Are Electric Cars Really Eco-friendly?

Fourth, if cars are recharged overnight it helps even out the load on the grid.

Yes, these are good points to consider a change to electric cars. But, the battery life? My understanding is that the battery replacement cost make the electric cars unviable. Are there any cost effective batteries that would last long enough to make the repalcement cost a small fraction of "fuel" cost?

Otherwise, with operating cost based on "electricity consumption cost only", this would be very economical with 1 kwh capable of taking the vehicle upto 4 km.

My comment is based on the assumption that the lead acid batteries life is about 300-400 cycles on full charge and discharge cycle of battery.

I agree to you, but also disagree. Still GA.

For one thing, you get more miles per given quantity of pollution. Per quantity of pollution on the spot of vehicle.

Second, it is easier to clean up one static source's pollution. It is only a hope. It is easier, but never done! In practice it is never taken care of and the people around the static source suffer and others escape.

Besides, as you say pollution due to batteries is never counted.

Actually, the statement about cleaning up one point source is currently believe for most sources of pollutants to not hold. The natural environment cleans numerous small sources that are spread out and managed properly far better then a high volume concentrated source. A good example is municipal wastewater. The current trend in favor is to try to create smaller localize facilities to avvoid potential high concentration point source pollution releases that overwhelm the natural environment's capacity to mitigate the damage. In essence with all pollution there tends to be a tipping point where you exceed natural attentuation and then the problem grows much much worse much more rapidly. What you gain from concentrating facilities is a concentration of labor resources and a cost efficiency of scale in things like capital cost, labor cost and O&M cost.

I believe you are totally wrong with the concept.

In the case of autos I guarantee you are wrong.

In a comparitive case for automobiles you would actually be wrong if you truly thopught through a valid comparison. A large automobile capable of supporting multiple people is not more efficient than a very small one when in use, simply because more often then not it would have substantially more capacity avaialble then is used and would have to travel much fruther to support multiple peoples needs than a very small single person automobile, such as a motorcycle. A bus is not more efficient than a motorcycle, just because it must travel constantly about a circuit and doesn't get people as close to where they want to go as other means could, it is almost never near capacity except at rare peak demand periods. We here as individuals on motorcycles go right where they want and park in the interim while they undertake their activities, thus when operated they can be operated at or near capacity, which is the highest efficiency point for any designed system. Part of the problems with automobiles is the lack of use of excess capacity, a SUV has a much greater capacity than most people ever use. this is a good exaple of the situation where many smaller vehicles would be more efficient than a centralize large vehicle. Now comparison with electric hydrid system, subways sytems etc. has different efficiency issues that can overwhelm the efficiency gains from using multiple smaller systems sized for the intended regular usage and utilized directly for that purpose. I think it would be a good topic to analyze the per capita carbon dioxide equivalents loading of different modes of transportation, based on actual usage loads not on the projected efficient usages (consider how often is a bus that is operated continuously all day long actually has a full load at capacity). Decentralized smaller systems gain many benefits by spreading the waste loads and environmental impacts out as long as they are managed and operated properly, this is true of most systems potable water, solid waste and wastewater being 3 that this has become common practice. The down side is that much like cars, many times the operation and maintenance is pushed to further limits than it should be in an atempt to reduce costs. With cars I have heard estimates that in California that up near 90% of the smog loads are derived from approximately 10% of the combustion engines. Poor management, operation, and in this case particularly maintenance is the issue.

"A large automobile capable of supporting multiple people is not more efficient than a very small one when in use..."

Well, 99% of vehicles on the road have only one person in them:

Statistics

So, one may wish people to car pool, but most people don't, so your hypothesis has some merit.

The problem is that most people buy one car that has to do everything (to/from work, vacation/travel, errands, etc.) rather than a set of specialized cars. So, big cars are the norm and half of the vehicles sold in the US are SUVs and trucks.

Exactly, a SUV with one person in it really is not an efficient use of capacity. Actually many people buy a car that has capacity well beyond anything they will ever use it for. The vast majority of people buying SUVs could use small cars for everything they do, they buy them in US frequently as status symbols, example the prevalence of Black Escalades amongst aging rap music fans, as toys hoping to go 4-wheeling someday or pick up women based on the perception of being from the country, or for safety SUV plow through anything they hit and the passangers tend to have a higher survivability rate in the SUV than cars when the two encounter. A SUV is really much more of a bus, and they are 90% of the time occupied by one person driving them on the road on minor tasks (literally many times the soccer moms could walk the 2 blocks to walk the children home, or even let their children just walk the 2 blocks home alone).

But to the idea of decentralized systems, with regards to electric cars, I have seen a decentralized suystem that a local agency uses, it is far more efficient than using a purely centralized systems. It employs a series of parkin stalled which have power connections for vehicles and is powered by solar cells on the roof odf the stalls, augmented by centralized electric power. This reduces the losses from the energy provider to the vehicle due to line losses from transmission of power over great distance, an obvious waste, and takes advantage of the unused space above parking. It is inefficnet to centralize these types of solar power systems, but much more efficient to decentralize them to provide power locally and augment the needs with other power when adverse weather impacts solar energy supplies. (They could maybe have even installed small wind turbines to generate power when weather was adverse to solar supplies, and been even more efficient). Typically in engineering the larger equipment sizes tend to lose the benefit of economy of scale, and there are points of maximum benefit relative to cost somewhere between very large and very small equipment when you consider installation, operation, maintenance and other factors. these types of use of formerly unused space to provide benefits can make many small facilities much more efficient than one large land intensive facility.

RCE-

I give you a GA for good analysis, but must digress from your opinion on buses. While it is true in the US that buses are generally operated at less than optimum capacity, this is not necessarily true in environments other than the US. Here in Panama, an extensive bus system is used extensively (mostly by us who are less economically advantaged), and during peak hours (typically 6:30 AM to about 7:30 PM) one often finds standing room only conditions. Outside of peak hours, the number of buses on each route are decreased accordingly. Since a trip from any point in the city to any other point in the city costs only $0.25 for the passenger, more people are encouraged to use the buses (there are certain routes with more up-scale equipment that can charge $1.75 per trip). Cross country buses are similarly priced- $2.00 for the 60 mile trip from Panama City to Colon (paralleling the Canal), $15.00 for the cross-country run from Panama to David- about the equivalent of going from LA to San Francisco.

Panama City itself is laid out such that bus routes are quite convenient. Most of the time when I use the bus, I am less than a block from the access point, and am delivered to within one block of my destination.

There are two problems that limit the use of motor cycles in Panama (although they are growing in popularity). One is safety- a problem resulting from overly-congested traffic arteries, not necessarily the inherent safety characteristics of the motor cycles themselves (congestion is not the only problem- Panama drivers are notoriously aggressive and inconsiderate- a motor cyclist is fair game...). The other is the rain- not only when it is coming down, but the run-off after the storm. One sees delivery cyclists dressed in diving wet-suits...

The point was pollution generated at a power plant (say 500 mW) as compared to a few thousand autos. The power plant can be cleaner every time. If it is not then it is a very poorly managed plant. Your comparison of car to car is meaningless.

In a later post you get in to distributed generation and how wonderful it is - using small wind to back up solar. Please study the topic a bit before writing such things.

Neither solar nor wind (large commercial wind) provides baseline power. Small residential wind provides virtually zero power. As long as there is no storage (except for occasional hydro facilities) solar and wind are simply unreliable sources. Storage is not close today.

In 10 years the capacity factor of residential PV solar will be seen to be worse than horrible. The capacity factor for small residential wind will be near nil.

The solar based recharging/parking areas - they had a grid connection for a backup with no doubt. Shows just exactly how useful they are. They would need to be grid connected with battery storage to tap solar and have any reliability. A green joke on us all.

It is a over-generalizatio to claim power plants are always cleaner than automobiles. It depends upon which impacts you are assessing, the type of power plant and the waste you are looking at. Power plants are far more susceptible to surface water and groundwater pollution than automobiles, though the carbon dioxide equivalents. For instance power plants cause more thermal degradation of natural waters than automobiles do, whioch is a common form of pollution that leads to other degradations in water quality. Power plants can localized dense fog banks that lead to other problems. The solids from coal fired plants are far more acutely and chronically toxic than any waste produced by automobiles. I think you have a narrowly focused view on power plants only from the perspective of carbon dioxide equivalents, and need to expand it to consider all other waste.

I am not 'narrowly focused on the CO2 equivalents' whatsoever. If a power plant is not being operated in the cleanest manner practical the EPA needs to be all over them.

OK - take it from the oil well, coal mine or uranium mine. Your argument is bogus.

While subtle you demonstated the loophole in your own statement, "the cleanest manner practical". The regulations and enforcement by the States and EPA are based on economically practical. The decisions about what is economincally practical gets modified through congress based on lobbyists funding of specific congressman's, or (as the last president made it apparent) presidential campaigns. The standards applied vary by industry, and are not typically at the levels recommended based on scientific evidence, solely because the industries have lobbied that it would not be economically feasible for them to clean up their waste. This leaves the burden of the waste clean up and the health consequences on the public, but is arguably a balance of benefits from industry against cost to the public (the regulatory perception of the balancing point varies frequently as the adminstration and congressional backing changes). The next issue is then enforcement which quite simply you can have laws but if they aren't enforced or aren't enforceable nothing happens. The EPA and state regulatory agencies do not have near enough man power to review every wastee generator with any level they would need to catch even a majority of the releases. The only way to be " all over them" would be to have EPA enforcement at every facility all the time during operations to oversee waste control. The EPA depends mostly on State Agencies (and some States have short term agendas that are contrary to protecting the general publics health and welfare, improving employment statistics before an election being a good example). So many state agencies have limited resources for regulation and enforcement. Much of the regulationa nd enforcement is through the waste generators them selves supplied in regular reportings to the State Agencies, who in turn compile and generalize these reporting to the EPA. Fines for violations are always negotiable and can be delayed indefinitely, based on economic feasibility from the violators (Research the community of Los Osos California for a good example of how long you can be in violation and accruing fines without having to clean anything up). Additionally many industries, such as farming and petroleum, have some huge blanket exemptions written into federal regulations based soley on the industry (and their lobbying efforts), not scientific evidence. The immediate benefit to the voting public within the term to the next election was perceived to greatly outweigh the overwhelming evidence of risk to the public in the long term (more then 1 or 2 election cycles). Things like Coal and Uranium generate highly toxic solid and liquid wastes containing heavy metals and radioisotopes. It is actually part of the the fuel, so burn the fuel and the remaining materials are concentrated and more dangerous. Ponds leak, conveyance systems leak, things fail and there of chronic small releases constantly occurring as well as the infrequent acute major releases. It is just the nature of waste. You see the same effect when you concentrate a lot of cars in a closed basin with respects to air quality, spread all those car around the world, the smog would not be a problem, concentrate thenm all in the LA basin and you can not see 200 feet and barely breathe.

Are Electric Cars Really Eco-friendly?"

No.

They merely help some people disguise the fact that they are wasting too much energy for trivial pursuits.

If you want to be eco-friendly, walk, or ride a bicycle. Or, if you really, really need to go far fast, use public transportation. Assuming it is available...

GA

I agree totally.

Absolutely correct !

They think their EV is more efficient because an electric motor is more efficient than an internal combustion one, but they dismiss the fact that electric energy is generated at fossil fuel plants, so both of the energy conversion losses, sum toghether.

Yahlasit

That is nice to walk or ride a bike, I do agree, but if you travel 15 -- 30 miles to work... once you get there, you will rather think about riding your bike back home than about your work.

Anyway, electric cars are more echo-friendly than engine vehicles. Besides smaller fuel-pollution per mile, we forgot in our discussion that electricity can be taken from the sun, wind, and other renewable sources. Solar panels can be installed on cars, trailers, railway carriages... even on plains!

The answer for the question is "YES, electrical car is more echo-friendly than regular car."

Or, you could move closer to where you work, so you don't have to drive 15-30 miles to work. The idea is to cut down on unnecessary miles traveled. I realize this may not be a viable option for everyone...

If you think about it, driving 15-30 miles to work everyday, and home again at night, is a tremendous waste of human resource, independent of any pollution or fossil fuel issues.

There are many peripheral benefits were we to start planning our lives around methods of reducing our reliance on motorized transport. While this may be difficult in places like the United States, it is very possible in many other regions, as I demonstrate in my own situation by not owning an automobile- I no longer even have a driver's license...It CAN be done, but don't count on your government to do it for you...

"Or, you could move closer to where you work..."

Or as many as 17% (real numbers) no longer have work to drive to.

That has to save some pollution.

That sounds encouraging, actually- I have seen reports that the "real numbers" are north of 20%- one report had it as high as 26%...

How can one say it is not easier to cleanup pollution at the power plant than at a few thousand exhaust pipes?

A power plant is designed to operate efficiently and the operators do so for reasons of economy.

Battery life is now being guaranteed for the effective life of the car - see the Volt & Leaf.

The electric utility eco-friendly? Not my problem

Does it produce sustainable energy? Not my problem

Right now the cost of power is being distorted due to silly green schemes of paying exceedingly high prices for so called green power.

Pollution due to the batteries? Minimal and to be worked on. They will be recycled without doubt.

If one worries about everything then why are they on the internet? İt consumes everything from power to materials. Those that are too concerned should possibly consider a hunger strike. Would solve a few small problems.

I suppose you are referring to my post (also). Let me explain:

How can one say it is not easier to cleanup pollution at the power plant than at a few thousand exhaust pipes?

I do not say so. It is certainly easier to cleanup at one location than to thousands of exhaust pipes. I agree with you completely without any reservation. My point is it is easier, but not done. May be in your country or in some more countries, they may be doing. But when we think of problem as a globe, we will have to accept that it is not done. The laws are their which are bypassed by loop holes in the law or through corruption.

Efficiency of powerplant is one thing and pollution is other thing. I do agree that efficient power plant will make less pollution. But still it will make.

Right now the cost of power is being distorted due to silly green schemes of paying exceedingly high prices for so called green power.

Please read "No impact man". No doubt he is not expert in the field. But you will get other view point. He says.. if we account for the expenses incurred due to pollution.. like health expenses, the real cost of fossil fuels is much higher than what we pay. We are paying absurdly low direct fuel cost.

and to be worked on

When you say "it is to be worked on yet".. you can not say "Minimal". One one hand through RohS we are banning lead in electronics and on the other hand almost 90% use of lead of total global consumption of lead (in batteries)] is exempted from RohS. This is hypocrisy.

Also read Rachael Carlson's Silent springs and other books. You will realize what impact is there through various chemicals going into water. Battery is another chemical plant.

We need to think about if we want to enjoy now and force our next generations in worst life or we moderate our lifestyle and let next generations also live some tolerable life.

We can dig a hole and crawl in as well - we will manage as has always been done.

Don't worry! Be happy!

It depends on where you get your electricity from.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=interactive-plug-in-hybrids

Electricity and its applications are the greatest marvels of human contribution. If the generation is greener and sustainable electric cars and all electrical appliances should be the future.

The only puzzle is mega green electricity

Eventually the batteries will be lithium, which I beleive is eco-friendly, and the power generation will be solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear. The latter isn't totally eco-friendly, but is so efficient it would be worth it (see France, Japan)

I believe and understand that Lithium is a finite resource.

Beware

Sleepy

hydro. hydro is a lost cause from eco-friendly stand point. Hydro adversely impacts fish spawning and habitat (See Salmon in the San Joaquin River). Wind/Solar combination farms can provide some supply but insufficient. Thus what you are really saying is we need a lot more nuclear. Still going to need at demand sources.

Low pollution, high mileage, money saver vehicle are always hot cake demand in public. Electric car is one of them. Current generation prefer electric cars because it is low cost, fuel saver and eco friendly green cars with affordable price and also they can enjoy luxurious ride in it. Electric cars are plug-in battery powered vehicle which is easy to use and there is no need to worry about fuel. Electric vehicles reduce pollution and save ozone layer, which is the big headache for current environment situation.