CBO: Electric vehicles a loser that allow for more pollution

posted at 10:41 am on September 26, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

We’ve been pretty tough on the Chevy Volt, GM’s entry into the electric vehicle/hybrid market, over the government subsidies that have been piled onto it for production and sale.  Maybe it’s time to give the government a hearing on the efficacy of the subsidy programs.  Late last week, the CBO analyzed the outcomes of the green-tech subsidy programs aimed at promoting EVs like the Volt, and concluded that they’re not exactly successful.  In fact, the programs have a lot in common with other Barack Obama economic policies — they subsidize sales that would have taken place anyway, and end up with perverse outcomes that actually make the concerns that the programs intended to address worse.

First, are subsidies making EV/hybrids more competitive?  Not even at the massive levels being applied (via Power Line):

At current vehicle and energy prices, the lifetime costs to consumers of an electric vehicle are generally higher than those of a conventional vehicle or traditional hybrid vehicle of similar size and performance, even with the tax credits, which can be as much as $7,500 per vehicle. That conclusion takes into account both the higher purchase price of an electric vehicle and the lower fuel costs over the vehicle’s life. For example, an average plug-in hybrid vehicle with a battery capacity of 16 kilowatt-hours would be eligible for the maximum tax credit. However, that vehicle would require a tax credit of more than $12,000 to have roughly the same lifetime costs as a comparable conventional or traditional hybrid vehicle.

Assuming that everything else is equal, the larger an electric vehicle’s battery capacity, the greater its cost disadvantage relative to conventional vehicles—and thus the larger the tax credit needed to make it cost-competitive.

Yeah, but the subsidies get people who otherwise would not have opted to buy them to change their minds, right?  Er … not exactly:

The direct effect of the credits is to subsidize purchases of electric vehicles—including purchases that would have been made even without the credits.

In other words, the outcome is the same as Cash for Clunkers and the gimmicky homebuyer tax credits in the first two years of the Obama administration.  They aren’t driving demand; they are subsidizing purchases that would have taken place anyway.  None of these programs is doing anything to build demand; it’s just transferring capital from taxpayers to preferred buyers.

But at least the sales reduce pollution.  Or do they?

Those people who purchase electric vehicles because of the tax credit use less gasoline and produce fewer emissions of greenhouse gases than would otherwise be the case. The cost to the government of those reductions in gasoline consumption and emissions can vary widely (see the table below).

However, the tax credits have other, indirect effects: Increased sales of electric vehicles allow automakers to sell more low-fuel-economy vehicles and still comply with the federal standards that govern the average fuel economy of the vehicles they sell (known as CAFE standards). Consequently, the credits will result in little or no reduction in the total gasoline use and greenhouse gas emissions of the nation’s vehicle fleet over the next several years. As a result, the cost per gallon or per metric ton of any such reductions will be much greater than the cost calculated on the basis of the direct effects alone.

As I wrote last week, none of these issues address the core economic problems with EVs and even hybrids:

  • Sustained value — There isn’t any in the Volt. For the sticker price — even with the subsidies — it’s underpowered and undersized compared to the rest of the market.  Thanks to a massive battery replacement cost at somewhere around the 8-year mark, there won’t be any trade-in or resale value for the car, either, which is why lessees are highly unlikely to buy the car from GM at the end of the two-year lease.  Without that battery replacement, the Volt becomes an underpowered, undersized, and overly expensive internal-combustion vehicle.
  • Energy — Much is made of the cleanliness of the plug-in chargeability, especially in ads for the Volt and the Nissan Leaf.  But about half the energy to recharge the battery comes from coal, which is the main contributor to American electrical production.  The internal-combustion engines in most cars are more efficient at using gasoline, with the ability to control emissions better, too.  Thanks to a raft of new EPA regulations on coal, electricity production will be declining since other technologies aren’t ready to take its place in terms of mass-production capability, which means that the lengthy recharge will end up costing consumers more than a trip to the gas station — and that gets more pronounced the more vehicles we move away from gasoline and onto an already-limited electrical grid.
  • Environment — Apart from the concerns above, the manufacture of these batteries — and especially their disposal — will create massive environmental problems.  Rare-earth elements necessary to their production are rare indeed in the US, which means we will have to increase our dependence on Asia for those commodities.  The manufacture of battery arrays is notoriously bad for the environment, and we’re now talking about multiplying the need per car.  Disposal is even worse; it will make the environment more toxic rather than less, and the long-term prospects for manufacturing aren’t good unless we find greater reserves of these elements.

These are among the reasons that Toyota has all but abandoned plans to push an EV for wide distribution:

Toyota Motor Corp has scrapped plans for widespread sales of a new all-electric minicar, saying it had misread the market and the ability of still-emerging battery technology to meet consumer demands.

Toyota, which had already taken a more conservative view of the market for battery-powered cars than rivals General Motors Co and Nissan Motor Co, said it would only sell about 100 battery-powered eQ vehicles in the United States and Japan in an extremely limited release. …

By dropping plans for a second electric vehicle in its line-up, Toyota cast more doubt on an alternative to the combustion engine that has been both lauded for its oil-saving potential and criticised for its heavy reliance on government subsidies in key markets like the United States.

“The current capabilities of electric vehicles do not meet society’s needs, whether it may be the distance the cars can run, or the costs, or how it takes a long time to charge,” said, Uchiyamada, who spearheaded Toyota’s development of the Prius hybrid in the 1990s. …

Pure electric vehicles, like the Nissan Leaf, carry only lithium-ion batteries. Consumer demand for the vehicles has been capped by their limited range and the relatively high cost of the powerful batteries they require.

Even the expansion of hybrid options probably won’t play out well for Toyota; most people will pay for cars with just one engine, not two, and it still leaves car owners the problem of battery exhaustion, disposal, and replacement.

The CBO’s conclusions should be informing public policy.  We should be ending these wasteful subsidies and let consumers make their own choices.  As long as Obama is President, that kind of on-the-job education seems unlikely, and we will end up getting even more Cash for Clunkers solutions that end up costing huge amounts of money and making the problems worse.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

But Obama is smarter than the rest of us.

albill on September 26, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Its as successful as every other policy of this President.

rob verdi on September 26, 2012 at 10:46 AM

It has never been about controlling pollution.

It has and will remain, in the Liberal/Progressive mindset, to be a means to control huge segments of the population and the economy, and kill off free enterprise.

Lots of coal-fired power plants are shutting down…the cost of electricity for the average family will be going up, and moreso for industrial users.

State central control and planning is the goal.

Every socialist dictatorship in our time has done the same.

coldwarrior on September 26, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Subsidies never have the intended effect of helping the buyer, they always just act as price supports that increase the amount of money the sellers charges.

esnap on September 26, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Obama has the vote of the 12 Volt owners locked up. Romney must find a way to make up for those votes elsewhere.

NotCoach on September 26, 2012 at 10:49 AM

To paraphrase Pelosi, you had to try it to find out it didn’t work.

Jabberwock on September 26, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Lots of coal-fired power plants are shutting down…the cost of electricity for the average family will be going up, and moreso for industrial users.

We get our electric from hydro power and it is still an arm and leg and they plan to raise it by 40% over the next 4 years.

Blake on September 26, 2012 at 10:50 AM

OT/ But the media gives us this headline today:”Criticism of Romney grows;Six in 10 view him negatively.” Really?View Romney negatively? I must live in an alternate Universe…

sandee on September 26, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Subsidies never have the intended effect of helping the buyer, they always just act as price supports that increase the amount of money the sellers charges.

esnap on September 26, 2012 at 10:48 AM

This.

Bitter Clinger on September 26, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Big deal event to show off the Tesla re-charging station in Hawthorne, CA, the other night. $50-$100K cars powered by coal burned in Arizona. That’s how they roll here.

de rigueur on September 26, 2012 at 10:52 AM

If everyone would just ensure that their tires were properly inflated we’d save the world and achieve energy independence.

/libtards

gwelf on September 26, 2012 at 10:53 AM

We must, and will, end up with nuke power and electric vehicles.

I like poking fun at Obama, but that’s the reality.

There is no national security discussion above. We must stop our reliance on foreign oil.

faraway on September 26, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Obama has the vote of the 12 Volt owners locked up. Romney must find a way to make up for those votes elsewhere. NotCoach on September 26, 2012 at 10:49 AM

All fifty or so of them? Shouldn’t be hard…look for F350 owners.

Dingbat63 on September 26, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Oh wait…the Government owns most of the Volts. Can the Government vote?

Dingbat63 on September 26, 2012 at 10:56 AM

coldwarrior on September 26, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Agree with all your points.

Utility costs are rising, so charging these cars further increases utility bills.

They use less gas? What’s the savings when gas prices continue to ratchet upwards?

None of this makes any sense, but as you say this isn’t about pollution control

These cars even if they made financial sense are not suitable for many areas of the country. But the people pushing for them know that.

To punish us further we are all expected to pay for high speed rail projects that will only service a few, selected areas of the country leaving the vast majority with only a bill to pay. We do not benefit at all, and in fact, most of these rail projects are financial failures.

There’s a pattern here, isn’t there? They think we’re stupid, but we’re not.

Cody1991 on September 26, 2012 at 10:56 AM

We’re probably going to stay with gasoline for the near term with some kind of a move toward natural gas-powered vehicles.

If I had to bet at this point, I’d say we’ll eventually go to hydrogen-powered vehicles, but with a major redesign of what a personal vehicle looks like to account for the lower energy density of hydrogen. (Bigger tank, bigger vehicle, more light weight.) Lots of small scale nuclear reactors to crack the hydrogen.

trigon on September 26, 2012 at 11:00 AM

de rigueur on September 26, 2012 at 10:52 AM

And the EPA was in Arizona with plans to shut a number of those coal burning plants down. Enjoy the return of rolling power outages in S. Cal.

chemman on September 26, 2012 at 11:00 AM

When you look at all the rebates and subsidies of the Volt and green energy, you have to look at those costs as representing an energy expenditure. This makes the whole thing nonsensical from both an economic and an energy perspective. It doesn’t make sense even from a climatist “carbon footprint” perspective, if you believe the AGW hooey.

Take wind power. A recent analysis put the total costs at 38 cents per kwhour (versus ~ 12 cents normally). That is more than three times more expensive than conventional electricity. All that expense represents a wasteful use of substantial additional resources and energy (3x!). It makes zero sense. None.

A sidenote on wind. I recently saw another analysis that calculated that we would need 3 million massive wind turbines at $2 million a piece to supply just 15% of our energy. That would be $6 trillion, and we’d have these bird killers blotting the landscape everywhere, and that $6 trillion would just be the up front cost, as we would then be paying through the nose for all the energy produced. It’s insane that the greens have taken us down this truly idiotic road of massively subsidized energy.

anotherJoe on September 26, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Slightly OT/: It was reported on Fox&Friends this morning that a Fisker cought fire and burnt to a crisp due to a faulty battery.

And the saga goes on…..

NapaConservative on September 26, 2012 at 11:03 AM

faraway on September 26, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Wrong. EVs may someday in the distant future be able to replace the internal combustion engine but not any time soon. And the only reason we import so much oil is because of the irrational hatred the eco-Marxist Left has for fossil fuels which we have in abundance. If the environmentalist extremists and the EPA would get the Hell out of the way we could be net exporters of fuels and not just energy independent.

Charlemagne on September 26, 2012 at 11:07 AM

cought=caught

NapaConservative on September 26, 2012 at 11:11 AM

But Obama is smarter than the rest of us.

albill on September 26, 2012 at 10:45 AM

…and if you major in “journalism” …you are too!

KOOLAID2 on September 26, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Considering that roughly 45 percent of electricity in the US is produced from coal, pure electric cars are really coal-burning hybrids.

Just like other progressive ideas, it sounds so good until you look under the surface.

Droopy on September 26, 2012 at 11:16 AM

The US government first put the image of an electric car on a postage stamp…

…in 1901.

Let’s face it, it’s never going to go mainstream.

trigon on September 26, 2012 at 11:17 AM

CBO: Electric vehicles a loser that allow for more pollution

Of course because the intent to be emotional accounts for 9/10ths of useful liberal idiots.

Emotions and the subsequent politics far outweighing the physical laws also.

Speakup on September 26, 2012 at 11:17 AM

If it weren’t for all the YouTube videos critical of the Volt and other EVs, particular the ones showing them catching on fire, this policy would be a screaming success.

– Jay Carney

TXUS on September 26, 2012 at 11:17 AM

If it weren’t for all the YouTube videos critical of the Volt and other EVs, particular the ones showing them catching on fire, this policy would be a screaming success.

– Jay Carney

TXUS on September 26, 2012 at 11:17 AM

They shout Allah Akbar just before they set themselves on fire.

faraway on September 26, 2012 at 11:18 AM

Cash for Volters?

“Cash for Clunkers” was just one of those pieces of FY 2009 spending that was passed by the Nancy Pelosi House and the Harry Reid Senate, and signed by pResident Obama, but then the Democrats deceitfully try to BLAME BUSH for all FY 2009 spending!

The last budget passed by a Republican House and Republican Senate, and signed by a Republican President was the FY 2007, and according to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) produced a deficit of $160,701,000,000 (<$161 Billion), down 61% from the FY 2004 peak deficit of $412,727,000,000 ($1,412 Billion, i.e. > $1.412 Trillion). President Bush and the Republican Congress had reduced annual deficits 61% in just three years.

Then the Pelosi-Reid Democrats took control of the budget process starting in FY 2008, and the majority of FY 2009 spending was signed by Obama, not Bush.

What happened to annual deficits?
They rose from R-R-R FY 2007 deficit of < $161 Billion
To D-D-2/3D FY 2009 deficit of > $1,412 Billion

In just two years, the Democrats increased the annual deficit by 779%! And Dems want to blame that all on Bush.

ITguy on September 26, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Wouldn’t it be nice if the government would look at the history of these after action reports, saying that these attempts are hugely wasteful, and stop doing i? At sixteen trillion, aren’t we past the shrug your shoulders “bummer” stage?

Cindy Munford on September 26, 2012 at 11:21 AM

The party of science strikes again. Increased cost, increased pollution, power like a scooter, and the largest buyer is the government.

STL_Vet on September 26, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Somewhere in this alternative energy push is a financial incentive
for the democraps who are pushing this.

Follow the money because it is always about the money.

Amjean on September 26, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Every socialist dictatorship in our time has done the same.

coldwarrior on September 26, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Yup. It explains their fascination with trains, too. Same reason. Control.

Fallon on September 26, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Scratch that last comment… I didn’t catch a cut-and-paste issue that throws off the second paragraph. I’ll correct and resubmit the comment…

ITguy on September 26, 2012 at 11:23 AM

In a few years lithium-air batteries will begin replacing lithium ion as the battery packs. This is a recent development due to advances in material technology.

MarkT on September 26, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Cash for Volters?

“Cash for Clunkers” was just one of those pieces of FY 2009 spending that was passed by the Nancy Pelosi House and the Harry Reid Senate, and signed by pResident Obama, but then the Democrats deceitfully try to BLAME BUSH for all FY 2009 spending!

The last budget passed by a Republican House and Republican Senate, and signed by a Republican President was the FY 2007 budget, and according to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) it produced a deficit of $160,701,000,000 (<$161 Billion), down 61% from the peak deficit of $412,727,000,000 (<$413 Billion)in FY 2004.

President Bush and the Republican Congress had reduced annual deficits 61% in just three years (from FY 2004 to FY 2007).

Then the Pelosi-Reid Democrats took control of the budget process starting in FY 2008, and the majority of FY 2009 spending was signed by Obama, not Bush.

What happened to annual deficits?
They rose from R-R-R FY 2007 deficit of < $161 Billion
To D-D-2/3D FY 2009 deficit of > $1,412 Billion (i.e. > $1.412 Trillion).

In just two years, the Democrats increased the annual deficit by 779%!

And Dems want to blame that all on Bush.

ITguy on September 26, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Good work, Ed!

petefrt on September 26, 2012 at 11:28 AM

FY 2004 ==> FY 2007 In three years, the Republican House, Senate and President reduced annual deficits by 61%, from $413 Billlion down to $161 Billion.

FY 2008 ==> FY 2009 In two years, the Democrat House, Senate and (by Jan 2009) President increased annual deficits by 779%, from $161 Billlion down to $1,412 Billion ($1.412 Trillion).

Data Source: White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

ITguy on September 26, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Liberals hate science.

blink on September 26, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Sorry meant as sarcasm. Liberals like to bend science to suit their agenda. But, they make the claim that they use science (i.e. climate change) and conservatives do not (i.e. climate deniers).

STL_Vet on September 26, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Every socialist dictatorship in our time has done the same.

coldwarrior on September 26, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Venezuela and Sultanate of Brunei are odd exceptions. Gas it really cheap there. Both have all the land marks of a tyranny (a very gentle one, in case of Brunei) and yet gas is dirt cheap.

Archivarix on September 26, 2012 at 11:43 AM

D’oh! Second paragrah should have “up to”, not “down to”…
—————————————————————-

FY 2004 ==> FY 2007 In three years, the Republican House, Senate and President reduced annual deficits by 61%, from $413 Billlion down to $161 Billion.

FY 2008 ==> FY 2009 In two years, the Democrat House, Senate and (by Jan 2009) President increased annual deficits by 779%, from $161 Billlion up to $1,412 Billion ($1.412 Trillion).

Data Source: White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

ITguy on September 26, 2012 at 11:43 AM

If the energy stored in the battery is 16 kilowatthours (kwh), at 10 cents per kwh it costs $1.60 to charge the car, for a range of 40 miles, so that energy costs are 4 cents per mile. If the battery can only be charged once per day, the total driving range is 40 x 365 = 14,600 miles per year.

In addition, if the battery is to be charged in 8 hours, 2 kilowatts of electric power are required. Even with a 220-volt AC circuit, where power = voltage * current / 2, the current required would be 2 * 2000 / 220 = 18.2 amps, which would probably require a special high-powered circuit to be installed in the home.

Compared to a conventional car getting 30 miles per gallon, driving 14,600 miles would require 487 gallons of gasoline. At $4.00 per gallon, this would cost $1,950, or about 13.3 cents per mile. So the MAXIMUM net savings would be 14,600 miles x (13.3 – 4.0) cents = $1,360 per year.

If a driver can buy a small conventional gasoline-powered car for $15,000 or $20,000, and have the flexibility of driving it 300 miles on a tankful of gasoline, and filling it anywhere two roads cross in a small town, why would he/she spend an additional $15,000 on an electric car that MIGHT pay back the additional investment in 10 years or more, while only driving 40 miles per day?

Steve Z on September 26, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Rare-earth elements necessary to their production are rare indeed in the US

Actually not that rare in the USA. It is just that the EPA will not allow they be mined and processed in the USA.

This is why these cars make no sense what so ever. They can not be made from materials in the USA. We do not want these rare earths mined here so why is it fine to mine them in China?

Steveangell on September 26, 2012 at 11:59 AM

We get our electric from hydro power and it is still an arm and leg and they plan to raise it by 40% over the next 4 years.

Blake on September 26, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Well, you’re lucky; and you’ll be luckier if you get to keep it.

http://thecitysquare.blogspot.com/2012/02/whistleblower-exposes-obama-junk.html

He’s been working to destroy and demolish Hydro dams, (see link for 4 proposed demolitions of existing Hydro dams) I wouldn’t expect to keep yours for another 4 years if he’s re-elected.

Interferes with the fish you know…

But no worries, they’ll replace your Hydro with Solar and Wind. As long as the sun is up and the wind is blowing you’ll still have power.

gekkobear on September 26, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Don’t give up hope…here is the next generation…

right2bright on September 26, 2012 at 12:04 PM

In addition, if the battery is to be charged in 8 hours, 2 kilowatts of electric power are required. Even with a 220-volt AC circuit, where power = voltage * current / 2, the current required would be 2 * 2000 / 220 = 18.2 9.1 amps, which would probably require a special high-powered circuit to be installed in the home.

Steve Z on September 26, 2012 at 11:55 AM

No idea where you got that /2 it is not part of the equation.

Actually a 120 volt 20 amp circuit provides 2.2 KW. A 240 volt 20 amp provides 4.8 KW. The common 30 Amp Dryer connection 7.2 KW.

Steveangell on September 26, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Electric cars will be feasable just as soon as they can install a scaled-down version of your residential model ‘pot-bellied fission-powered generator’ under the hood.
But by then, it’d be more effecient to run a steam turbine — kinda like the Navy.

/.

CaveatEmpty on September 26, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Steve Z on September 26, 2012 at 11:55 AM

All across America, where there are still actually working Americans, who have a trade, and must depend on a vehicle for their profession, the vehicle of choice is a pick-up truck…normally a large bed one.

And the Volt and other such cars accomplish what for the wage earners?

Zip.

Put a couple bags of mortar, or maybe a few concrete blocks in the back seat of a Volt…then assess the mileage…a lot less than 40 miles on a re-charge, I’d bet.

If the EPA has its way, a lot of those large pick-up trucks will be regulated out of the market place.

Wonder how that will affect the housing industry?

Now, if everybody in America was a college-educated liberal, with a nice house in town, and having a workplace at home (telecommuting) or within a block or two of a subway stop. But that is not reality for most. Driving 50 miles each way to a job site or factory, is pretty standard for most wage earners, these days.

These Volts do nothing for them, yet, through taxes, the diminished value of the dollar, and rising energy costs for gas or diesel, these wage earners are paying more and more of a diminished income for the small portion of the population who seem to have this fascination with the Volt and other hybrids, as will their children and grandchildren if this pattern of throwing money into government dictated and controlled programs.

coldwarrior on September 26, 2012 at 12:14 PM

No idea where you got that /2 it is not part of the equation.
Steveangell on September 26, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Actually, when you’re figuring power conversions, 50% is a pretty common number for efficiency factor

/.

CaveatEmpty on September 26, 2012 at 12:17 PM

controlled programs.

coldwarrior on September 26, 2012 at 12:14 PM

s/b: …programs is allowed to continue.

dammit.

coldwarrior on September 26, 2012 at 12:20 PM

You can’t create energy out of nothing…and at every point of distribution, energy is lost…so the energy to run a car electrically is drastically increased at every distribution point.

At the manufacturing of the electricity, to the delivery over wires, to the “plug” into the car, to the conversion of electric to the engine, and the engine to the drive train…each part decreases efficiency…add to the cost and energy of producing car, the batteries and destroying the batteries…it becomes hugely inefficient.

That’s the fact, you can’t beat the laws of physics…perpetual energy does not exist.

right2bright on September 26, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Everyone stop lying.
Electric vehicles work perfectly …

… on golf courses.

Fogpig on September 26, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Actually, when you’re figuring power conversions, 50% is a pretty common number for efficiency factor

/.

CaveatEmpty on September 26, 2012 at 12:17 PM

So you were trying to convey that of 2.2 KW only 1.1 KW of charge would occur in the Battery?

Every Delta DC Quick Charger achieves close to 95% high efficiency to help save up to 23 MWh of energy annually and reduce 14 tons of CO2 emissions compared with standard 90% efficiency chargers.

If so you are way way off.

Steveangell on September 26, 2012 at 1:02 PM

The only currently viable all-electric vehicle on the market is a golf cart.

GarandFan on September 26, 2012 at 1:03 PM

The only currently viable all-electric vehicle on the market is a golf cart.

GarandFan on September 26, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Not actually true.

Drug Stores often use small electric vehicles for deliveries other companies as well. They work well for that because much of the day they can be plugged in and they do not go that many miles at a time.

The Volt makes no sense or the Leaf. You really need a much smaller vehicle than those to make sense for now.

Steveangell on September 26, 2012 at 1:09 PM

An electric car is worthless to me here in ND where the temps are cold & suck the life out of batteries & the distances traveled far exceed anything an electric car can give me.
If that weren’t true, then I’d ride everywhere in a damned golf cart.
Plus please tell me liberals how am I going to run a tractor or feed cows with a bale feeder off of the bed of my 1 ton dually pickup on electricity? Oh I’m sure it is somewhat possible, costing way more than the actual benefits.

But this is all a moot point anyway bcs CO2 does not cause a rise in atmospheric temperatures & so it is NOT responsible for any rising atmospheric temperatures or fantasy AGW etc.

Badger40 on September 26, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Why have they not considered *how* EV’s are recharged and the emissions from those power sources? As is typical of the government, they do not look beyond the immediate emissions “reductions” from not using gasoline. But what are the offsetting emissions in carbon from the burning of natural gas or coal? What about the waste generated from nuclear?

If one considers the total “waste stream” of the ultimate power generation methods used, the picture gets even grimmer than painted here.

Mr Galt on September 26, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Wait until ‘under Obama’s policies electricity prices start to skyrocket’…
The New EV Math… Zero Savings = Less Than It Use To Be
-

RalphyBoy on September 26, 2012 at 3:59 PM

So what is needed for EVs is a game-changer technology for energy storage, like the Shipstone tech in Heinlan’s book Friday.

Even if the actual storage tech is not as awesome as shipstones (where, for instance, a shipstone would contain enough energy to run a given system for years), it has to be convenient enough, and cheap enough to challenge utility of gasoline and diesel powered cars which can stop at any of a network of locations and refuel.

When you have space for ONE vehicle that vehicle has to have the full utility that you want.

Maybe a fair test would be for some auto magazine to test a hybrid or the Volt with its battery disabled so that it has to run on whatever internal combustion engine it is equipped with and see how it works. At least that would give people information of what they can expect in the future (especially if the battery rack becomes unavailable).

Russ808 on September 26, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Someone needs to do the calculation of how much pollution is created to produce the electricity needed for electric cars. I got a hunch that it takes more fossil fuels to produce the electricity to drive an electric car one mile as compared to that needed to drive a gasoline car one mile. Converting energy from one form to the other is inefficient. For the “Green” electric vehicle, you have several conversion steps and a whole lot of inefficient storage and transmission.

bartbeast on September 26, 2012 at 6:31 PM

Ugh, the pop up in frame ads on this site have gotten horrendous.

ray on September 29, 2012 at 8:29 PM