Green Cars Have a Dirty Little Secret

[daepp]

Turns out you'd have to put nearly 100K on the clock before you do any real good.

Wall Street Journal, 3/11/13
Bjorn Lomborg: Green Cars Have a Dirty Little Secret
Producing and charging electric cars means heavy carbon-dioxide emissions.
By Bjorn Lomborg

Electric cars are promoted as the chic harbinger of an environmentally benign future. Ads assure us of "zero emissions," and President Obama has promised a million on the road by 2015. With sales for 2012 coming in at about 50,000, that million-car figure is a pipe dream. Consumers remain wary of the cars' limited range, higher price and the logistics of battery-charging. But for those who do own an electric car, at least there is the consolation that it's truly green, right? Not really.

For proponents such as the actor and activist Leonardo DiCaprio, the main argument is that their electric cars—whether it's a $100,000 Fisker Karma (Mr. DiCaprio's ride) or a $28,000 Nissan Leaf—don't contribute to global warming. And, sure, electric cars don't emit carbon-dioxide on the road. But the energy used for their manufacture and continual battery charges certainly does—far more than most people realize.

A 2012 comprehensive life-cycle analysis in Journal of Industrial Ecology shows that almost half the lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions from an electric car come from the energy used to produce the car, especially the battery. The mining of lithium, for instance, is a less than green activity. By contrast, the manufacture of a gas-powered car accounts for 17% of its lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions. When an electric car rolls off the production line, it has already been responsible for 30,000 pounds of carbon-dioxide emission. The amount for making a conventional car: 14,000 pounds.

While electric-car owners may cruise around feeling virtuous, they still recharge using electricity overwhelmingly produced with fossil fuels. Thus, the life-cycle analysis shows that for every mile driven, the average electric car indirectly emits about six ounces of carbon-dioxide. This is still a lot better than a similar-size conventional car, which emits about 12 ounces per mile. But remember, the production of the electric car has already resulted in sizeable emissions—the equivalent of 80,000 miles of travel in the vehicle.

So unless the electric car is driven a lot, it will never get ahead environmentally. And that turns out to be a challenge. Consider the Nissan Leaf. It has only a 73-mile range per charge. Drivers attempting long road trips, as in one BBC test drive, have reported that recharging takes so long that the average speed is close to six miles per hour—a bit faster than your average jogger.
Related Video

Charlie Drevna, president of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, on how Washington's fuel standards are increasing the price of cars and gas. Photos: Associated Press

To make matters worse, the batteries in electric cars fade with time, just as they do in a cellphone. Nissan estimates that after five years, the less effective batteries in a typical Leaf bring the range down to 55 miles. As the MIT Technology Review cautioned last year: "Don't Drive Your Nissan Leaf Too Much."

If a typical electric car is driven 50,000 miles over its lifetime, the huge initial emissions from its manufacture means the car will actually have put more carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere than a similar-size gasoline-powered car driven the same number of miles. Similarly, if the energy used to recharge the electric car comes mostly from coal-fired power plants, it will be responsible for the emission of almost 15 ounces of carbon-dioxide for every one of the 50,000 miles it is driven—three ounces more than a similar gas-powered car.

Even if the electric car is driven for 90,000 miles and the owner stays away from coal-powered electricity, the car will cause just 24% less carbon-dioxide emission than its gas-powered cousin. This is a far cry from "zero emissions." Over its entire lifetime, the electric car will be responsible for 8.7 tons of carbon dioxide less than the average conventional car.

Those 8.7 tons may sound like a considerable amount, but it's not. The current best estimate of the global warming damage of an extra ton of carbon-dioxide is about $5. This means an optimistic assessment of the avoided carbon-dioxide associated with an electric car will allow the owner to spare the world about $44 in climate damage. On the European emissions market, credit for 8.7 tons of carbon-dioxide costs $48.

Yet the U.S. federal government essentially subsidizes electric-car buyers with up to $7,500. In addition, more than $5.5 billion in federal grants and loans go directly to battery and electric-car manufacturers like California-based Fisker Automotive and Tesla Motors . This is a very poor deal for taxpayers.

The electric car might be great in a couple of decades but as a way to tackle global warming now it does virtually nothing. The real challenge is to get green energy that is cheaper than fossil fuels. That requires heavy investment in green research and development. Spending instead on subsidizing electric cars is putting the cart before the horse, and an inconvenient and expensive cart at that.

Mr. Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center in Washington, D.C., is the author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" (Cambridge Press, 2001) and "Cool It" (Knopf, 2007).

[red-beard]

This is news? Anyone with the ability to analyze can see this.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Shhh, don't go introducing facts into the green movement. Most of them won't admit that the fuel to power their car actually comes from this:

[Z-man]

Originally Posted by daepp

The electric car might be great in a couple of decades but as a way to tackle global warming now it does virtually nothing. The real challenge is to get green energy that is cheaper than fossil fuels. That requires heavy investment in green research and development. Spending instead on subsidizing electric cars is putting the cart before the horse, and an inconvenient and expensive cart at that.

This is the crux of the whole green vehicle conundrum today. Hybrid and electric powered vehicles at this point are just a stop-gap between conventional gas-powered cars, and whatever the future holds, be it hydrogren-power, bio-diesel, or whatever hasn't been invented yet.

Bio-diesel makes sense, but only in areas that do not have colder climates. Bio-diesel fuel tends to congeal very quickly, and can clog the fuel lines.

Hydrogen powered vehicles still have a long way to go, and the manufacture of hydrogen is still very costly, and not always environmentally friendly. Besides, not too many people want to be driving in a car that has 2 5,000 psi tanks of hydrogen sitting under their butts, given hydrogen's tendancy to go BOOM in non-ideal conditions such as sudden impacts and sparks.

Solar works as a means to charge a battery and propel a lightweight vehicle, but you'd need a foot-ball field sized solar panel to effectively power your typical 3,500 to 4,000 lb sedan or SUV. Not very practical.

Still, something's gotta happen - and while the hybrid and electric cars of today are an interesting study in technology, they aren't the solution.

I wonder if its worth looking into super conductivity and electro-magnets -- kinda like some of the super-trains in Asia...

My $0.42,
-Z-man.

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

the facts are that the fuel to power electric cars actually comes from this clean, green and refreshing source all up and down the NW as well as elsewhere:

fixed

you also forgoty nuclear and the huge increase in NG

next time don't forgety!

[legion]

I think you meant "football-field sized", Z-man.

100,000 miles is the absolute longest lifespan of hybrid batteries, no? At which point the "green" clock resets.

Let's not even discuss the economics of "green" cars.

[URY914]

What if you install a wind turbine on the roof of your green car and drove really really fast?

[herr_oberst]

And then there's the lithium mines. Lots of good reading on getting the ore out of the ground.

[Hugh R]

Originally Posted by legion

I think you meant "football-field sized", Z-man.

100,000 miles is the absolute longest lifespan of hybrid batteries, no? At which point the "green" clock resets.

Let's not even discuss the economics of "green" cars.

I have a Camry Hybrid, I was in NYC a month ago and took Several Camry Hybid cabs that had 250K miles or more with original batteries.

[sammyg2]

But but but, it makes the greenies FEEL so good (smug).

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by Z-man

Solar works as a means to charge a battery and propel a lightweight vehicle, but you'd need a foot-ball field sized solar panel to effectively power your typical 3,500 to 4,000 lb sedan or SUV. Not very practical.
-Z-man.

What if you used a small solar panel but put a HUGE magnifying glass above it?

[McLovin]

Shoot, I thought it was going to be about this

[Z-man]

Originally Posted by legion

I think you meant "football-field sized", Z-man.

That, or a very, very, very, VERY big football.

-Z

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

What if you used a small solar panel but put a HUGE magnifying glass above it?

That actually can work. Well, to a point. People have tried using cheap Fresnel lenses above solar panels to boost output, for less money than more panels.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

They're a good start but certainly not the be-all end-all. The real solution is a shift away from a spread-out, consumption-driven economy (and global marketplace) and a shift towards more localized production, labor/work, manufacturing, distribution and (eventually) reuse or recycling. The current model is about as stupid and unsustainable as could possibly be devised. People are (slowly) starting to (re)discover that it's actually better, more sustainable and (*gasp!*) more cost-effective to work locally, limit travel, limit consumption and buy regionally where possible as opposed to buying anything and everything (whether needed or not), having insanely long trips just to work or go to school or get groceries, and buying things made as far away as possible because slave labor practices facilitate the desired price point.

We're slowly figuring out that the community-centered model that this country was built on actually works and yields better results. We're a large nation though and there will always be a demand for travel and long-distance transport, the keys are mitigation, management, maintenance of infrastructure and (yes) getting off of non-renewable energy sources as best we can.

[UconnTim97]

but I need all that lithium for my meth lab

[RWebb]

well put, P O P

[daepp]

Not well put (POP) for those of us who do not wish to live in high density environs.

Z-Man - Still, something's gotta happen - Why? What's wrong with the systems we have? Just utilize the natural resources we already have!

[aap1966]

Quote de legion

I think you meant "football-field sized", Z-man.



100,000 miles is the absolute longest lifespan of hybrid batteries, no? At which point the "green" clock resets.



Let's not even discuss the economics of "green" cars.

I have a Camry Hybrid, I was in NYC a month ago and took Several Camry Hybid cabs that had 250K miles or more with original batteries.

Sorry, not an relevant point for most drivers. Cabs are driven continuously, the drivetrain (and batteries) are not constantly cooling and heating. A constant temperature is the ideal for longevity and, with the exception of taxis, just is not reality for cars in normal use.
In aircraft, it's not flight hours as much as flight cycles that causes the aging.

[jyl]

Coal is going away, so a large part of the guy's argument will be moot. Nat gas is a lot cleaner. And of course depending where you are, you need not use coal-derived electricity even today (e.g. PacNW).

Not sure how long a pure EV battery lasts. A hybrid (Prius and similar) will go on average 250K+ on the battery. Ask a taxi driver with one. (Yes, it is relevant to ordinary driving, because on average, non-taxi hybrids are going far over 150K on original batteries too. The battery is actually warranted for 150K in CA, and they are seldom replaced.) As for degraded performance, see The 200,000-mile question: How does the Toyota Prius hold up? which is consistent with what I've seen (100K on our Prius) and my dad has seen (nearing 200K on his).


The pure EV battery gets used harder so it probably doesn't last as long. But those things aren't meant for road trips. Complaining that a Nissan Leaf is a slow way to get across the country is as stupid as complaining that a Winnebago is bad on the skidpad. Pure EVs like the Leaf are short distance city cars, probably take a decade to rack up even 100K miles. (Not sure about the Tesla, realistically it is bought as a fast status symbol, the owner only cares if it is more practical that his Ferrari . . .)