Electric vehicles “unclean at any speed”?

posted at 1:51 pm on July 3, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Conservatives have long argued that the pursuit of electric vehicles through government grants and credits is a bad idea, mainly from a public-policy and economic standpoint.  But what if electric vehicles are a bad idea from an environmental standpoint, too?  An environmental activist who once pushed for EVs and now works as a visiting scholar at UC Berkeley now calls electric vehicles “unclean at any speed” in a recent article for the engineering journal IEEE Spectrum (via Weasel Zippers and UPI):

The idea of electrifying automobiles to get around their environmental shortcomings isn’t new. Twenty years ago, I myself built a hybrid electric car that could be plugged in or run on natural gas. It wasn’t very fast, and I’m pretty sure it wasn’t safe. But I was convinced that cars like mine would help reduce both pollution and fossil-fuel dependence.

I was wrong.

I’ve come to this conclusion after many years of studying environmental issues more deeply and taking note of some important questions we need to ask ourselves as concerned citizens. Mine is an unpopular stance, to be sure. The suggestive power of electric cars is a persuasive force—so persuasive that answering the seemingly simple question “Are electric cars indeed green?” quickly gets complicated.

Ozzie Zehner, who worked on the experimental EV-1 at GM before it got shelved, says some of the complications are due to the economics of science and scientific research.  Most of the funding comes from interested parties, which tends to produce research that supports their positions.  Zehner suggests that readers “follow the money” to “get a sense of how biases creep in.”  What ends up happening, Zehner explains, is that the research on the environmental impact of EVs begins and ends at the tailpipe of internal-combustion vehicles as the sole comparison.

On that basis, EVs look environmentally friendly.  When comparing the entire life cycle of EVs to their gasoline- or diesel-fueled counterparts, though, the picture changes dramatically, as Zehner discovered:

One study attempted to paint a complete picture. Published by the National Academies in 2010 and overseen by two dozen of the United States’ leading scientists, it is perhaps the most comprehensive account of electric-car effects to date. Its findings are sobering. …

It drew together the effects of vehicle construction, fuel extraction, refining, emissions, and other factors. In a gut punch to electric-car advocates, it concluded that the vehicles’ lifetime health and environmental damages (excluding long-term climatic effects) are actually greater than those of gasoline-powered cars. Indeed, the study found that an electric car is likely worse than a car fueled exclusively by gasoline derived from Canadian tar sands!

As for greenhouse-gas emissions and their influence on future climate, the researchers didn’t ignore those either. The investigators, like many others who have probed this issue, found that electric vehicles generally produce fewer of these emissions than their gasoline- or diesel-fueled counterparts—but only marginally so when full life-cycle effects are accounted for. The lifetime difference in greenhouse-gas emissions between vehicles powered by batteries and those powered by low-sulfur diesel, for example, was hardly discernible.

The National Academies’ study stood out for its comprehensiveness, but it’s not the only one to make such grim assessments. A Norwegian study published last October in the Journal of Industrial Ecology compared life-cycle impacts of electric vehicles. The researchers considered acid rain, airborne particulates, water pollution, smog, and toxicity to humans, as well as depletion of fossil fuel and mineral resources. According to coauthor Anders Stromman, “electric vehicles consistently perform worse or on par with modern internal combustion engine vehicles, despite virtually zero direct emissions during operation.”

I’ve made these points a number of times.  The green argument for EVs ignores everything outside of the tailpipe, including the source of power generation, and the manufacturing and disposal of the storage elements.  Zehner wonders whether the effort to shift power generation out of the vehicle itself is a sneaky way of dumping the pollution problem outside of the urban areas where cars get the most use, and where residents are typically poorer and less politically powerful:

North American power station emissions also largely occur outside of urban areas, as do the damaging consequences of nuclear- and fossil-fuel extraction. And that leads to some critical questions. Do electric cars simply move pollution from upper-middle-class communities in Beverly Hills and Virginia Beach to poor communities in the backwaters of West Virginia and the nation’s industrial exurbs? Are electric cars a sleight of hand that allows peace of mind for those who are already comfortable at the expense of intensifying asthma, heart problems, and radiation risks among the poor and politically disconnected?

Ouch.  Zehner wants public policy to focus more on alternatives to personal vehicles altogether, including limitations on urban sprawl, mass transit, and non-motorized transportation (bicycles and walking). Conservatives probably won’t like those options much more than government-subsidized and government-imposed EVs, but at least they have the virtue of not paying billions of dollars to make environmental damage 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

This goes against the established, the-science-is-settled meme of the Left, so Zehner will now be considered a ‘traitor’ like any climatologist who runs against the global warming story after having once believed in it.

I imagine the tweeted death threats have already started against him, his family, and even their pets.

Liam on July 3, 2013 at 1:57 PM

But!

Shy Guy on July 3, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Iowahawk hardest hit.

apostic on July 3, 2013 at 1:58 PM

Zehner is just Deeper Green, he now doubts CARS are or can be “Green.” So we must all live in Apartmetns and ride the Metro….

I mean his early and intermediate points are very good, but in the end he just comes back to more control..now Larry David can’t have an EV either….

JFKY on July 3, 2013 at 2:01 PM

Electric vehicles “unclean at any speed”?

Same as ObamaCare..

Electrongod on July 3, 2013 at 2:01 PM

It doesn’t matter.
 
Seriously. I’m sorry to have to put it that way, but it’s all faith-based nonsense with them. Just like with amnesty, gun control, Obamacare, global warming, etc., etc., they’ll put their fingers
 

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/27/video-rubios-closing-argument-on-immigration-reform/comment-page-4/#comment-7128360

 
in their ears
 

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/04/an-armed-march-on-washington-lets-not/comment-page-6/#comment-6973418

 
and say LALALALA
 

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/16/is-gm-already-on-track-to-go-bankrupt-again/comment-page-3/#comment-6146957

 
because they know, just KNOW,
 

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/07/climate-change-castaways/comment-page-2/#comment-5275137

 
that this can’t be true.
 
Then they’ll call you names.
 
This is their religion, nothing more. And it’s impossible to argue against faith. That’s what makes it faith.

rogerb on July 3, 2013 at 2:06 PM

I’ve been saying this for years. I get tired of the most obvious observations being the last to enter public debate.

MechanicalBill on July 3, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Is there any policy of the left that is not a$$ backward?

Just the law of averages would say some but there are none. Occam’s Razor would indicate that they are doing it on purpose.

jukin3 on July 3, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Hillarious: 14,000 Abandoned Wind Turbines in the USA

slickwillie2001 on July 3, 2013 at 2:13 PM

Weird that links to hotair would cause a comment to be eaten by the filters. Let’s try again with just two. Sorry if it semi-double posts.

rogerb on July 3, 2013 at 2:14 PM

It doesn’t matter.
 
Seriously. I’m sorry to have to put it that way, but it’s all faith-based nonsense with them. Just like with amnesty, gun control, Obamacare, global warming, etc., etc., they’ll put their fingers
 

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/27/video-rubios-closing-argument-on-immigration-reform/comment-page-4/#comment-7128360

 
in their ears
 

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/04/an-armed-march-on-washington-lets-not/comment-page-6/#comment-6973418

 
and say LALALALA because they know, just KNOW, that this can’t be true.
 
Then they’ll call you names because you’ve insulted their belief.
 
This is their religion, nothing more, and it’s impossible to argue against faith. That’s what makes it faith.

rogerb on July 3, 2013 at 2:15 PM

This article is idiotic.

Electric cars trade oil from the Middle east for nuclear power.

faraway on July 3, 2013 at 2:15 PM

If you think power lines generate strong magnetic fields…

viking01 on July 3, 2013 at 2:16 PM

I wouldn’t conflate electric cars with hybrids. And I wouldn’t assume what the future of battery technology will bring. But there’s always going to be an additional efficiency loss with battery storage, rather than going directly from engine to drive train. So I think hybrids are more likely to be useful in the future than electrics.

But the future is not now. The main problem is government warping of the free market and free scientific inquiry.

Fenris on July 3, 2013 at 2:17 PM

It all matters what the definition of “unclean” is.

Kingfisher on July 3, 2013 at 2:22 PM

Zehner is just Deeper Green, he now doubts CARS are or can be “Green.” So we must all live in Apartmetns and ride the Metro….

The key difference here is public subsidies.

If someone, due to their “deep green” ideology, wants to champion walking or biking, or wants to use these modes of transportation himself out of a sincere attempt not to be a flaming hypocrite, then I say more power to ya. Because everyone in America is allowed to follow his or her beliefs. What differentiates this type of “activism” and the Obama/green “Activism” is that Obama and his minions want everyone else to pay for their fantasies and/or force everyone to comply.

It costs the public basically nothing if some guy thinks we should all ride bikes. We may not agree with him, but if his fantasy isn’t costing the taxpayer anything, then hey, fantasize away.

Even if he did somehow get “public funding” for his deep green ideology, it probably would hardly cost much, since he’s not advocating an economically unfeasible new kind of technology, but rather he’s advocating no technology whatsoever.

The Obama/green agenda is to use “environmentalism” as a fascistic hammer to smash individualism and increase government power. “Deep green” activists may be delusional Luddite utopians, but they are more toward the anarchist/libertarian/off-the-grid end of the scale, and as such as far less noxious and far less dangerous to the public.

Zombie on July 3, 2013 at 2:25 PM

This guy is a scientist, and has now, after years of work, come to the conclusion that most of us had nearly immediately.

Confidence in ‘scientists’ has sure taken a hit over the last few decades.

Midas on July 3, 2013 at 2:25 PM

It all matters what the definition of “unclean” is.

Kingfisher on July 3, 2013 at 2:22 PM

Clintoon’s, er, appendage?

viking01 on July 3, 2013 at 2:27 PM

slickwillie2001 on July 3, 2013 at 2:13 PM

They’re going to Africa…

A little new paint…and voila…perfect.

Will they work?

Probably not.

Won’t help Africa’s need for cheap energy.

Africa has the Cahora Bassa Dam and three larger ones than that already in Southern Africa….they find hydro is cheap and plentiful…so why do they need $7 billion from us for wind turbines and solar panels and dung-fired generators anyway?

There is nothing truly “green” about “green” energy.

coldwarrior on July 3, 2013 at 2:28 PM

So, his coal-fired/nuclear powered lead batteried ‘clean electric car’ paradigm isn’t as clean as he thought it would be? Go figure.

Midas on July 3, 2013 at 2:29 PM

lithium ion is not lead

faraway on July 3, 2013 at 2:34 PM

My final word on this topic was written six years ago (my how time flies):
Al Gore Appearance at the Marin Civic Center

On the way, I passed a special exhibit of a customized hybrid that got 100+ miles per gallon. Well alright then! I guess everybody must have driven a hybrid to the event.

Oops. Out in the expansive lot, as far as the eye could see in all directions, were gas-guzzling SUVs. One by one, I watched SUV after sports car after minivan after SUV pulling into the lot, the drivers getting out and invariably heading over to the Gore lecture.

In fact, since it was after work hours, and since the Civic Center is in an isolated area, the only reason for anyone to be parked there was to go hear the High Priest of Global Warming™ discuss emissions.

(Scroll down the page to see more evidence in my Gallery of Gore Fan SUVs.)


Gallery of Gore Fan SUVs

The only way to “prove” that many of Gore’s fans were driving gas-guzzling cars is through repetition — showing examples of them over and over. So, here’s a nice selection.

Dozens of readers sent in statistics regarding the gas mileage of the cars shown here, so presented below each photo is the average miles per gallon rating for each vehicle. These statistics are not necessarily definitive — they come from a variety of sources, including consumer sites, government databases, and in some instances personal expererience. The number shown is the average of the data given by these varying sources, so what you see here is at least likely to be a very close approximation of the actual gas efficiency for each vehicle. (Thanks to everyone who sent in statistics.)

AMG G55: 12 mpg city; 14 mpg highway. (Retail base price: $108,000.) Range Rover Sport: 14 mpg city; 19 mpg highway.

Mercedes Benz ML450: 13 mpg city; 16 mpg highway. Toyota 4Runner Limited 4WD: 16 mpg city; 20 mpg highway.

Acura MDX: 17 mpg city; 22 mpg highway. Jeep Liberty: 17 mpg city; 22 mpg highway.

Chevrolet Venture: 18 mpg city; 25 mpg highway. Nissan Frontier: 19 mpg city; 23 mpg highway. (Notice the “Start Global Cooling” sticker.)

…etc.

Zombie on July 3, 2013 at 2:36 PM

I want a car that runs on coal, uranium and dead birds because I’m an environmentalist.

forest on July 3, 2013 at 2:37 PM

Lithium is super reactive.

Plus it has a tendency to combust as Boeing and Apple have noticed.

viking01 on July 3, 2013 at 2:37 PM

I want a car that runs on coal, uranium and dead birds because I’m an environmentalist.

forest on July 3, 2013 at 2:37 PM

Why not stale beer?

viking01 on July 3, 2013 at 2:38 PM

Plus it has a tendency to combust as Boeing and Apple have noticed.

viking01 on July 3, 2013 at 2:37 PM

Like, oh… gasoline! Seriously?

faraway on July 3, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Unsettled science. Too bad it will never be heard enough to make a difference.

plutorocks on July 3, 2013 at 2:40 PM

Drive behind a 60′s model auto and you can smell the carburater but newer cars have hardly any emissions.

docflash on July 3, 2013 at 2:42 PM

Like, oh… gasoline! Seriously?

faraway on July 3, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Either one is a controlled reaction. When the reaction goes uncontrolled there’s a problem.

Lithium, like sodium can react with water to split the water. You get hydrogen which is more reactive than gasoline. Heap big trouble if there’s a departure from blueprint. It’s poisonous as all get out too.

One of the big dangers of lithium coin cells is if a child ingests one. If it springs a leak it can burn a hole through their gastrointestinal tract in no time.

viking01 on July 3, 2013 at 2:45 PM

Drive behind a 60′s model auto and you can smell the carburater but newer cars have hardly any emissions.

docflash on July 3, 2013 at 2:42 PM

Are we still talking about automobiles?

Fenris on July 3, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Yet another “I told you so”. But do they EVER listen? Liberals are low-info because they only listen to NPR and Dead Rock Stars.

kirkill on July 3, 2013 at 2:48 PM

This also reminds me of one of my favorite Top Gear episodes where they took a Prius, Drove it around the Track as fast as they could, and followed it with a BMW that had twice as big of an engine. Then measured the gas usage. The Prius sucked down more, of course. Build a car to produce as much horsepower as possible from the least amount of gas…now that’s a worthy cause.

BTW, I have a 4 cylinder 2.0 Liter Turbo Sonata. 0-60 in 6 seconds. 30 miles to the gallon. And it cost me $8,000 less than a Prius. And I don’t have to be embarrassed like the guy I see driving home with the bumper sticker on his Prius that says, “yeah, it’s Prius, and no, I’m not a liberal”!

kirkill on July 3, 2013 at 2:56 PM

At this point WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE!!!

29Victor on July 3, 2013 at 3:04 PM

On that basis, EVs look environmentally friendly. When comparing the entire life cycle of EVs to their gasoline- or diesel-fueled counterparts, though, the picture changes dramatically, as Zehner discovered

These conclusions are based on many assumptions. The most obvious is that dependency on oil from the Middle East doesn’t incur significant annual military costs, not to mention the justification for ongoing military interventions, and perhaps a major invasion every decade.

Granted, the extraction of rare earth minerals is extremely wasteful. How long it will take material scientists to device alternative battery technology is a complete unknown, although there are signs of promise around graphene and other materials breakthroughs.

The alternative energy source is another key assumption. If you’re exchanging oil for coal, it’s a losing proposition for the environment. But nuclear energy is a game changer, especially as researchers begin to test a new generation of reactors that are literally meltdown-resistant.

Finally, there’s no sign that consumers are willing to buy the modern iteration of the internal combustion engine that’s cited by the author. Despite its amazing fuel efficiency and other benefits, buyers have shown no sign of warming up to diesel engines.

Yet another “I told you so”. But do they EVER listen? Liberals are low-info because they only listen to NPR and Dead Rock Stars.

kirkill on July 3, 2013 at 2:48 PM

… and run virtually every high growth tech company in the country, from Apple to Google. The failure of conservatives to embrace the future and grasp the potential of scientific and technological progress has a huge economic price tag, threatening to relegate many to bitter loser status.

bayam on July 3, 2013 at 3:14 PM

Zehner suggests that readers “follow the money” to “get a sense of how biases creep in.”

Climate Change, or Climate Exchange?

John the Libertarian on July 3, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Why not stale beer?

viking01 on July 3, 2013 at 2:38 PM

You let your beer get stale?

I want a Mr Fusion! Where’s my Mr Fusion, dangit?!?

GWB on July 3, 2013 at 3:18 PM

… and run virtually every high growth tech company in the country, from Apple to Google.

bayam on July 3, 2013 at 3:14 PM

You are out of your mind. But low-info dude you are, you cite the two shining stools.

John the Libertarian on July 3, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Carly Fiorona ran HP. Before that, Lew Platt. Meg Whitman ran eBay.

bayam is an idiot.

John the Libertarian on July 3, 2013 at 3:24 PM

You let your beer get stale?

I want a Mr Fusion! Where’s my Mr Fusion, dangit?!?

GWB on July 3, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Not if I can help it.

I just figured the typical Prius driver can only drink half of one.

viking01 on July 3, 2013 at 3:25 PM

bayam on July 3, 2013 at 3:14 PM

You are out of your mind. But low-info dude you are, you cite the are two shining steaming stools.

John the Libertarian on July 3, 2013 at 3:20 PM

FIFY

viking01 on July 3, 2013 at 3:27 PM

… and run virtually every high growth tech company in the country, from Apple to Google. The failure of conservatives to embrace the future and grasp the potential of scientific and technological progress has a huge economic price tag, threatening to relegate many to bitter loser status.

bayam on July 3, 2013 at 3:14 PM

It’s all Bill Pimco’s fault.

slickwillie2001 on July 3, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Hot air…hating electric cars since 2008!

tlynch001 on July 3, 2013 at 3:29 PM

There’s a new Dodge truck commercial out that shows the vehicle riding through a vast as far as the eye can see field of windmills. I thought that it was a pretty good example of what everyone is going to have in their back yards just so we can AC the houses. It may be too subliminal for some to grasp but this is your electricity source in an Obamanation.

Kissmygrits on July 3, 2013 at 3:33 PM

You are out of your mind. But low-info dude you are

John the Libertarian on July 3, 2013 at 3:20 PM

At least you’ve managed to learn how to post blog comments, that’s a step in the right direction, but it’s probably not enough to help you afford a Tesla. I’ll let you continue to inform the low-info class with your flow of knowledge and didactic insights from Glenn Beck.

bayam on July 3, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Who in their right mind wants a Tesla?

Certainly not anyone who has actually earned the money to buy one.

viking01 on July 3, 2013 at 3:37 PM

I read in another article that the lifecycle energy consumption of a large wind turbine was greater than the amount of electricity the turbine will generate from the day it is installed until the day it is scrapped.

These Green Initiatives are not done to protect the environment. They are done because they are aesthetic (and for the graft, of course). They are best thought of as very large, very expensive public art projects.

Haiku Guy on July 3, 2013 at 4:08 PM

Do electric cars simply move pollution from upper-middle-class communities in Beverly Hills and Virginia Beach to poor communities in the backwaters of West Virginia and the nation’s industrial exurbs? Are electric cars a sleight of hand that allows peace of mind for those who are already comfortable at the expense of intensifying asthma, heart problems, and radiation risks among the poor and politically disconnected?

Ouch, indeed, but it gets even worse. With Obummer’s 2010 regulations on CO2 emissions which make it practically impossible to permit a power plant, even a clean gas-fired plant, where will the electricity come from to recharge the batteries?

Meanwhile, thanks to fracking technology, our country is producing more natural gas than we use, and our government forbids us from using a plentiful and cheap energy resource. Only in America, only in Obamaca.

Steve Z on July 3, 2013 at 4:09 PM

Finally, there’s no sign that consumers are willing to buy the modern iteration of the internal combustion engine that’s cited by the author. Despite its amazing fuel efficiency and other benefits, buyers have shown no sign of warming up to diesel engines.

Americans have been using diesel-powered trucks for decades, but they are not subject to the strict regulations on particulate (unburned fuel) emissions that gasoline-powered cars must satisfy. If you’ve ever seen the black smoke from a truck or bus tailpipe as it accelerates from a red light or stop sign, that represents toxic unburned hydrocarbons emitted to the air.

Diesel-powered truck engines are very powerful for hauling heavy loads, but small diesel engines don’t deliver the acceleration that many drivers want for their cars, particularly when pulling into traffic from a stop sign, or merging onto a freeway.

It is possible to develop diesel engines for larger cars or SUVs that deliver satisfactory performance (acceleration) and better fuel economy than gasoline engines, but the market is currently hampered by higher prices for diesel fuel than for gasoline.

The development of diesel-powered cars could be favored by eliminating state taxes on diesel fuel, or raising them on gasoline, which would make diesel fuel cheaper than gasoline. This was actually adopted in France during the 1980′s, which now has a fairly large percentage of diesel-powered cars on the road.

There would still be the necessity of installing pollution controls on diesel-powered cars to keep particulate emissions down to an acceptable level.

Steve Z on July 3, 2013 at 4:26 PM

Not as significant as replacing renewable paper with the power hog internet, not to add batteries, etc. Who didn’t already know this?

kunegetikos on July 3, 2013 at 4:31 PM

The World Energy Council indicates that over 30 years, the average fuel consumption of both European and Asian cars has dropped by more than 30%. Yet the United States is “stuck in reverse” when it comes to the last 30 years of average mpg.

Despite the fact that in the past three decades, the average weight of U.S. passenger cars has decreased by more than 1,500 pounds or 30% the Average fuel economy for passenger vehicles according to the US Department of Transportation is only “17.1 miles a gallon”. Therefore the fuel economy in the U.S. has in actuality been declining.
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_09.html

For example the 1982 Honda Civic 1300FE was rated by the EPA for 58 MPG, the 1985 Civic HF was rated by the EPA for 54 MPG and the 1986 Mercury Lynx 2.0 was rated by the EPA for 40 MPG, yet now we have these hybrid system cars loaded with sensors that can barely break even MPG wise with less cargo space.

Not even U.S. “hybrid” vehicles would pass many foreign fuel economy & emission standards. For example China’s fuel economy standards for cars are 100% higher than those in the US, (must get a minimum of 48mpg), and the Euro 4 emission and safety norms are far better and vastly exceed that of the U.S..

Now even India is surpassing the US with the Indian manufactured Tata Nano, a 4-door that meets Euro 4 emission and safety norms, (the car averages 61.1 mpg (USA) city and 51.7mpg (USA) hwy), plus it has passed EuroNCAP crash test. eg.:1) Full frontal crash impact 2) Offset frontal crash impact 3) Side impact crash test.

“These cars meet or exceed U.S. safety standards, so there is no reason why they shouldn’t be made available to U.S. consumers,” said CSI President Pam Solo.

“We have to face the unpleasant facts here: America is needlessly losing the race to develop the best fuel-efficient technology and then deliver it to the American consumer,”

Solo said. “U.S. consumers say they are willing to buy these cars, so the big U.S. automakers are actually going backwards at a time when it’s possible to make cars that are more fuel efficient.”

European and Asian vehicles average “56mpg”-us.

Here is just a “small” sample of “hundreds” of different 4 door passenger model cars and SUVs in the UK, Europe, Asia, South America, and Africa that far exceed U.S. emission and safety standards and get over twice the MPG of the average U.S. auto but are not sold in the U.S..

(Note: “None” of the automobiles in the following list are hybrids! Highest base price is $10,800.00USD.)

The Toyota ES3 4 door sedan has since 2002 continued to achieve an average of 87 MPG-us in the official European fuel consumption tests.

The European Audi A2 has since 1999 continued to be sold with a fuel efficiency of 78 MPG-us but “NOT” in the U.S.

Since 1998 Germanys VW Lupo has easily maintained 78 MPG-us for their European customers but is “NOT” sold in the U.S..

In Europe the Ford Fiesta gets 73 MPG-us but is “NOT” sold in the U.S..

Or the 54.7 MPG-us Fiat Panda SUV which is sold in UK, Europe, Asia, South America, and Africa but is “NOT” sold in America.

And the 62 MPG-us Seat Ibiza is sold in UK, Europe, Asia, South America, and Africa but “NOT” in U.S.

Or the VW’s Jetta Blue which gets 60 MPG-us, 90% Emissions Reduction for Nox has been selling in Europe and Asia for years but still has “NOT” made it to America.

The 59 MPG-us Toyota iQ for sale in UK, Europe, Asia, South America, and Africa but “NOT” in U.S..

Or the 56 MPG-us Citroën sold in UK, Europe, Asia, South America, and Africa but “NOT” sold in U.S..

And this is not a “new” trend. The Washington Times, 8/9/91, published an article, “Gas saving engines hit streets in fall.” This article is about two engines, the Mitsubishi MVV engine, and the Honda VTEC-E. According to the article and the company spokesmen, the Mitsubishi gets up to 50 MPG-us; the Honda, up to 88 MPG-us. Neither car was allowed to sell in the U.S. Today that same Honda engine is currently used in the Toyota ES3 4 door sedan which has since 2002 continued to achieve an average of 87 MPG-us in the official European fuel consumption test.

JustTheFacts on July 3, 2013 at 4:35 PM

This article is idiotic.

Electric cars trade oil from the Middle east for nuclear power.

faraway on July 3, 2013 at 2:15 PM

As HA’s most vocally pro-nuclear semi-regular commenter, I’m afraid we don’t have enough nuclear power to say that yet. What electric cars do right now is trade oil from Jihadistan for coal from Virginia.

I look forward to the day when nuclear does take over, but until then, electric cars are dirtier than gasoline.

Alberta_Patriot on July 3, 2013 at 4:45 PM

Just as a side note…there is also no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, or making lead into gold…

right2bright on July 3, 2013 at 4:48 PM

Natural gas would make it even more cleaner…amazing how the simplest ideas get pushed to the side.

right2bright on July 3, 2013 at 4:50 PM

There would still be the necessity of installing pollution controls on diesel-powered cars to keep particulate emissions down to an acceptable level.

Steve Z on July 3, 2013 at 4:26 PM

All good points. From my understanding, the particulate emissions tech has been developed and refined over the past decade. It’s no longer a major issue. Yes consumers remain reluctant.

This article is idiotic.

Electric cars trade oil from the Middle east for nuclear power.

faraway on July 3, 2013 at 2:15 PM

As HA’s most vocally pro-nuclear semi-regular commenter, I’m afraid we don’t have enough nuclear power to say that yet. What electric cars do right now is trade oil from Jihadistan for coal from Virginia.

I look forward to the day when nuclear does take over, but until then, electric cars are dirtier than gasoline.

Alberta_Patriot on July 3, 2013 at 4:45 PM

I’d take American coal over Jihadistan oil any day… although the lower cost of natural gas and tighter regulatory standards are driving the displacement of coal by natural gas.

As for nuclear power, a new generation of nuclear technology is on the horizon. Check out the investments made by Bill Gates and other very smart venture money into TerraPower, which not only addresses traditional safety concerns, but is actually powered by nuclear waste. The Chinese are also making deep investments in similar technology. It’s only a matter of time.

http://www.fastcompany.com/1660316/bill-gates-backed-nuclear-power-startup-terrapower-gets-35-million

bayam on July 3, 2013 at 5:09 PM

Who in their right mind wants a Tesla?

Tesla has benefited from a surge of orders that largely took Wall Street by surprise, sending the stock up 5 fold over the past couple years. Toyota’s investment should have been a signal- the Japanese remain a step ahead of everyone else in identifying the long-term trends and winners in automotive.

The response of critics- Consumer Reports gave the Model S it’s highest rating of all time- hasn’t hurt either.

bayam on July 3, 2013 at 5:17 PM

bitter loser status.

bayam on July 3, 2013 at 3:14 PM

I’ll let you continue to inform the low-info class

bayam on July 3, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Your Democrat party owns the low-info class. The 2012 Presidential election results proved that conclusively.

bayam’s electric car.

Del Dolemonte on July 3, 2013 at 5:27 PM

I’d take American coal over Jihadistan oil any day, which is why my Cult Leader O’bama has declared a War on American Coal.

bayam on July 3, 2013 at 5:09 PM

Edited for Accuracy.

“It’s clear now that the President has declared a war on coal”

Democrat Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, June 25, 2013.

Thanks for playing!

Del Dolemonte on July 3, 2013 at 5:30 PM

Awhile back I was forced to use public transit to get around and I almost never saw any white eco-hippies riding with me.

myrenovations on July 3, 2013 at 5:31 PM

The response of critics- Consumer Reports gave the Model S it’s highest rating of all time- hasn’t hurt either.

bayam on July 3, 2013 at 5:17 PM

In 2006, Consumer Reports also said that six hybrid vehicles it tested would probably not save owners money. Problem is, they said that before realizing that they had miscalculated the formula they used for depreciation. So they are nowhere close to being perfect. Just sayin’.

Just curious. How many people do you know who will spend the equivalent of the cost of a small house to buy a car that has to be regularly recharged by coal-generated electricity?

Del Dolemonte on July 3, 2013 at 5:38 PM

More Inconvenient Truths that The Left will ignore as products of the Flat Earthers.

Another Drew on July 3, 2013 at 5:48 PM

Del, once The Bamster’s EPA gets through, there won’t be one piece of coal anywhere in the USA that exceeds room-temp.

Another Drew on July 3, 2013 at 5:50 PM

Who in their right mind wants a Tesla?

Actually, I think one of the Fisker’s with the Corvette drivetrain by Bob Lutz would be just fine.

Another Drew on July 3, 2013 at 5:52 PM

JustTheFacts on July 3, 2013 at 4:35 PM

You can cite all the specific mileage figures you want, but what matters is the Fleet Average of all cars and light trucks sold in America in any one year.
Just remember, that the average car in the 70′s was something like an Olds Cutlass, and it barely got 12mpg, the bigger full-size sedans were in single-digits.
Also, please remember that all of those super high-mileage cars had miserable sales numbers, so their effect on the fleet-average was imperceptible.
All in all, the American Fleet has made remarkable progress once we canned carbs, and started using some smart engineering.

Another Drew on July 3, 2013 at 5:58 PM

bayam on July 3, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Wow..gotta give you credit.

You just get your a$$ handed to you by…

rogerb on July 3, 2013 at 2:06 PM

..and you still have the gall to spout more dog$hit.

Well done!!!

BigWyo on July 3, 2013 at 5:58 PM

This guy is a scientist, and has now, after years of work, come to the conclusion that most of us had nearly immediately.

Confidence in ‘scientists’ has sure taken a hit over the last few decades.

Midas on July 3, 2013 at 2:25 PM

I’d have phrased that slightly different. Sort of like this.

This guy is a scientist dipstick, and has now, after years of work with his head stuck up his a$$ has finally seen the light that was obvious to the rest of us immediately.

Oldnuke on July 3, 2013 at 6:18 PM

http://www.fastcompany.com/1660316/bill-gates-backed-nuclear-power-startup-terrapower-gets-35-million

bayam on July 3, 2013 at 5:09 PM

Did you actually read that article? Do you have any idea what depleted uranium is? What makes you think that this thing will be any safer than a light water reactor. Do you have any idea what they’re going to moderate it with or do you think they’ll just use fast neutrons and run prompt critical all the time? What do you think the fast non-leakage factor would have to be for that? Do you think resonance absorption will play a significant part in this thing? How much Pu-239 will be produced by this reactor and how will they deal with it? Do you know how a CANDU plant operates?

Oldnuke on July 3, 2013 at 6:33 PM

Diesels do have to abide by emissions standards.
We also have no sulfur fuel which now allows algae to grow in your tanks & the tanks of the distributors i.e. fuel stations.
So if you don’t have algae growing in your tank now, you’ll probably pick some up eventually when you fill up somewhere & then have fun trying to get rid of it.
Oh yes there’s treatments to buy, but it’s not easy. Takes a long time to get the $hit out of your tank.
Meanwhile you’re spending a buttload of $$ changing filters all the time.
The trucking industry is trying to buy older semis bcs they’re grandfathered in by CAFE standards. The new diesels are more $$ to run.
Our 2000 Pete is right before the ‘mess’ that diesel engines have gone to bcs of mandates.
Old tractors are also at a premium now bcs the newer farming equipment is too $$ to run as well.
Then you have the problem that diesel is a lot more $$ now.
How many refineries have switched over to the new no sulfur technology?
IDK what that entails, but I do know that the Tesoro refinery in Mandan ND had to forg an expensive upgrade to their facilities to keep refining diesel.
The new refinery being built on the Rez up near New Town ND I believe is just going to make diesel bcs of the oil field demand.
Diesels are NOTHING like they used to be.
You can’t even get them to run anymore in subzero temps (like even -10 F) bcs of the pathetic fuel blends they make now.

On to my major point though, we keep talking about things being ‘green’.
I am assuming this is supposed to mean low CO2, and as you should know, Liberals, CO2 has NEVER been demonstrated to cause atmospheric temps to rise.
Remember kids: rising atmospheric temps cause more CO2 to be taken up into the atmosphere.
And the Sun is what drives our climate.
CO2 is not a pollutant.
You have been had. Morons.

Badger40 on July 3, 2013 at 6:37 PM

On to my major point though, we keep talking about things being ‘green’.
I am assuming this is supposed to mean low CO2, and as you should know, Liberals, CO2 has NEVER been demonstrated to cause atmospheric temps to rise.
Remember kids: rising atmospheric temps cause more CO2 to be taken up into the atmosphere.
And the Sun is what drives our climate.
CO2 is not a pollutant.
You have been had. Morons.

Badger40 on July 3, 2013 at 6:37 PM

Badger, you’re spot on. I have no idea what green is supposed to mean in relation to energy and neither do the enviroweenies. It’s just a feel good word. Green energy is a myth. It doesn’t exist except in poorly written science fiction stories. The sun drives not only our climate it is the source of all our energy. Coal, oil and natural gas is just sunlight buried in the ground a long time ago. Even hydro power can be ultimately traced back to the sun. A case might be made that nuclear doesn’t derive from the sun but then I wonder where’d the Uranium come from? Energy cannot be created or destroyed only changed. Renewable energy is also a myth. Energy can’t be renewed. About all we can do is create more efficient ways of using it.

Oldnuke on July 3, 2013 at 6:58 PM

http://www.fastcompany.com/1660316/bill-gates-backed-nuclear-power-startup-terrapower-gets-35-million

bayam on July 3, 2013 at 5:09 PM

Did you actually read that article? Do you have any idea what depleted uranium is? What makes you think that this thing will be any safer than a light water reactor. Do you have any idea what they’re going to moderate it with or do you think they’ll just use fast neutrons and run prompt critical all the time? What do you think the fast non-leakage factor would have to be for that? Do you think resonance absorption will play a significant part in this thing? How much Pu-239 will be produced by this reactor and how will they deal with it? Do you know how a CANDU plant operates?

Oldnuke on July 3, 2013 at 6:33 PM

Funny you should mention that. I’m a volunteer for the Canadian Nuclear Society. I know several members of the CANDU-6/EC6 and ACR-1000 design teams. They’ve told me that the Traveling Wave Reactor is a cute trick that pretty much works only in theory. In practical terms, once Terrapower has constructed an actual working prototype, it will not be much different inside from GE’s proposed S-PRISM or the old Integral Fast Reactor that President Clinton cancelled.

Alberta_Patriot on July 3, 2013 at 7:15 PM

bayam on July 3, 2013 at 3:34 PM

And yet…it’s always the leftists who stand in the way of scientific – REAL scientific – progress.

They prefer some faith-based, religious hocus-pocus like “global warming” and such.

Solaratov on July 3, 2013 at 7:20 PM

Alberta_Patriot on July 3, 2013 at 7:15 PM

CANDUs have been burning dirt for a long time. Online refueling is a neat trick but overall plant maintenance suffers in the long run. I like to shut down every so often and fix everything. I remember talking about that TWR years ago but had all but forgotten it. There are a lot of viable designs for reactors floating around. People frequently bring up the Thorium cycle and how wonderful it is. They’re apparently unaware we had one back in the 70s actually commercially putting out megawatts. Ft.St.Vrain. As a lot of things go it looked great on paper but didn’t work too well in practice. They could have probably worked all the bugs out and got it right if somebody had been willing to pump megabucks into it. Just wasn’t worth it when PWRs and BWRs were already proving themselves. When it comes right down to it if you’re making uranium fission you’re going to have fission products and they’re going to require special handling. Bayam calling depleted uranium nuclear waste cracked me up. Just told me he had no idea what it really is.

Oldnuke on July 3, 2013 at 7:28 PM

(Without having read prior comments)

We forget one thing about electric cars….the equation changes if their power comes from electricity generated by something other than carbon based fuel. Obama realizes this. It is one reason why he is emphaisizing windmills, solar, etc. Of course these are much more costly but if you are trying to bring down the economy while protecting the environment it works.

Of course, also, once you bring down the economy, no one will be able to afford cars which brings us to another Obama project… people moving back the cities, forcing us to take public transportation, bikes, or walk to work. He will also force our places of work back to the cities so that we can easily get there, even though the jobs might not be to our liking. Again, who cares?

This will enable us to take whatever wealth we have as a nation and send it to the third world so they can copy our example. We’ll all be equally poor but that’s only fair in Obama’s feeble mind.

If anyone thinks this is the enactment of Agenda 21, you’re right.

So the production of electric cars is exactly what Obama wants since it supports his move to make everyone equal. In the mean time all our current energy sources will stay in the ground.

newjerseypatriot on July 3, 2013 at 7:41 PM

…Bill Gates…
 
bayam on July 3, 2013 at 5:09 PM

 
DRINK!

rogerb on July 4, 2013 at 6:36 AM

Why not stale beer?

viking01 on July 3, 2013 at 2:38 PM

Huh? Beer can get “stale”?

You learn something new every day.

Squiggy on July 4, 2013 at 8:21 AM

Bayam, what percent of your total external/non-corporal energy consumption… is met by solar power?
 
rogerb on October 6, 2011 at 7:54 PM

 
I have no idea, but why does that matter? What does the present have to do with the future?
 
bayam on October 7, 2011 at 12:44 AM

rogerb on July 4, 2013 at 10:41 AM

The favorable or unfavorable outcome of cost-benefit analyses depend largely upon where you decide to stop counting.

Stop at the tailpipe? EV looks good.
Include the power plants? Conventional looks good.
Include the light-weight manufacturing? EV looks good.
Include the mining & use of heavy rare earths? Conventional looks good.
Include the job creation for specialty material? EV looks good.
Include the third-world labor exploitation? Conventional looks good.

And so on.

ss396 on July 4, 2013 at 10:50 AM

Badger40 on July 3, 2013 at 6:37 PM

Here’s a novel invention I just heard of. Here’s another ;)

DarkCurrent on July 4, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Whaddayaknow? Another pointy-headed intellectual just found out TANSTAAFL.

Knott Buyinit on July 4, 2013 at 2:36 PM

so natural gas powered vehicles don’t run on fossil fuel….

yo einstein….ya think natural gas is farted outta Barry’s unicorn..

roflmmfao

donabernathy on July 4, 2013 at 4:20 PM

INCONVENIENT FACTS:

1. Without CO2 there IS NO GREEN!!!

CO2 is essential for all plant…and indirectly, all animal life!!!

2. AGW is a hoax, but even if you assume it is real, there is no evidence that a warmer earth would be “bad”!!!

So relax: the scary stories are just Liberal trying to amuse themselves and scare the rest of us into giving them all of our money.

landlines on July 4, 2013 at 6:35 PM

If protecting the environment was the goal EV and E-hybrids are the worst and most costly way to go. Pneumatic, flywheel, soda (caustic soda and water), and ammonia absorption all work better than stored energy electric.

However, there is an argument for reducing our dependence on overseas oil. Electric cars designed to merely be a simple, commuting car (rather than a primary family or personal vehicle), can make economic sense. Replacing 10% to 15% of our vehicle fleet could help prevent our growth in offshore oil demand.

blink on July 3, 2013 at 2:11 PM

Drilling here now would do a lot better.

Oldnuke on July 3, 2013 at 7:28 PM

The problem at Ft.St.Vrain was the helium cooling system.

Slowburn on July 5, 2013 at 7:51 AM

Oldnuke on July 3, 2013 at 7:28 PM

The problem at Ft.St.Vrain was the helium cooling system.

Slowburn on July 5, 2013 at 7:51 AM

Yes and like I said things that work in theory sometimes don’t work too well in practice and no one was willing to fork over the bucks needed to fix the problems. PWRs and BWRs using enriched uranium fuel had fewer problems and proven designs.

Oldnuke on July 5, 2013 at 10:10 AM