Kevin, Gavin, Mike, It’s Seth again.
People who own all-electric cars where coal generates the power may think they are helping the environment. But a new study finds their vehicles actually make the air dirtier, worsening global warming.
Ethanol isn’t so green, either.
“It’s kind of hard to beat gasoline” for public and environmental health, said study co-author Julian Marshall, an engineering professor at the University of Minnesota. “A lot of the technologies that we think of as being clean … are not better than gasoline.”
Of course, no study is complete without meaningless numbers extrapolated from pure conjecture;
The study finds all-electric vehicles cause 86 percent more deaths from air pollution than do cars powered by regular gasoline.
But what the hay! I’ll amuse myself, anyway.
ROLLING DEATH: ELECTRICS MAKE UP LESS THAN 1% OF CARS ON THE ROAD. http://t.co/ctlE6NZG1U @borenbears pic.twitter.com/mjp4BiRhdP
— Katewerk (@katewerk) December 18, 2014
meaningless numbers extrapolated from pure conjecture
Nonetheless, as long as the same methodology is used for evaluating each option, then the comparisons between options is valid.
Electric/coal is twice as bad as gasoline, and ethanol is twice as bad as electric/coal, and four times worse than gasoline.
That’s how science works. You have a problem with that conclusion?
Where’s the 97%? Everything you said is meaningless without 97% in there somewhere.
” “A lot of the technologies that we think of as being clean … are not better than gasoline.”
– – And as long as it is this way the “concerned authorities” will continue to cripple gas powered performance with emission demands – Anyone who drove a real charger try out the new one? Ditto for the Camero? Of course you could always get past your performance lust by buying an over priced euro buzz bomb but you’ll never experience the pounding brute power of Detroit iron from the era when even your Dad’s car had 300 ponies in it with a little back yard tweeking – and real gasoline to power it for 70 cents a gallon
Only a determined big brother could so thoroughly suck the joy out of auto ownership and driving. I think it pleases the regulating class when they make the public as grim and spiritless as they are.
A normal person would conclude that electric cars are bad for the environment, a green edged fool would tell you the solution is to shut down the coal fired plant and replace it with warm & fuzzies (-40 in January not withstanding)
so conjecture is used to determine the values for three cases, which are then compared to each other? No, that’s not how science works. Hypotheses leads to theory. Theory predicts experimental results. Experimental results either disprove the theory or they don’t. Experimental results can never prove a theory. (As an aside, this is why catastrophic anthropogenic global warming isn’t a theory – there are no experimental results which would be accepted by adherents as having falsified the idea.)
“if the same methodology is used for evaluating each option, then the comparisons between options is valid.” This only applies if the methodology is sound, and there are actual experimental tests in there somewhere. There’s no evidence of either in the linked story. I’m with Kate on this one.
I have read that 42% of all statistics are made up.
The REAL nastiness lies in the batteries. Strip-mining for the nickel releases tons of sulphur dioxide, mainly in Canada where I guess most of the world’s nickel mining takes place. It’s put on a ship that takes it to Europe where it’s made into a weird blue foam, then put on another ship for the ride to China or Japan where it’s made into the batteries. Then of course the batteries have to get to wherever the ‘green’ car is being built, and then the whole retarded edifice rides another ship back to Canada. By the time you stick the key in it for the first time, it’s already gone a million miles.
What is very amusing is at the same time government policies are encouraging electric vehicles for green reasons, for the same green reasons, government policies are artificially increasing the price of electricity.
Exactly. Furthermore, in my first statistics class at Brock in 1968 the prof told us that you are able to prove a point either way with the same set of statistics. It depends on whether you are for some issue or opposed.
I’m with Kate on this. If you stand back and look at the overall gist of this article the authors are actually opposed to all forms of fossil generation.
I agree with the meaningless numbers statement. Take a small hypothetical effect and multiply it by a large number and suddenly you have thousand of deaths per year. As Junkscience.com likes to say show us the bodies
The study makes the assumption that the incremental electricity is coming from coal, which is a valid assumption in most places. (Not Ontario anymore, alas)
It also doesn’t take into account the point Coach makes above. Another study has shown that the total extra energy required to make a sparky car means that you need to drive it at least 50,000 km before you break even on fossil fuels required. This includes all that battery stuff, plus exotic light weight alloys.
Given the range and seasonality of these things, it’s unlikely most will make it that far before the original wealthy subsidized purchaser ditches it.
Over twenty years in medicine and still waiting to see a single patient have their cause of death listed as, “air pollution” — silicosis – yes, asbestosis – yes, farmer’s lung complicating other causes – yes, lung cancer due to smoking – yes, but ambient urban air pollution — no.
Occam, a new production Hemi Charger will finish the 1/4 mile 2 seconds quicker than the original. The old cars had much louder exhausts and would smoke the tires giving the impression of greater acceleration whereas the new cars have much quieter exhausts (only a few dB but remember that it is a log scale) and the traction control system allows the tires to chirp.
This should take the wind out of the sails of these greener then thou hollywood green freaktards who are always showing off their eco thoughts on some dumb talk show or news program YOU LISTENING LUARIE DAVIDJOHN TRAVOLTA?
Green zealots like Ontario’s Wynne, pursue 2 diametrically opposed objectives. One is to greatly increase generation of wind and solar, while at the same time encouraging use through electric vehicles. Not mentioned is how appealing a trip of 200 miles at night in a Feb snowfall, say from L Huron to Toronto in an electric car might be. But Wynne’s parameters don’t actually extend beyond the TO borders, and that is the problem.
Ah yes Ken, you are rite, I was going to point out to Salty that context is an important factor to take into account. My prof simply gave an example, 1/3 proved positive, 1/3 proved negative, and the other mouse got away:-)) Context and “intent” are critical qualities to understand
The two stalls that have electric car charging stations (2 hour maximum parking) at Centennial Beach in Tsawwassen, are empty 100% of the time.
I dunno Al, I have a 1964 Buick Riviera with a 425 Nailhead in it. (6.9L) For a big car that thing moves out. It isn’t as fast as a new Mustang, but then its maybe twice the weight.
However the Mustang is a 287 cubic inch engine (4.7L) and it gets 19 mpg to the Riviera’s 8 mpg, so technology does march on. And of course there’s no comparison in the emissions department. Old cars remind you of how much they reeked every time you go in the garage. The Mustang produces less waste gasses going down the road at 70mph than the Riviera does sitting still in the shade with the engine off.
The Mustang of course is a -performance- car, so lots of compromises have been made in the design that favor engine power output over economy and clean burn. A four banger double overhead cam with variable valve timing and a turbo on it will be even cleaner. But wheezy.
It’s like this.
There is this law that states that you can transform energy. The mater cannot be destroyed, it can be transformed.
The transformation is always destructive, though only in human terminology.
So what we have here is one way or another, the power generated by transformation is always destructive to greater of lesser degree. The “greater or lesser“ though is just a matter of one`s opinion. In the big scheme of things it amounts to the same thing.
It is as though zero sum game, you take some of here and you have to put it over there.
It is interesting to note the LIV not necessarily through fault of their own, go with the flow, the prevailing winds so to say. To excuse the LIV is to say that most of them don`t have the luxury of spending time on delving into things while making a living and paying taxes. So they are uninformed by the mass media.
The LIV don`t know that however you generate energy, you have to “destroy“ or transform matter from one state to another.
While hydroelectric power is clean, there is a good amount of destruction of environment going with it.
With nuclear power that is rather clean, there is of course the problem of radioactivity and disposal thereof that causes destruction environment around it.
Coal is about the cheapest way to generate a lot of energy, the problem is that the power generation uses about 30% to 40% of the energy generated to run itself.
So what we have here is a dilemma, do we use energy for life or not. If yes, it is going to cost in destruction.
It is the way it is.
my engineering prof in Michigan said the same thing. if the results don’t meet your predetermined scenario then change the parameters of the data. or delete selected “outliers” from your data body. Or you can be like a lot, aka all, climate scientists and just make up data!
No energy source is “dirty”. To even discuss “clean” energy is to yield ground to the eco-fascists. CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It is essential to life on this planet. CO2 is cool. CO2 is good.
Cook’s false “97% consensus” study is what some idiots will believe, and keep parroting. Some people will never learn; there is no lack of greenwashed idiots.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/05/cooks-fallacy-97-consensus-study-is-a-marketing-ploy-some-journalists-will-fall-for/
CO2 is ‘plant food’. Current levels are just above the 200ppm required to sustain healthy plant growth. The optimum is up around 1000 ppm and about 2°C warmer on average.
“Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.” ― Robert A. Heinlein
It’s surprising how some willfully ignorant people can’t grasp that electric cars and ethanol are more polluting that petro fueled vehicles.
Children whose mothers were exposed to high levels of fine particulate pollution in late pregnancy have up to twice the risk of developing autism as children of mothers breathing cleaner air, scientists at Harvard School of Public Health reported… Evidence that a mother-to-be’s exposure to air pollution affects her child’s risk of autism “is becoming quite strong,” said Harvard epidemiologist Marc Weisskopf, who led the study, suggesting a way to reduce the risk.
It is not clear how tiny particles might cause autism, but they are covered with myriad contaminants and penetrate cells, which can disrupt brain development.
Last year the Environmental Protection Agency, citing the link to asthma, lung cancer and cardiovascular disease, tightened air quality standards for fine particulate pollution.
http://news.yahoo.com/autism-risk-linked-particulate-air-pollution-051153193.html
Perfect cars two of them i know of the Flintstones car foot powered or the Gilligans Island car peddle powred and made from totaly biodegradible material
Well…I guess I’ll just keep toolin around in my big bad 6.0 L Diesel powered truck.. it still gets waaaay better mileage than most 8 cyl SUV’s and it’s at least 2500 lbs heavier – weighing in at 7200 lbs Empty.
22 mpg hwy at 120 km/hr. Not too shabby and best of all, I can throw a 30′ fifth wheel behind it. Lets see someone try that with a ‘lectric” car/truck or battery with wheels..Ha.!
To me, Unless you have your own personal electric charging system at home – non grid connected (solar/Wind) to charge up your car – Fine, then have at er and I shall deem thee GREEN. If not.? then you got yer head up yer Eco Zombie (_i_)
Enviromental leaders themselves driving big gas guzzling 11 mgp limos the award shows(oscars,emmies,grammies etc)driven to their award shows in their 4 mpg limos while they lecture us on how to conserve energy typical DO ASI SAY NOT AS I DO liberal eletists