Study: Electric cars not as green as you think

This is true, but it is less than 12% of the CO2 emissions from the coal life cycle, and less than 30% of the CO2 from gas (full disclosure: based on nuclear industry studies).
[Edit: Actually, the data is from the IAEA. http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/comparativeco2.html]

As someone else said above, don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Renewables are great, but imo we will need nuclear for baseline.

 

We don't need nuclear for baseline if the grid was smart AND could store intermittent renewable power, which it will will by 2025 and at a tiny fraction of the cost of nuclear.

Overall, nuclear is about the worst option for battling CO2 emissions according to Amory Lovins.

see Peak Energy: Amory Lovins On Nuclear Power for a thumbnail sketch of why.

WARNING: this will burst your brain bubble on nuclear power.

 

I'd love to see it, but imo that's a big if. Don't get me wrong, I don't think nuclear is some kind of magical savior. But it does seem that the biggest roadblock to nuclear is political, not technological, as it is with some other methods.

 

That's true. It can still be considered a lot compared to solar and wind - but that's obvious.

I think I had some pent up frustration about the ridiculousness of hydrogen. Thanks for the comment.

 

What type of nuclear energy is Lovins talking about? Is he talking about the politically restrained nuclear industry were our politicians insist that we only use 1% of the energy in the nuclear fuel then bury it in the ground or a much more efficient nuclear industry where one reactor makes fuel for another and that reactor makes fuel for a 3rd?

We abandoned the later option in the 60's for political reasons.

 

Ever the nerd, I'll go ahead and respond to the "bike miles are free" argument. Only because I looked up the data some time back and I'd like to revisit the numbers.

Right now, the average American travels 14,500 miles per year. Of that, bicycling and walking account for 0.2% and 0.6%, respectively. (That's from the 2001 National Household Transportation Survey.)

So, the question is, how many bike miles per year could be powered by the excess calories in the average US diet? Putting aside all the issues about getting people to use the bikes, and about getting people to consume no additional calories despite additional exercise, and so on. Just, in theory, how many more miles could you get without having to fuel them with additional calories?

First, let me calculate from actual observed data. The NHANES survey at the National Center for Health Statistics shows that the average US adult adds about 2 lbs/year in body weight. The average pound of excess body weight is worth about 2000 calories. (A pound of pure fat is worth 3500, and you see that cited on diet sites all the time, but the average pound of excess body weight contains fat, fluids, connective tissue, etc.)

So, 2 lbs of body weight per year = 4000 calories = 100 miles (at 40 calories per bicycle mile, a decent mid-range figure for that.)

On the other hand, estimates of calorie intake and need suggest that we eat an average of 2775 calories/person/day (that's also from NHANES, so that's pretty good data), but we only "need" 2400 on average. That latter figure is the weak number here -- that's a calculated figure that may or may not be right -- I've seen estimates a low as 2000. If that's true, then the daily excess is 375 calories day = 3400 miles per year.

What clearly doesn't square between those two estimates is that 375 excess calories a day ought to equal about 68 lbs of excess body weight per year. Even understanding that metabolism will change in response to available calories, that's a large discrepancy. (And, obviously, 68 lbs/person/year is ludicrous.)

I dont' really know why the calorie intake relative to theoretical estimated need is so far off from that. The only plausible guess I have is that "need" is calculated for normal BMI. It's the calories you need to have a normal body weight. But the average 30 lbs of excess weight per person in the US (NHANES again) would require another 300 to 450 calories in basal metabolism. The upshot being that if we all bicycled for the purpose of eliminating that average 30 lbs, and succeeded, our reduced basal metabolism needs at that reduced weight would be enough to fuel 3400 miles a year.

But let me be clear -- even if that happened, at that point, you would still be trading off food for gasoline. That is, you get the 3400 miles/year by continuing to eat the additional 375 calories/person/day and burning them as bicycle miles. Your alternative to maintain body weight would be to eat less and exercise less -- and burn more gasoline.

And, ultimately, if the options are to lose weight by eating less or lose weight by bicycling, then bicycle miles are never free. The only way you get "free" miles out of the diet is by an assumption about behavior: that persons will lose weight by bicycling but not by dieting. If that's true, then the bike miles are free. If not, then they cost you the calories that could have been foregone by dieting instead of bicycling. As a practical matter, you can offer a behavioral argument, that people won't diet but they will bicycle. But I think the data are against you there. Only a tiny minority of people travel any appreciable number of miles by bicycle.

Bicycling and walking are pleasant and healthful, but they are not a practical substitute for our current level of travel, at 14,500 miles per person per year. If you want Americans to travel 100 miles per year, assuming they would eat no more, then that's "free" out of the existing annual average weight gain. If you want us to travel any appreciable fraction of the current average travel miles by bicycle, I think you have to assume that we all are going to lose a lot of weight, to reduce our basal metabolism enough to liberate the calories to fuel the bicycle miles. Either way, if our options were just not to eat the calories in the first place, or to burn them up bicycling, then bicycling costs food calories. While either alternative would be a good thing (either a national diet or a national biking craze), it's beyond plausible to suggest that either would happen in practice.

Practically speaking, the only way to reduce the carbon footprint of transportation substantially, in the US, right now, at 14,500 miles per year on average, for most people, is to drive less and/or drive a more efficient vehicle. So, if people decide to drive a "fancy toy", I say, better than driving a less efficient car. It doesn't solve the problem but it's better than any other mass-produced practical alternative at the moment.

 

Wow - that's a little extreme. Or you could look at it that people should be living closer to where they work and biking/walking/running to work is simply getting the basic amount of exercise they need in order to stay healthy - therefore, in that case - bike miles would be free.

Also, I think you assumed the person was a carnivore rather than eating 80 - 90% vegetables which one should be doing anyway. That way, the math goes to hell.

Anyway, I think you're comping normal driving behaviour - to extreme fringe lifestyle behaviour. Of course, biking / walking is going to be far, far superior than driving any car - even if it's electric. Moving a 200lb mass versus a 3000lb mass simply takes much less energy. I really think Prius owners have to realize that the Prius is a techi-toy (and I'm happily seeing it more and more on this board - I like seeing critical thinking sills). This is fine - our economy is largely based on buying crap from asian countries anyway so what's one more thing? Anyway, a Prius is a great car, however, because it's a cr it's not really any pro-environment vehicle - that's just green-wash.

I belong in the Prius is worth while because it's a cool tech item - not because it's not environmental or money savings vehicle - because it's not.

 

The political barriers aren't negligible but they pale in comparison to the economic barriers.

 

This might be interesting for you;

"New" Nuclear Reactors, Same Old Story

 

First, the calculation was, as stated, for the average American diet. The website that I included in a prior post has a calculator allowing you to choose standard, vegetarian, or vegan diet as the baseline for the calculation.
Second, it takes a large amount of fossil fuel to produce food. The energy expended in human transport must be multiplied by a factor of 10 (for the average US diet) to estimate the fossil fuels used. Or, about half that for the average vegan diet (per the website cited above). So there's no "of course" to it. You actually have to do the arithmetic. When I did, for my own commute, it worked out as stated above. I understand that it takes less energy to move 200 lbs than 3000 lbs. But that's not the end of the story. It's the energy required to fuel the vehicle that's at issue. For the bicyclist compared to the car, you're using a much smaller amount of a much more fossil-fuel intense fuel source. As the first (not second) law says, there's no such thing as a free lunch. To make that clear, consider an electric car charged by solar cells. There, the marginal cost of the fuel for the vehicle, in terms of fossil fuels, is zero. So the electric car in that case uses more energy to move than a bicycle does, but uses less fossil fuel (on the margin, for the additional mile) to move, than the bicycle does.
Third, Consumer Reports says that the Prius has the lowest total cost of ownership of any family car. So, yes, it is money-saving, relative to other new cars of equal capacity, at least according to their calculation. I believe you are simply wrong on the fact there, if "saving money" was relative to the alternative of a different new car of equivalent capacity.
Fifth, 0.2% of US travel miles are by bicycle. It's fine to think that, in some ideal world, we'd all be vegan bicyclists. That's a good baseline against which to estimate environmental impact of doing anything else. But meanwhile, in truth, the only choice that most Americans will face is whether to buy a more efficient or less efficient car. To the extent that they choose a more efficient car, environmental damage is reduced, relative to what it otherwise would have been. That's not sustainable in the very long run, but consuming less fuel now is an environmental benefit.

 

You're right - I boned on the thermodynamics law. My bad.

I see what you're saying but it just seems like your building a house of car(d)s on extremes. Sure there are no free lunches, a prius is better then a hummer, yada yada.. We get it. Of course when you compare a honda fits to a Prius you come back and say (not you personally) -- 'wait you can't make that comparison because they're completly different cars!!". Yeah, I agree but you're comparing it to a hummer so.....

The thing that bugs me are comments that the Prius is somehow good for the environment -- which it is blatetly not. Prius owners can pat themselves on the back thinking that they are doing something postive for the environment but really... meh.. sure - it's better than nothing but really -- not by that much.

Hybrids play and will play a relatively insignificant role in reducing.

Living an urban lifestyle, using public transit and cycling/walking will always be magnitides better than any hybrids could ever be - not only because of the mass being moves moves but also building and shipping such a complex machine. You can't argue with that, if you plan to, take on the laws (perhaps 'guidelines') of physics while you're at it. It would be interesting to read.

And yes, besides the techi-wow factor, a fit and a prius are comparable.

I think Prius are great - for the same reason I think my Iphone is great. But you won't hear me make some rediculous storey about how my iphone is somehow going to save mother earth. Go eat your bacon.

 

"The Prius saves the environment hype" is a unwelcome ripple effect of the hollywood crowd publically driving Prius's quite a few years ago. I'm pretty sure that they are driving something different now, but the bad aftertaste of making a very efficient car into a political item still lingers. Most PC contributors are quite sensible in their comments about the Prius. Many comments about how the Prius "helps" the environment is from at least three indirect effects:
1) The development of batteries, motors, and excellent fly by wire controllers accelerates the transition to PHEVs and then EVs. The biggest problem with EV's is the lack of buying options.
2) Driving a Prius changes your driving habits to be more efficient.
3) The Prius made a very high mpg vehicle a serious family vehicle. Prior to that high mpg and significant room were basically incompatable.

None of these saves the environment, but it sure is nice to have the Prius option that makes progress to a sustainable transportation goal.

Yes, if only examined from a here and now viewpoint. Another viewpoint is that the Prius made it clear that a huge number of people will spend money on a environmentally progressive solution.....and an EV takes that a step further. Would the GM even be bothering with the Volt if the Prius did not occur?

 

Do you think that EV's are the solution? I really don't think so. I'm being honest here and not trying to be argumentative for the sake of being so. I forget which thread it was but somewhere a german study said that a switch over to Hybrids will reduce GG emissions by 1% or was it .1% a year. I can't remember which. If we assume the stat that the EV's run on nuclear then I guess you could extrapolate this to what about 3%? It that really that much of a difference? Maybe it's different for N. America where a lot more miles are driven so it's bigger. I don't know.

You're always going to bang up against the first law of thermosynamics (thank you previous poster) so efficiency has an upper limit. I don't know. I've never had a love affair with cars so I really don't get 'car-love' we're planning on buying one in the next few months and I'm still fairly unconvinced about the hybrid route. I guess the problem is that we've never owned and have always taken public transport simply because we hate commuting - driving sucks - so any car is a blotch.

Of course, we take about 20 flights a year which is pretty much carbon emmission chernobyl. Damn hypocracy.

 

No vehicle is 'THE' answer.
But EVs running with an electric motor is a huge step forward for two reasons I see.
1. Electric motors are much more efficient than ICEs.
2. Electric cars will run on electricity generated from oil, coal, nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal or fusion electric generators. You can switch out those technologies with no need to re-engineer 100s of milions of vehicles. My EV will hum along on the same electricity in summer it does in winter. My ICE will need different seasonal blends of gasoline and conversions if it is to run on richer ethanol blends or natural gas.

 

That's my point. No car can be "THE" answer simply because it's a car!

 

Yes for me. What I do not know is if the PV roof or EV will occur first, but I'm going to keep working it till I'm there. One without the other is an incomplete, unfinished state of affairs.

I do not know what comes after or in addition to EVs to make for a sustainable transportation solution. The more important question probably surrounds the energy needed rather than the mechanism for making a shaft rotate.

 

Well, if you keep following that logic, the only answer is to die as you drain resources just by living.
Cars that use little gasoline are BETTER than those that use a lot of gasoline. Cars that are more efficient are BETTER than those that are less efficient.
The perfect answer doesn't exist. To condemn 'Better' because it isn't 'perfect' is counter productive. As you will never reach perfect.

 

You goal of perfection is unwarranted. Sure slightly better is still better - just only so slightly that it's largely meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Other avenues such as limiting family size and mass transit systems actually do make a measurable difference rather than being just 'noise' in the math.

Prius is a good technology toy. That's 99% of what it is. Nothing wrong with that, I like my iphone - it's not going to save the planet either.

 

And you limiting your family size isn't going to save the world.
None of us can on our own, but we can all contribute.
And, a real EVs make a definate contribution when compared to a ICE vehicle.
And for those of us powering those EVs off wind or solar power, it is even more so.
Cutting family size isn't 'THE' solution. It is part of the solution, but it isn't THE solution. Same for hybrids, it is a step in the right direction. And EVs will be another step in the right direction.
And yes, no car is a bigger step (unless you take flights which you wouldn't if you did have a car).

 

You've got to be kidding. Population control is the a hell of a lot more of a solution than any type of car. By having a kid you're footprint is that child, and all of it's children. People who have more than their 'biological right' of two kids should be taxed and given to people (hey, how about gay couples!) that choose not to have kids. THAT would be a lot more effective than any hybrid - EV could ever barely scratch. You were kidding right?