ERD50
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
OK, finally getting back to this as promised (threatened? )...
I did download and read the State of Charge (I skipped/skimmed the cost areas, and focused on environmental). Unless I missed something, I think the points you quoted in this thread pretty well covered it. They focus on GHG emissions - I'll repeat your quote of them, and my equivalent expression, viewing it from another angle:
Quote from 'State of Charge':
Beyond that, I think the self-proclaimed "Union of Concerned Scientists" should show more concern for the environment. They play up these numbers for EVs & GHG (in a biased way, with moving goal-posts, IMO), and barely make a passing comment on the other pollutants I mentioned, SOx (acid rain, irritant), NOx (smog, irritant), and mercury (bad stuff!). Since the numbers for SOx and NOx are far worse for EVs even in the cleaner grid areas, isn't it suspicious that these numbers are not even mentioned, while many pages, numbers, charts and graphs are dedicated to a positive view of GHG for EVs? Cherry picking? All we get, in the Intro is:
OK, so they will be reduced if/when we switch to cleaner power, that's obvious. Why not tell us the numbers that they are now, and what they might be projected to be in 2025 or some future year? Maybe because the numbers still look bad? Yes, there is some offsetting factor for local versus urban pollution for some of these (not all), but let's have some numbers.
And no mention of particulates (I saw numbers elsewhere, need to dig them up, but also not a pretty picture for EVs).
I dug around more on the site, and found this (after trying to follow a bunch of dead links):
The UCS Model E: Electric Car Frequently Asked Questions | Union of Concerned Scientists
But in 'State of Charge', all they do is promote EVs - why not promote a hybrid in areas with average to dirty grids? It really does not come across as very scientific to me, it looks like they have a pro-EV agenda. Phrases like 'could be increased' - no mention of SOx being hundreds of times higher for an EV on average. A lot of comparisons are to the 'average fleet mpg' instead of to the better environmental choices, like the Prius V. If we are making decisions based on environment, we should be comparing the best in class of each, no? A Prius is going to meet the needs of many more people than an EV (no range anxiety, no need for access to a charger, lower up-front cost, etc).
I've also been reading that a significant % of Tesla's income ($40M) is from State carbon offset credits. These are payments from other car manufacturers who do not have 'Zero (tailpipe) Emission' vehicles. But several of these mfg will have EVs for sale in the next year, and from what I've read (like the EV1), they only plan to sell/lease enough of them to cover the need to buy credits. It sounds like they need to sell/lease them at a loss to meet the requirements, not as some grand plan to increase volumes and drive down prices (because we aren't there yet, and regulations don't change that). Is $40M of tax money a good investment when a hybrid is roughly equivalent in GHG to an EV, and much better in other ways?
Bottom line again - I just don't see where EVs are providing enough enviro-benefit to get excited about, and certainly not enough to earn any special funding from taxpayers. If people want to buy them for other reasons, that's fine, but I see no reason for taxpayer support for that. But more important than the subsidy issues - is there a clear enviro-benefit, that says environmentalists should be behind EVs? I just don't see it.
-ERD50
Once again, I highly recommend the research called State of Charge by the Union of Concerned Scientists. I think you will find a very high quality level of data in there.
I did download and read the State of Charge (I skipped/skimmed the cost areas, and focused on environmental). Unless I missed something, I think the points you quoted in this thread pretty well covered it. They focus on GHG emissions - I'll repeat your quote of them, and my equivalent expression, viewing it from another angle:
Quote from 'State of Charge':
And ERD50 says: So for 55% of the population, the EV is worse than a Prius.45% of the population in 2009 lived in an area of the country where the GHG emissions of the typical EV is better than that of the Prius.
Beyond that, I think the self-proclaimed "Union of Concerned Scientists" should show more concern for the environment. They play up these numbers for EVs & GHG (in a biased way, with moving goal-posts, IMO), and barely make a passing comment on the other pollutants I mentioned, SOx (acid rain, irritant), NOx (smog, irritant), and mercury (bad stuff!). Since the numbers for SOx and NOx are far worse for EVs even in the cleaner grid areas, isn't it suspicious that these numbers are not even mentioned, while many pages, numbers, charts and graphs are dedicated to a positive view of GHG for EVs? Cherry picking? All we get, in the Intro is:
... power plants also emit other air pollutants and toxics, such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury. As with carbon dioxide, electricity generated from renewable resources will produce substantial reductions in these pollutants.
OK, so they will be reduced if/when we switch to cleaner power, that's obvious. Why not tell us the numbers that they are now, and what they might be projected to be in 2025 or some future year? Maybe because the numbers still look bad? Yes, there is some offsetting factor for local versus urban pollution for some of these (not all), but let's have some numbers.
And no mention of particulates (I saw numbers elsewhere, need to dig them up, but also not a pretty picture for EVs).
I dug around more on the site, and found this (after trying to follow a bunch of dead links):
The UCS Model E: Electric Car Frequently Asked Questions | Union of Concerned Scientists
If an electric-drive vehicle is recharged primarily using electricity generated from coal, its global warming pollution footprint is only a little better than the average gasoline vehicle today and is significantly worse than a good hybrid—based on emissions from generating, transporting, and using electricity or gasoline.
And while pollution controls on powerplants should keep the problem in check, there are risks that some pollutants, such as sulfur or toxic particulates, could be increased, at least in the areas around the powerplants.
At the end of the day, consumers living in areas with a lot of coal should either focus on buying a good hybrid or should look for ways to support increased use of renewables, both directly through their purchases and by advocating for increases renewable generating capacity.
But in 'State of Charge', all they do is promote EVs - why not promote a hybrid in areas with average to dirty grids? It really does not come across as very scientific to me, it looks like they have a pro-EV agenda. Phrases like 'could be increased' - no mention of SOx being hundreds of times higher for an EV on average. A lot of comparisons are to the 'average fleet mpg' instead of to the better environmental choices, like the Prius V. If we are making decisions based on environment, we should be comparing the best in class of each, no? A Prius is going to meet the needs of many more people than an EV (no range anxiety, no need for access to a charger, lower up-front cost, etc).
I've also been reading that a significant % of Tesla's income ($40M) is from State carbon offset credits. These are payments from other car manufacturers who do not have 'Zero (tailpipe) Emission' vehicles. But several of these mfg will have EVs for sale in the next year, and from what I've read (like the EV1), they only plan to sell/lease enough of them to cover the need to buy credits. It sounds like they need to sell/lease them at a loss to meet the requirements, not as some grand plan to increase volumes and drive down prices (because we aren't there yet, and regulations don't change that). Is $40M of tax money a good investment when a hybrid is roughly equivalent in GHG to an EV, and much better in other ways?
Bottom line again - I just don't see where EVs are providing enough enviro-benefit to get excited about, and certainly not enough to earn any special funding from taxpayers. If people want to buy them for other reasons, that's fine, but I see no reason for taxpayer support for that. But more important than the subsidy issues - is there a clear enviro-benefit, that says environmentalists should be behind EVs? I just don't see it.
-ERD50
Last edited: