A study by engineers based at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology has questioned some common assumptions about the environmental credentials of electric cars.
Published this week in the Journal of Industrial Ecology, the “comparative environmental life cycle assessment of conventional and electric vehicles” begins by stating that “it is important to address concerns of problem-shifting”. By this, the authors mean that by solving one problem, do electric cars create another? And, if so, does this environmental harm then outweigh any advantages?
The study highlights in particular the “toxicity” of the electric car’s manufacturing process compared to conventional petrol/diesel cars. It concludes that the “global warming potential” of the process used to make electric cars is twice that of conventional cars.
The study also says – as has been noted many times before – that electric cars do not make sense if the electricity they consume is produced predominately by coal-fired power stations. “It is counterproductive to promote [electric vehicles] EVs in regions where electricity is produced from oil, coal, and lignite combustion,” it concludes.
Read more at The Guardian. By Leo Hickman.
Photo credit: shannonkringen (Creative Commons)
Related posts:
- Uh Oh: China’s Electric Cars Worse Than Gas-Powered Cars A traffic jam in Beijing. Al Gore must be upset….
- Institute For Energy Research Concerned About Electric Grid This is our future if Obama continues to wage war…
Get Informed! Read More About this topic::
- Green Cars Have A Dirty Little Secret Electric cars are promoted as the chic harbinger of an...
- Video: Electric Shock: Is GM Really Losing $49,000 On Every Chevy Volt? According to a recent report, General Motors is losing big...
- Obama Honored Fallen SEALs By Sending Their Parents A Form Letter Signed By Electric Pen On August 6, 2011, 30 US service members were killed...
OBAMA, ANY COMMENTS???
Only in America can one be free to have their life-choices decided by some other family's dog with an infected ear.
We have an EPA that does not see human beings as part of the environment, which belongs to the EPA.
YES THEY ARE BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. PRODUCTION CAUSES ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND THE REAL LAUGH IS THESE IDIOTS HAVEN'T FIGURED OUT WHAT IS AT THE OTHER END OF THE PLUG DURING RE-CHARGE!!!!!!!!!
The Volt is a piece of junk. It costs significantly more than a Japanese hybrid, gets lousy mileage, and will NEVER pay for itself in its entire useful lifetime based on the improved fuel economy touted. On the other hand, that Japanese hybrid will pay for itself in a relatively short period of time. I sold my Ford F-150 pickup and bought a brand new 2007 Toyota Yaris in May 2006. The F-150 got 18 mpg – the Yaris gets 40mpg. The Yaris cost $15k including TT&L (I paid cash from the sale of the F-150). I now have over 80K miles on the Yaris and it has saved me about 2,400 gallons of gasoline. That's about $8,400 at current gas prices. Toyotas have a reputation for longevity. If the car goes to 200,000 miles, that will be a savings of about 6,111 gallons of gasoline (about $21,388 at today's prices). The Yaris isn't even a hybrid! I'm happy as a clam. Anyone that buys a Volt is out of their pea pickin mind!
Your agument is stupid. These are 2 different vehicles for 2 different purposes. If I need to haul stuff or tow something or I do construction what in the hell would I do with a stupid tin can of a Yaris?
A wise man doesn't own a boat, he has a friend who owns a boat. By the same token, a homeowner who only occasionally needs a truck doesn't own a truck, he has a friend who owns a truck. I'm a homeowner, not a construction worker who uses a truck in his daily business. So my argument makes perfect sense for millions of homeowners who, like me, only occasionally need a truck. In the meantime, just imagine the petroleum resources that could be saved if those millions gave up their truck/SUV and converted to a more fuel efficient vehicle. On the other hand, if they converted to a Volt, the excess cost ($40k-$15k=$25k excess cost) would never be recovered. And the limited lifetime on the battery would significantly limit the ability of a driver like me (12k miles driven per year) to recover the excess cost (the battery has to be replaced after about 10 years (120k miles for me) at a very high cost (about $8k)). On my Yaris, the most expensive part is the engine that is less than $1.5k new.