I will let the research articles I posted do much of that. I could summarize, but since you mentioned you would review them, that will most likely do a better job than I could in summary.
I couldn't seem to read the pdf reports, I dl'd them but my pdf reader couldn't open them. I'll try later on DWs Mac, but I don't usually have issues like that on this Linux/Chromium browser.
I think I found one of them thru other means, but it seems to all by PHEV centric rather than BEV, so I dunno.
Unfortunately I could not find the article you mention.
It was the one I linked to earlier.
The Dirty Truth about Plug-in Hybrids, Made Interactive: Scientific American
They do seem to come to somewhat different conclusions (but maybe not, read on). Your article is based on Europe Power (46% carbon free), but they seem to say the #'s wouldn't be all that different for 100% coal? That doesn't make sense to me.
But even if you drove an EV on 100% coal power – which is no longer possible in Europe – you would make an electric car only 13% more environmentally unfriendly than one run on 46% clean power.
Maybe their term 'environmentally unfriendly' weights carbon emissions lighter than other things? The other article I linked was counting carbon footprints. Because their math does not add up for carbon alone - going from 46% 'non-carbon' to 0% 'non-carbon' would almost double the carbon emissions. So how can it only be 13% more environmentally unfriendly?
RE: my response to your statement that
'And if you aren't charging off the grid but your own renewable resources the advantages in terms of pollution are huge.'
In some ways I agree with you, but not completely.
It is a wash, if the person would be generating their own power regardless of owning an EV or not.
If, for example, someone purchased a solar PV system specifically to offset the amount of electricity their EV would use then the advantage is still there. Likewise, if someone started conserving more energy because they became more aware of energy use then that was a advantage inspired by the EV.
Alternatively, if someone produces all of their houses electricity needs as well as the electricity used by their EV's and the advantages once again present.
Sorry, but that's twisted rationalization. I stand by my earlier statement that it is the same net result whether the 'green power' feeds the grid or the EV directly.
Trying to tie the
reason the 'green power' was installed to the EV is a real stretch. I could say I got the idea to install some 'green power' while pleasure driving around in my SUV. So therefore, pleasure driving around in SUVs is good for the environment.
RE: saving energy with the most bang-for-the-buck methods
Completely agreed. But why throw out one method, when the others don't appear to be getting the job done?
Because it appears it takes far too much input for the output. It is a distraction from better alternatives, and that could actually slow down the implementations that provide real results.
The leather seats and a Mercedes never have an economic payback. Would you argue that Mercedes are doomed for this reason?
I think we've been down this road before. Leather seats have value to the customer, and they are not looking at it totally in terms of pure economics, but comfort, prestige, etc (though resale value may play into it?). Now, some people will buy EVs for 'green-prestige' or other reasons - fine (but I gotta raise the ugly subsidy head on this one - why am I paying for their desires?) - but you are trying to make the case that EVs are a significant good for the environment. Then that case needs to stand on environmental measures, not other reasons people would buy the car. Don't change the subject.
As economy of scale kicks in and they will become more price competitive. This is the way many new products start out.
Economy of scale is not the big defining issue here. Batteries are simply too expensive and performance is too poor. Economy of scale won't fix that by much. It's putting the cart before the horse. When (if) batteries reach a good price/perf point,
then we can have decently price/perf in an EV. More EVs won't change that significantly. As I've pointed out before, these batteries are based on the same tech used in many other products. There is plenty of motivation out there to drive battery improvements. EVs are a drop in the bucket in comparison.
For a parallel, look at iPods. It wasn't demand that made them smaller and cheaper. It was the progress of technology that allowed them to be made smaller and cheaper, and demand followed that progress. The first several gens of iPod could not have 5GB of flash memory just because the market 'demanded it', they used mini-hard drives because flash memory just wasn't that far along in technology yet. Technology progresses in a step-wise pace. A small increased demand cannot influence that to any large degree.
If you're waiting for a perfect solution you'll be waiting a very long time.
Not waiting for perfect, I'm waiting for competitive.
However each year the electric grid is getting cleaner and cleaner and each year oil is getting dirtier and dirtier. So at some point I expect it will become enough of an advantage to you to reconsider. Assuming of course that you are one of the many people for whom the range would not be an issue.
And
at some point I will (when they are competitive). But until then, why push them? It would be like pushing flash memory in those 1st gen iPods -
' Dear customers, we know that the current state of the art in flash means we need to charge you a whole lot more for these iPods, and you can only have 1/4 the number of songs than if we stuck with the mini-hard-drive, but flash is the future, so use it now before it is ready for the market'. That is in essence what you are saying. Doesn't really make sense, does it?
The problem with range is that it wouldn't be an issue for me
most of the time. But every couple months it would be, and sometimes it's not predictable. Recently, I loaned my car to DD when hers needed repairs. I couldn't do that with an EV, because range would be a problem for her (she would not have even made it back to school). And that is a serious drawback. Why would I want to buy a car that I can't use for my routine (or unexpected) longer trips? Or have to worry about taking a side trip on a medium length drive (let's see, I need to go 30 miles out and 30 miles back, heats on and traffic is bad so I may be close to max range. Oh, got a call - can I make a side trip 20 miles out of my way now, that will save me time/miles later? Hmmm maybe not?). I don't really want that restriction/complexity in my life.
Enough (too much!) for one night, later -ERD50
