambling thought. If they ever do that, invest in kevlar scattershield companies.
Seriously though, It would seem to me that if they could get the regenerative braking thing to work, that would be one hell of a fuel saver in urban areas. For those in flat open states doing highway driving, it would be useless
bullseye on July 10, 2009 at 12:11 AM
The Volt still can run on gas.
“Range Anxiety” was why GM “killed the electric car.”
The Volt, simplified, is an electric car that can run 40 miles charged up, and then hundreds more with an engine that will keep the batteries going.
silverfox on July 10, 2009 at 12:15 AM
Two points… basic reality and physics.
The Battery electric engine combination, at its MOST efficient, only gives you back 50% of the energy needed to charge the batteries.
The Electric grid itself has line losses of clost to 50%.
Thus, your coal plant, or Natural Gas plant… produces energy… half of which is lost in transit to the car… and a further half is lost before it generates horsepower to the wheel.
Add in that most people will charge their cars at night… when Solar does not work… and wind is less consistant… and you will have problems.
Only way to have an elective Transportation system is Nuclear power… but Bambi and his luddites don’t want that, as exhibited by their total shutdown of the Nuclear waste repository in Nevada, and their continues resistance to getting rid of the law that will not allow us to reprosses nuc fuel (although all other countries do it…).
Romeo13 on July 10, 2009 at 12:20 AM
There is a reason that off-peak electricity is cheap cheap cheap…
It’s there, and it’s plentiful.
It’s there to be had.
See the Law of Supply and Demand.
Now when demand goes up it won’t be as cheap anymore.
But you can’t tell me that it’s scarce.
silverfox on July 10, 2009 at 12:20 AM
Offpeak energy is ONLY cheap if it uses wind, solar, Nuc, or Hydro.
Coal or Gas fired electric plants still need FUEL to run them. As demand decreases they use LESS fuel… but if you change your offpeak hours to ONPEAK hours by everyone plugging those cars in… then you still need the fuel.
Romeo13 on July 10, 2009 at 12:25 AM
Offpeak hours are cheap BECAUSE of Nuc, and Hydro power. They are consistant and do not use fuel to generate power…. its pretty much always there…
Coal and Gas plants, which make up the VAST majority of electricity generated in America… are NOT cheaper off peak hours. The cost of a kilowatt hour is dependent upon plant costs and FUEL costs.
Problem is that we can’t build any more hydro, because of the Enviros… and can’t build any more Nuc plants because of… the enviros… so any energy production brought online uses FUEL.
Romeo13 on July 10, 2009 at 12:29 AM
I still have to wonder what this roller skate cars are going to be like in sub-zero weather and heavy snow. I can’t count how many times when I was living in Michigan, that I would come out in the morning and dig my car out of a snowbank, have to jump the thing off and drive to work on a slick white road. It seems to me that the cold used to really mess up a good battery, I don’t think a car that’s mostly battery would do very well. I just don’t believe these little wussmobiles could do that. I’d be interested in hearing any input from anyone who has tried driving one in any real cold weather.
Bikerken on July 10, 2009 at 12:35 AM
If the car gets its power from electricity rather than gas, but that electricity was produced by fossil fuels, then your car is still powered by fossil fuels. You’ve just burned the fossil fuels elsewhere and transmitted the electricity to the car from your home.
Now, it may be possible to gain efficiencies from burning the fossil fuel in a central location. But that electricity has to be transmitted through the power lines and stored in batteries before it can be tapped. You gain nothing, and probably lose a lot.
The above is true regardless of whether the fossil fuels are burned off-peak or at peak.
The only way to beat that trade-off is if the electricity is not generated from fossil fuels. But all other methods are too trivial to matter. The only exception could be nuclear power, which is apparently politically impossible, if the last 40 years of American history is any guide.
You might just as well promise unicorn-powered cars. Either way, you’re relying on mythical solutions.
didymus on July 10, 2009 at 12:39 AM
That’s true to a certain extent. No one is saying that night energy is free energy.
But it’s also true that a power plant can just be shut off at night, and then you just flick the switch back on at 6 am. There’s got to be a maintenance level of operation.
silverfox on July 10, 2009 at 12:41 AM
LOL… Denver here…. and I would not get rid of my After market Super Charged Full time four wheel drive Durango for any little wimp car…
I’m the guy that when it snows… I put the heater on high, roll the windows down… put on the Cowboy hat… Rev that baby up and go play.
Can’t tell ya how many cars I’ve pulled out of the snow for folks over the last 10 years…
Romeo13 on July 10, 2009 at 12:44 AM
Just to let you know… Navy Nuclear Power School… Orlando Fla. Class of 8006.
Actualy, coal fired and especialy gas fired plants CAN be taken on and offline in a reasonably short period of time… and they do it all the time.
Do you run your car when you aint gonna drive it? Do you rev it if you are not going uphill or accelerating? A power plants Fuel needs are directly related to load.
Romeo13 on July 10, 2009 at 12:47 AM
doriangrey on July 9, 2009 at 9:33 PM Well, unless you are being sarcastic, I have to disagree. The One is no genius. He is a character carrying a load of slick nonsense culled from years of sitting around absorbing every goofy theory from people who have nothing more than a passing knowledge of the issues they pontificate about. And generally their own issues about our democracy and free enterprise. And He has suspect academic credentials which are the only tangible credentials he has.
silverfox on July 10, 2009 at 12:20 AM I am sorry but macro projections from a guy trying to sell his industry doesn’t have the highest credibility. Your other claims may have some merit. I am not an engineer. But I doubt that your pipe dream is close to working now or in the near future. We have the Prius and it is a golf cart. I rode in one and it is worse than a normal Honda. With the battery replacement, it is not making economic sense. Next you will tell us that all your program needs is a little government support. Have we heard that mantra before?
BTW, Silverfox, have you heard The One promise that electric rates are going to skyrocket with the program that was recently passed? Let alone cutting down on supply..read the above posts and possibly a good newspaper.
IlikedAUH2O on July 10, 2009 at 12:47 AM
1. Batteries have to made using energy and materials. Those materials in turn have to be mined and/or processed and transported (using energy). Same thing with the materials that make up the vehicles themselves.
The only way to get out of the carbon aspect is to use non-fossil fuels, otherwise you’re still burning fuel in order to supply the electricity to charge the batteries.
2. All non-fossil fuel energy generation plants have to go through the same as #1 above. It takes the conversion of energy to allow you to convert energy into other forms.
Now, trying to imagine doing both 1 and 2 on just ‘green energy’ and wimpy electric vehicles for transport, etc.
Hmmm…
Can you imagine a plastic electric truck hauling the major components for say a factory over hundreds of miles for instance? To do that would take a ton (or tons) of batteries, and then you’re using more energy to move the weight of the batteries themselves.
Dr. ZhivBlago on July 10, 2009 at 1:15 AM
I say this over and over. The people who are in charge do not think things all the way through. It surprises me that some a$$wipes out there said that this presiDented Marack Ho Llama has a gift (Newsweek I think).
.
I was stationed in Northern Italy in the mid 70′s for 26 months. While I was there I bought & tooled around Europe in a green Fiat 850 Spider 4 on the floor convertible and its top speed was 60 mph. It probably got around 39 – 45 mpg. The Fiat 850 Spider was like riding in a lawnmower without the rotary blades. When you sat in the car your ass was about 3 to 4 inches off the ground. We are talking low clearance. Hey I was in my teens, how did I know it was as in a rolling death trap. I was more fortunate than some others over there who got in an unintended car accident and died. Quite a few if I remember right. The base I was at had the highest death toll in all of Europe.
.
The power problem of these electrical cars aside, the death toll for american lawnmower driving enthusiast will only spriral up and up. You can take my word for it. Better yet, has anyone taken up the record number of car related deaths around the world with these kind of small cars? The car I drove in Europe was a death trap & these electrical cars look about the same or if not worse. Imagine this, an 18 wheeler size of today does serious enough damage to your average SUV or whatnot vehicle. These electric cars will act like a golf ball tee shot if they bump into a larger vehicle let alone a 18 wheeler. God help them because God will probably be the next they see. That or the hot one Mr. Beelzebub. Just sayin’
Americannodash on July 10, 2009 at 1:21 AM
Yep, its like the Ethanol mess.
Studies show that with current technology, it takes as much or MORE energy to grow the corn, and create and transport the ethanol, than you get returned to society…
Add in the ethanol only has about 2/3rds of the energy of standard gas?
You pay MORE for ethanol and get less energy reture… and its subsidized by tax dollars…
Not to mention whether you, as myself, believe that with people starving in the world, its just WRONG to change food into fuel, when other sources are readily available…
Romeo13 on July 10, 2009 at 1:27 AM
I’m a custodian… Is it wrong to be proud of American industry when it deserves it?
I follow this stuff because it’s interesting and it is, in fact, revolutionary, in the good way.
The Chevy Volt is not the Prius. Volt is an EREV (extended range electric vehicle). Prius is a PHEV (plug-in hybrid ev).
From what I can tell, Toyota is worried about Voltec (EREV tech). They have a joint venture with GM in East Bay, San Francisco called NUMMI (New United Motors Manufacturing Inc.) that was started in the 80s, when everyone was worried about Japanese cars invading the market and kicking our collective behinds (Think of Gung Ho with Michael Keaton). This plant has been the subject of negotiations between ToMoCo and GM. If you haven’t heard it was included with the “old” (read: bad) GM.
I agree with you, I think the Prius sucks. If you want great mileage, I think the turbo diesel models from Europe are better (like the VW Jetta TDI). The first plug in Prius comes out next year, and you can get at most 18 miles electric only driving… and it will cost every bit as much as a Volt, maybe more. ($48000 ?) The Volt will get 40 miles electric only, and that will cover most peoples daily needs, plus it’s a simpler, more adaptable design. The Prius is just one model, but the Volt will also beget the Cadillac Converj, the Chevy Orlando (minivan), and more.
ToMoCo knows when the Volt comes out it’s curtains for the Prius (and they’ve been selling like hot cakes) I think the negotiations with GM went something like this:
Toyota: Hey, y’know what? Why don’t we take NUMMI and make Priuses together as far as the eye can see… You can call it the Chevy Ecogreen Coolcar… It’ll be beautiful.
We’ll give you steeply discounted access to our Synerdrive stuff, and then later, y’know, if you feel like it, you can give us access to Voltec. What d’ya say?
GM: Hmmmm… You know what? Not so much.
silverfox on July 10, 2009 at 1:38 AM
Well, Obama was talking about Cap and Trade, which hasn’t passed yet and, hopefully, won’t. It’s a scheme that distorts reality, the real market.
I’m talking about the world as it exists. And so is GM, LG Chem (Voltec battery supplier) and just about every other OEM and battery maker out there.
It’s been disputed here, but when Ford came out with its HySeries Edge, in 2007, I read a study about how much untapped energy there is off-peak. It’s waiting to be used. It’s not free, but it does not require vast expenditures on infrastructure, like hydrogen vehicles would. We could implement very, very many plug-in cars without adding a single new plant.
silverfox on July 10, 2009 at 2:47 AM
Here is the study.
A quote:
“Since gasoline consumption accounts for 73 percent of imported oil, it is intriguing to think of the trade and national security benefits if our vehicles switched from oil to electrons,” added PNNL energy researcher Rob Pratt. “Plus, since the utilities would be selling more electricity without having to build more plants or power lines, electricity prices could go down for everyone.”
Another:
Finally, the study looked at the economic impact on consumers. Since, PHEVs are expected to cost about $6,000 to $10,000 more than existing vehicles – mostly due to the cost of batteries — researchers evaluated how long it might take owners to break even on fuel costs. Depending on the price of gas and the cost of electricity, estimates range from five to eight years – about the current lifespan of a battery. Pratt notes that utilities could offer a lower price per kilowatt hour on off-peak power, making PHEVs even more attractive to consumers.
(this was published in 2006, stories like this keep coming fast and furious)
“With cars charging overnight, the utilities would get a new market for their product. PHEVs would increase residential consumption of electricity by about 30 – 40 percent. The increased generation could lead to replacing aging coal-fired plants sooner with newer, more environmentally friendly versions,” said Kintner-Meyer.
Well, just read the whole thing.
silverfox on July 10, 2009 at 3:22 AM
Don’t you wish then that the Citroen C5 were sold in the US? It’s even got a convertible version called the C-Airscape! Plus, there’s the Citroen Jumper, if you want a good delivery van.
Avi Green on July 10, 2009 at 6:14 AM
Most of the larger Countries of Europe will easily fit inside the boarders of Texas. Driving the full range of an electric car in one will get them about any where they would want to go. Now imagine trying to drive from any place in middle America to either coast.We can do that today in about 16-18 hours. How long would it take with a car that had to spend several hours charging every 3-400 miles? Imagine living in Dallas Texas and trying to drive anywhere else in the state. How far would an electric car get you round trip? Not far. Unless you were heading north from Dallas, you would not reach the east, west of southern boarders. If it is more than a couple of hours away, you’er not going to be driving there and returning the the same day. In Europe and other places they have affordable rail transport that will take people to just about any place they need to go or close to it. What do we have, or have plans to build, to replace our need for long distance travel?
Of course the limitation of distance would apply only to those that could afford a car, which at present time would have a base price around $40,000. For those that can not afford a car,or the cost of recharging the batteries, they will be restricted to the extent that public transportation will get them to a place, or the distance they can peddle a bike or walk.
Would it come to that? Probably not, but that is where Obama and his friends want to take us.
Franklyn on July 10, 2009 at 6:30 AM
Good points. Also add that the alcohol will deteriorate the rubber parts in the fuel system over time. I thought it was odd that I was replacing a lot of fuel lines on all my small engines recently. I’ve since read and seen stories about the corrosive nature of the ethanol in gasoline.
TugboatPhil on July 10, 2009 at 6:52 AM
Get a grip folks. There just ain’t no free lunch, or energy source. Electricity is not an energy source. It is an energy storage process. A batter powered car is now more energy efficent than a wind up car that ran on a spring. Both would have to have the energy supplied elsewhere and stored in the vehicle to make the energy portable. No energy storage process operates at 100%, as there is always energy using costs involved.
Electric cars may have virtues, and for some uses they would be better than gas cars; but they will not cause less overall use of the priamry source of energy production, unless it is because they simply can’t be used for some thing we now use gas cars to do.
MikeA on July 10, 2009 at 7:19 AM
They’re Dims. They know where electricity comes from: the wall.
It’s magic. Sort of like their Commie-in-Chief leader Barry. The guy who, with just a few brilliant words from his silver tongue, can heal the earth and lower the ocean levels and make warring countries lay down their arms and sing Kumbaya. He’s a Lightworker, don’t ‘ya know. And it’s not PC to ask where the light comes from.
AZCoyote on July 10, 2009 at 7:21 AM
Some people have no thought process beyond their nose.
I have worked with a person, a so called educated person, has a degree, big lib,,, thinks we’ll save the planet and all use less energy with electric cars.
I tried to educate on how electricity is made,,, and it just never registered. This woman could not think beyond her wall socket. Electric cars would save the world because we could all plug them in at home. See? Cheap, clean energy. Problem solved.
JellyToast on July 10, 2009 at 7:29 AM
Avi,
Google or search ABG for the Fisker Karma…
That is one beautiful damn car! (so are the citroens)
I dare anyone here to call it a klown kar and not be foolish…
and it’s an EREV like the Volt.
I’d link it but I don’t have cut n paste yet on my iPhone.
silverfox on July 10, 2009 at 7:30 AM
On my electric car the accelerator has a dial going from light to dark and something on the bottom called a crumb tray for cleaning.
Jeff from WI on July 10, 2009 at 7:34 AM
Electricity ( and hydrogen – either combustion or fuel cell) are just funnels for other energy sources.
Right now the funnel is in our personal gas tank and we must pour imported oil into it.
Electric cars will move the funnels to the power plants where we can choose sources, be it Sarah Palin’s just negotiated natural gas pipeline, cheaper photovoltaics, wind, nukes, whatever…
Or even vastly cheaper middle east oil, cuz demand slackens and they’re desperate…
silverfox on July 10, 2009 at 7:45 AM
I work in power generation for a living and I’ve been making this point for years whenever someone tries to sell me on how great electric cars would be at saving energy. In energy, as in most things, TANSTAAFL.
Physics Geek on July 10, 2009 at 7:51 AM
LOL
cmsinaz on July 10, 2009 at 7:55 AM
Only liberals could take a seemingly bi-partisan issue like the environment and make completely divisive. I mean who doesn’t want energy independence? I would LOVE it if we stopped buying oil from the Saudis! Who doesn’t want cleaner air and water? Who doesn’t like flowers and trees? The core beliefs in liberal environmental policy are misanthropic and driven by the desire to punish and force some sort of “atonement” for perceived “sins” against the Earth. It defies common sense and is informed by emotionalism, anti-capitalism, anti-Americanism, and wishful thinking, like most liberal policies.
muggedbyreality on July 10, 2009 at 8:12 AM
Gee, you don’t say…
It’s not like this is rocket science.
Electricity has to get generated somehow…
What do people think, who buy into this sh**? that somehow these cars will be charged with harvested lightning?
bluelightbrigade on July 10, 2009 at 8:22 AM
Would solar panels on the roof or hood of an electric car lessen the need for recharging?
Just asking.
manwithblackhat on July 10, 2009 at 8:24 AM
We gave $35 billion to the wrong company, I think.
Regenerative braking is common on hybrids. I have the current Honda Civic hybrid and the mileage is absolutely bulletproof. I’ve put over 60,000 miles on it the last 2 years, and I might get 2-3 tanks per year that average under 48mpg (generally dead of winter when the idle stop never kicks in). The rest of the time it beats the (old) EPA sticker estimate for the car (48/50). Now, 97% of the time I’m on the highway (Central PA to DC). No loss in charging behavior or assist behavior. Keep in mind that the first-generation hybrids (Prius I, Insight I) have been on the road since the early 00s. The batteries are doing much better than expected.
When I put my customary 250,000 miles on this one I’m getting another, or maybe that sweet new Fusion. I tell you, though, that if I could go for a turbodiesel BMW1 or a turbodiesel Rabbit or a turbodiesel Mini Clubman, or that gorgeous diesel Accord wagon, I would really think hard about it. But currently I’d have to move to Europe first :-(
DrSteve on July 10, 2009 at 8:28 AM
Yup.
petefrt on July 10, 2009 at 8:30 AM
It wouldn’t have been buried, it would have been stored underground. There is a big difference. Anything that was stored at Yuca could have been retrieved for processing merely by sending in a team with a hand truck.
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 8:38 AM
Ya, everyone can afford an $88k car… The biggest problem with messing with the automobile power situation is the poor. Let’s say the volt is a success and by 2012 they have a $25k version. That $25k version is still only monetarily feasible to the middle class (that’s $400+ a month depending on length of loan). A lease would maybe be affordable, but then you’re locked into always having a money drain.
So if the price of gas keeps going up, or is artificially raised (cap&trade), the poor keep getting majorly screwed. The used market for most of the battery cars is not going to be great until all of the warranties cover subsequent owners.
kerncon on July 10, 2009 at 8:38 AM
Closer to 10 times.
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 8:39 AM
Go sit in the corner…
doriangrey on July 10, 2009 at 8:39 AM
I wouldn’t drive that worthless piece of crap if they were giving it away.
rplat on July 10, 2009 at 8:51 AM
Tommylotto:
To go that far you can’t use any of the below:
Air Conditioner
Heater
Headlights
Running Lights
Radio
Or anything else that draws power
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 8:58 AM
That would be fine, provided nobody needed to go anywhere during peak hours.
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 9:00 AM
The problem is that to get the car this cheap they had to sacrifice everything.
No power, no range, no carrying capacity, long charge times.
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 9:03 AM
There isn’t enough of either. Not by a long shot.
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 9:05 AM
I’m guessing that in your world, equipment never needs maintenance.
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 9:07 AM
Yes, but the amount would be difficult to measure.
You also have to worry about the increased weight which would decrease your range.
Not to mention adding a lot to the purchase price.
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 9:15 AM
Or history, or civics, diplomacy….
18-1 on July 10, 2009 at 9:15 AM
Most of the electric and hybrid vehicles I have seen are pretty darn small.
Gasoline powered cars that were that small and that aerodynamic would get tremendous mileage as well.
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2009 at 9:17 AM
A serious question:
What are the arguments against nuclear power now?
It used to be safety, but that has been resolved, then the matter of disposal, but that has been reduced to almost nothing.
right2bright on July 10, 2009 at 9:24 AM
Even the car in the photo is smirking at U.S.. You know, that Gotta another one this is too easy.
MSGTAS on July 10, 2009 at 9:29 AM
Where’s the rest of it? No seriously. We have snow banks higher than that thing. How much longer will the commute be at 15mph? How much higher will your electric bill be? Can you afford electricity if cap & Tax goes through? Where are the commercials showing how stupid these people are who are pushing these runts.
Kissmygrits on July 10, 2009 at 9:35 AM
320 million people sorting trash, driving electric cars, not spraying aerosol cans. While the rest of the world is still crapping in their own drinking water. I am not saying purposely mess up the earth but realize the stupidity in whats going on in this country. Hollywood burns more energy making movies a year then entire states but they go on TV claiming to be green. Green with money. Its all BS.
Tremmy on July 10, 2009 at 9:45 AM
Ed,
Yucca Mountain just stores the expended fuel. It was not supposed to reprocess spent fuel. There is currently no facility inside the US to do that, although Savannah River Site in SC had plans for a Mixed Oxide Fuel ReProcessing plant some years back. It was supposed to initially take fuel from the Russsians old warheads and our spent nuclear fuel and reprocess it into Plutonium for use in reactors (either outside the US or in research here in the US, because we can’t reuse Plutonium fuel in US commercial reactors by law yet). The holdup in reprocessing inside the US is politics, pure and simple. The Dhimmicrats have aligned themselves with lunatics who have no science background and crackpots who think global warming is caused by humans, nuclear power causes folks to grow two heads, and feel that trees are more important than human survival, in order to stop all possible nuclear power production. They don’t understand the laws of physics.
Romeo 13 here is more correct about the energy situation than most. Silverfox doesn’t understand power generation, the efficiency and losses inherent in taking heat out of coal to make electricity (only 21% efficient at best – steam powered Rankine cycle heat engine maximum), or heat out of natural gas to make electricity (40% efficient at best), then using the electricity to power electric cars that can only drive 300 miles at best without recharge (yeah, I understand hybrids can do more, but they use gasoline to do so, and recharging your electric car to make it fully charged is still only 50% efficient at best using line transmission losses and battery efficiencies). So if by burning a pound of coal you should get about a half a pound of CO2 as waste, then shifting everything to electricity will cause an increase in coal fired burning of 150% (I’m sure Romeo 13s calculations at 140% is closer to accurate, but still……)
Electric cars are going to generate more CO2 because you are taking more heat out of a source which has undergone many transformations and processes to get the same energy to get the wheels of the car turning, each process is less than 100% efficient and so the losses of energy required to run your electric cars is more than the using the same amount of heat out of gasoline that you would use to operate a gas powered vehicle.
The laws of Physics do not change based on US Supreme Court decisions or the imaginations of Dhimmicrat Congresscritters. This entire energy policy is a charade and global warming caused by humans is a hoax and is designed to separate you or your utilities’ or your car company’s money from your-their wallets and put it in Al Gore’s wallet.
Romeo13,
Dude, I was class of 8006. You officer or enlisted? Email me at subsunk at tds.net.
Subsunk out.
Subsunk on July 10, 2009 at 9:52 AM
Hint: Don’t buy the white one or the plow driver will never see it.
Jeff from WI on July 10, 2009 at 9:52 AM
Of course they know where electricity comes from. It is all based on the FM principle.
It’s Farking Magic!
MikeA on July 10, 2009 at 9:54 AM
My only question is: it took a government study to realize this? Why didn’t they ask an average sixth grader?
Vashta.Nerada on July 10, 2009 at 9:56 AM
Dude, don’t give the Dhimmis any ideas. They might start trying to tax thunderstorms……
Maybe that wouldn’t be such a bad idea. Let them try to collect. A lot fewer Dhimmis in the world would be a good thing.
(There’s a quote I’ll use from now on. Are we going to harvest the lightning to charge our cars????)
Subsunk
Subsunk on July 10, 2009 at 9:57 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »