Global warming dissident Bjorn Lomborg needles the fans of electric vehicles and hybrids:
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.
He goes on to suggest that the lifetime production of greenhouse gases may actually be higher for supposedly “green” vehicles than it is for those using conventional internal combustion engines. It would, perhaps, be indelicate of me to point out that if you reduce the amount you drive to, say, a couple of thousand miles a year it doesn’t matter much whether it’s in a fully electric all-weather golf cart or an SUV. Either way you reduce your production of greenhouse gases. Our problems are zoning, other forms of subsidy, and the lifestyles those make possible, not how our vehicles are powered.
However, I have a question. I recognize there’s a hot dispute about whether anthropogenic global warming is actually occurring but there’s somewhat less dispute over whether production of greenhouse gases influences local climate change. Here’s my question. If that’s the case, doesn’t centralizing greenhouse gas production, as Dr. Lomborg notes takes place in the production of hybrids and electrical vehicles, indisputably contribute to local climate change? Does it matter where that localized climate change is? I’ve always suspected that industrialization of the tropics was a very bad idea.
{ 63 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
Andy: The warmists obviously hope it will show a correlation between the industrial revolution and increased global temperatures. If they can show that, it’s evidence, but not proof.
Climate science is not based on simple correlation, but causative models. Amplification of greenhouse warming due to CO2 was figured out a century ago.
steve
You tell me you are science savvy, then you comment that the average car is driven 150,000 miles……………but once again fail to point out a scientific reality. The battery won’t go 150,000. And since the production is a big chunk of the carbon footprint………..
C’mon, man. Who you crappin’ ??
Also, one common theme I see in AGW arguments is: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, therefore CO2 causes global warming.
Cholesterol is a risk factor in heart disease, not all people with high cholesterol get heart disease. I could come up with a million of those. The science is not settled. The data is incomplete, historically poor, sometimes manipulated and not at all indicative of causation or first order effect.
Finally, I note no one chose to answer my query about what to do about it given the near term effects on our economy, where real short term issues exist, or the inability to control it vis-a-vis China, India……..
This global warming thing is just simply feel good bar room talk…
1) Judging by the Prius, the life expectancy for the battery is well over 100,000 miles, with some drivers reporting not changing until they hit 350,000 miles.
” Hanson says today’s Prius batteries are designed to last “the life of the car,” which Toyota defines as 180,000 miles.”
2) I was relying upon Lonborg. He made the claim for 90,000 miles. I should have double checked, but I was pretty sure they were expected to last at least 100,000 miles.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/05/26/assaulted-batteries.html
My longer response to Drew with other citations, eg noting that in California only 1% of electricity is derived from coal. has been hung up in moderation. Too many links I guess. (Or did it post and I am just not seeing it?)
Steve
I freed your comment from moderation limbo early this morning. It is, unfortunately, now in “Previous comments” hell.
I think that life expectancy for hybrid and EV batteries is an interesting subject and one that there isn’t a huge amount of data on. My WAG is that it’s very dependent on ambient conditions, i.e. a Prius’s battery will last longer in Tokyo than in Nome. It might also be dependent on miles driven per day.
Judging by the Prius, the life expectancy for the battery is well over 100,000 miles, with some drivers reporting not changing until they hit 350,000 miles.
Wow, the Prius wasn’t introduced into this country until 2000, IIRC. They’re driving their cars three times as much as I have my eleven year-old Camry. I wonder how their carbon footprint compares to mine? But hey, they love the smell of their own farts, so it doesn’t really matter how much carbon they’re actually USING, does it.
I seem to recall reading about temperature having significant, measured impact on charge retention, so it wouldn’t surprise me that environmental factors play a role. This would be one benefit of having some vehicles on the road to obtain real world data, but again that doesn’t require a subsidy for the 1%.
I meant top 10%. (G.M. believes the average Volt purchaser makes $175,000 per year, which would be about 5%)
Drew,
Just curious…do you happen to listen to a late night radio show? This regards the apparent synchronicity of a comment I just read that you made on this thread, to one syncing with one of mine, made much later on a different thread.
” I wonder how their carbon footprint compares to mine? But hey, they love the smell of their own farts, so it doesn’t really matter how much carbon they’re actually USING, does it.”
Lots of sales people put in those kinds of miles. If you want to live with the fantasy that those are all just liberals deliberately driving their cars that much because they have a Prius, feel free.
Dave- As I noted elsewhere, Toyota expects them to last 180,000 miles. They have a lot of money tied up in this, including warranty money. Battery failure rate has been reported to be very low.
Steve
I think the battery issues have more frequently been raised about the ability of a battery to keep holding a charge over time than outright failure. The Nissan Leaf is warrantied to maintain 70% of its original charge for five years or 60,000 miles. I believe the battery is warrantied against other problems for 8 years or 100,000 miles. I’ve also read that climate is an issue and the batteries don’t work as well in the cold.
If you want to live with the fantasy that those are all just liberals deliberately driving their cars that much because they have a Prius, feel free.
Yeah, I’m sure that they’re all just a bunch of salesmen.
Of course the 90% solution is to go with diesel, which is pretty common in Europe. I’m looking at the Consumer Reports mileage figures (based on actual testing of real-world driving conditions, not EPA estimates which can be wildly inaccurate), and the Volkswagon TDI diesels are just as fuel efficient as most hybrids. And they are significantly better than a Chevy volt running on its gas engine (it can run on electricity for 25-50 miles, then switches to a small gas engine which only get about 32mpg). So, for anyone doing a lot of miles, a diesel is a much more efficient choice. The Prius is a clear front-runner, however, about 10-15% better mileage than other hybrids and the diesels.
Finally, I think there is a right way and a wrong way to provide incentives. Subsidizing gasoline and infrastructure for cars incentivizes more driving and less effficient vehicles. Turning around and subsidizing “green” alternatives is exactly the wrong thing to do – the subsidies work at cross purposes and the “green” alternatives will never be able to compete without subsidies. Best to put the cart before the horse rather than dump a bunch of money at a technology that might not be economically viable.
← Previous Comments