Over at Time Brad Tuttle notes that the problem with electric vehicles is that they’re not selling. Turns out that golf carts just aren’t that appealing as a general family vehicle:
Hopefully, the price cut will help Mitsubishi sell more than a dozen EVs per month. But even at that price, it’s not clear if all that many drivers will bite. The reviewers at Consumer Reports say the i-MiEV is “not a car in which anyone will be happy spending time,†and that the newly discounted price is “still a lot of money for a car that feels like little more than an enclosed golf cart. The appeal lies solely in providing attainable access into the world of pure-electric cars. At this price, it becomes more feasible as a second, occasional-use car.â€
It’s probably indelicate of me to point this out but manufacturers will need to sell two orders of magnitude (that’s one hundred times) as many EVs as they are now to turn over the entire fleet over a period of twenty years. Doesn’t sounds like the EV experiment is doing much to solve either the manufacturers’ problems or environmental problems.
Anecdotally, we’ve heard good things about the Volt — power and miles per charges — one woman talked to, saying it’s more comfortable than even the Prius! However, the infrequency of charging stations remains a problem. I also continue to wonder about the disposal issue of batteries.
As I’ve noted before, the complete environmental footprint of electric cars exceeds carbon burning cars. But why let science get in the way of good feelings? Hell, most numbskulls don’t know electricity comes primarily from coal fired plants, much less the battery issue.
But as a businessman, who actually has to come to grips with reality, I note that practical range of cars and the distribution issues (recharging time and availability) make electric cars a very, very niche product.
As I’ve also noted previously, I’m in my mid-50’s, and a university roommate was working on electric cars in a summer internship all those years ago. And yes, he thought he was going to save the world. The poor dear.
Electric cars will be “2nd” cars for quite some time. For people who can’t have more than one car, the downsides are pretty big. Even for multi-car families they usually don’t make much sense.
We have a cheap Toyota commuting car we bought used several years ago – as far as value goes, I don’t think an EV can beat it.
Red Barchetta: As I’ve noted before, the complete environmental footprint of electric cars exceeds carbon burning cars.
It depends on the power source. Electric cars are green if the source of energy is green.
Zach
Nice tautology. Now let’s see, wind? Go talk to the PETA people because birds are becoming dog food and god forbid you put it in John Kerry’s line of sight. . Solar? We are starting to see solar deals again…………after the last wave of bankruptcies……
How about a subsidy to corn farmers?
Get real. Coal or nuclear.
I used to read the energy assessment put out by the Feds every year. Haven’t recently. All the alternatives combined were 3-5% of energy production. You just can’t move the needle without fossil fuels or nuclear.
In transport, you can go natgas. But distribution is an issue. In electricity you can go natgas, and many are. But folks, for our lifetimes, its coal and/ or nuclear. All the rest is just masturbation.
Red Barchetta: Nice tautology.
It’s hardly tautological. There are two basic components, the carbon footprint of the manufacturing, and the carbon footprint of the energy source.
Red Barchetta: Now let’s see, wind? Go talk to the PETA people because birds are becoming dog food
That’s irrelevant to the carbon footprint, as you should know.
“There are two basic components, the carbon footprint of the manufacturing, and the carbon footprint of the energy source.”
Its completely tautological. The two are inseperable, in any reasonable timeframe, as you should know…… Its clear you are talking the energy source, and denying the battery manufacturing and disposal problem. Enlighten us, non-fossil fuels will make a meaningful contribution when? In the year 2125?
PETA was snark. You deal with the bird killer crowd and wind. Me, I think its stupid beyond all belief.
@Zachriel
It depends on the power source. Electric cars are green if the source of energy is green.
The problem is thermodynamics. The green energy output to weight ratio is far, far too low to be more than a niche product. Nuclear has the largest output, but it is too difficult for smaller applications. Fossil fuels cannot be touched for portable energy. Period.
A truck burning diesel can haul a trailer tank of diesel that will be used to fuel other trucks. I doubt an electric vehicle will ever be able to accomplish this.
That’s right, Tasty. Somehow this whole thing becomes political. You apparently have a technical bent. Its just science and economics. Not complicated.
Dave touts geothermal, which I have to say I’m agnostic about until I do more research. But electric cars, solar, wind……..ultra niche sources for now. Nuclear is the real solution, but the greenies so poisoned it I doubt we will ever recover. The French did. But I doubt we will.
Careful what you wish for.
Red Barchetta: Its completely tautological.
There are greenhouse emissions associated with manufacturing that are not directly related to energy usage.
M + F = T
Manufacturing footprint plus fuel footprint equals total footprint. Even if F is zero, the manufacturing footprint of electric vehicles may exceed that of standard vehicles. Hence, it is not tautological. We have to account for the footprint of manufacturing.
Red Barchetta: Its clear you are talking the energy source, and denying the battery manufacturing and disposal problem.
That is exactly the opposite of what we said.
Red Barchetta: Enlighten us, non-fossil fuels will make a meaningful contribution when? In the year 2125?
In many regions, it already is. France, Brazil, Norway, and many parts of the United States, already have low-carbon electricity generation. Hence, operating an electric car in these regions has a lower carbon footprint than standard cars.
TastyBits: The green energy output to weight ratio is far, far too low to be more than a niche product.
As we mentioned, some countries already have largely green electricity.
TastyBits: Fossil fuels cannot be touched for portable energy.
That is a big advantage of fossil fuels, that, and not having to account for the environmental externalities.
Red Barchetta: Somehow this whole thing becomes political.
Your inaccurate claim of a tautology has nothing to do with politics.
@Zachriel
As we mentioned, some countries already have largely green electricity.
Hydro, nuclear and geothermal are the only “green” electric sources capable of large energy output, but they are not usually embraced as environmentally friendly. France, Brazil, Norway are not relying on wind and solar, and in addition, there are substantial differences between those countries and the US.
For electricity production, wind and solar have a substantially higher energy output to land area ratio. Hydro and geothermal are location constrained, and hydro has an enormous environmental impact.
That is a big advantage of fossil fuels, that, and not having to account for the environmental externalities.
No. It is simple physics, or our present understanding of the physical world. There could be other unknown energy sources, but until we understand how to harness them, it is of no value.
This is a political debate because there is never any mention of the applicable physics. The desire to lower the “carbon footprint” is dependent upon science, but science is not based upon desires. I will leave the “carbon footprint” nonsense for another day, but it is another debate devoid of the scientific realities.
TastyBits: France, Brazil, Norway are not relying on wind and solar, and in addition, there are substantial differences between those countries and the US.
Didn’t know the U.S. was the only country that counted. Nations, such as India and China, are rapidly mechanizing, and the number of cars, and other emitters, will soon dwarf that of the U.S. Given the current understanding of anthropogenic climate change, this is a significant challenge. The U.S. can be a leader in the transition to a greener world.
Zachriel: {Fossil fuels cannot be touched for portable energy} is a big advantage of fossil fuels, that, and not having to account for the environmental externalities.
TastyBits: No.
Um, yes. Fossil fuels have the advantage of portability, but the economics don’t account for environmental externalities, just as we said.
TastyBits: It is simple physics, or our present understanding of the physical world.
The “simple physics” is that fossil fuels are convenient, but if fossil fuels continue to not have to account for their externalities, then the global climate will change dramatically over the next few human generations. Fossil fuels aren’t going away any time soon, but have to be leveraged to develop a more sustainable future.
@Zachriel(s)
Didn’t know the U.S. was the only country that counted. …
The topic was about US EV sales. China and India are similar to the US, and they will not be powered by wind or solar.
Um, yes. Fossil fuels have the advantage of portability …
Um, no. Fossil fuels contain far, far more energy than can be produced by wind or solar. Fossil fuels contain the gravitational force from millions of years of compression. Because of this, a coal plant does not take much land.
The “simple physics†is that fossil fuels are convenient …
Science does not rely upon convenience. Science is about understanding the physical world as it is not as you want it to be.
The simple physics is about energy. Solar and wind energy are converted into electromagnetic energy, and that energy is either pushed into the electric grid or stored, usually, in batteries. Fossil and nuclear do not have this requirement.
… environmental externalities …
This is meaningless gobbledigook. Could one of you provide a specific definition of this concept.
… the global climate will change dramatically over the next few human generations …
The climate will change substantially over the next several thousand years, and there is nothing humans can do to stop it. The earth is presently between ice ages, and because not all glaciers have receded, some places are still in the last ice age. The frostline will continue to move north, and at some point, it will reverse. Presently, it is believed this oscillation is due to the wobble in the earth’s axis.
… the current understanding of anthropogenic climate change …
In the summer of 2010, the wheels fell off the AWG bus. The present computer model is predicting the exact opposite of reality. For 15 years, the CO2 levels have increased significantly, but the “global temperature” has not risen. Apparently, increasing CO2 levels were required to stop global warming.
Heat is one form of energy, and each form can be transformed into another. The AWG theory assumes that heat is a special form of energy and does not change. Furthermore, the AWG “scientists” do not understand that the earth is not a static system. Without a catastrophic event, there are feedback loops to govern the earth’s behavior, but these feedback loops cannot negate simple physics.
Zachriel: Fossil fuels have the advantage of portability …
TastyBits: Um, no.
TastyBits: Fossil fuels cannot be touched for portable energy. Period.
Zachriel: … environmental externalities …
TastyBits: This is meaningless gobbledigook.
In conventional terms, it can mean air pollution. In terms of climate, it refers to anthropogenic climate change due to excess CO2 and other changes to the environment due to human activities.
Now, you may disagree on the details of externalities, but that doesn’t make the statement gobbledygook.
TastyBits: The climate will change substantially over the next several thousand years, and there is nothing humans can do to stop it.
The Earth is currently undergoing anomalous anthropogenic warming. But if you reject this, then, of course, there’s no climate externalities. However, the vast majority of experts in the field disagree with your position.
TastyBits: The AWG theory assumes that heat is a special form of energy and does not change.
Gee whiz.
TastyBits: Furthermore, the AWG “scientists†do not understand that the earth is not a static system.
That’s just silly. Even a cursory reading of the literature reveals that to be a caricature.
@Zachriel(s)
Fossil fuels advantage is the amount of energy that is stored per unit. This them to produce a substantial amount of heat. This heat is transformed into mechanical energy, and mechanical energy is transformed into electricity.
The high heat production is also necessary for smelting and metalworking. Wood or charcoal do not produce enough heat.
For transportation, portability is presently an advantage, but this is not a given. Advances in battery technology could allow greater storage, and fuel cells are another possibility.
The problem here is that there is no Moore’s Law of battery production. There may even be a practical limit and we may already have reached it. Nobody really knows. But designing for some as yet nonexistent battery probably isn’t a good bet.
@Zachriel(s)
The Earth is currently undergoing anomalous anthropogenic warming. But if you reject this, then, of course, there’s no climate externalities. However, the vast majority of experts in the field disagree with your position.
The “experts” are frequently wrong. This is a feature of science, and it allows greater understanding of the physical world. Need I mention Galileo? More recently, the universe was considered static until the late 1960’s/early 1970’s. Birds are now understood to have evolved from dinosaurs.
I understand science, and the science does not support man-made global warming or CO2 causing global warming. Actually, the theory is nonsense.
Gee whiz.
Is this some new scientific term that I missed.
That’s just silly. Even a cursory reading of the literature reveals that to be a caricature.
The only way to believe that there will be runaway warming or cooling is by not understanding feedback loops. Sans a catastrophic event, the earth moderates extreme activities. For warming and cooling, the oceans are giant heatsinks, and they absorb or release heat as needed. This is why the ice age cycle takes thousands of years to complete.
CO2 is the result of warming not the cause of it. The earth is warming because of the wobble in the axis. The earth has cooled down enough that is a factor. This is similar to the tilt of the earth’s axis causing different seasons. Climate change occurs daily, and it occurs yearly.
Now that the AWG theory has fallen apart, climate “scientists” have discovered that the oceans are storing the missing heat. Soon, the missing heat will be discovered to have been hiding in aunt Millie’s attic.
Do I need to drag in the earth’s magnetic field, electromagnetic energy, cycles of solar activity? @Drew may stick around, but most will be bored.
Finally, literature is a fitting description. Science relies upon a repeatable process, but when you destroy the basis for your conclusions, it is impossible to repeat your process.
@Dave Schuler
As far as I understand, there have been no great research into battery technology. There is probably some new metals or manufacturing processes that would substantially increase battery storage. It is also likely that today’s batteries are not the best way to store electricity.
Today’s batteries could be yesterday’s vacuum tube.
Dave Schuler: The problem here is that there is no Moore’s Law of battery production. There may even be a practical limit and we may already have reached it. Nobody really knows. But designing for some as yet nonexistent battery probably isn’t a good bet.
Granted, investing in basic research may be the best option at this point. However, ignoring the externalities, is not a good idea.
TastyBits: The “experts†are frequently wrong.
Sure they are, but they are more likely to be right than the opinions of non-experts. They are also more likely to be right in the main, than in the particulars.
TastyBits: Actually, the theory is nonsense.
There’s a reason why climate scientists have reached the conclusions they have.
TastyBits: The only way to believe that there will be runaway warming or cooling is by not understanding feedback loops.
You said, “AWG ‘scientists’ do not understand that the earth is not a static system,” going so far as to use scare-quotes around scientists.
You’re fighting a cartoon version of climate science. In any case, it’s off-topic.
I guess it depends on what you mean by “no great research”. At this point the investment in the area is in the tens of billions.
Zachriel:
Who’s ignoring externalities? My views of the subject are that a) climate change (for whatever reason) concerns me; b) I favored a carbon tax starting, maybe, 40 years ago; c) a carbon tax would have been more effective 40 years ago than it would be now; d) assuming that better batteries will save us is a bad bet; e) the Euro-centric approaches that many people propose for reducing the problems are a lot less appropriate for the U. S. than they are for Europe. Especially since much of what Europe has accomplished in the area has been a result of their off-shoring their heavy industry to China (where the problems become intractable).
I’d start by phasing out our subsidies for fossil fuel consumption. I find it fascinating that so many people a) believe that global warming is a genuine problem and b) want to subsidize fossil fuel consumption. They don’t seem to realize that those work against one another.
@Zachriel(s)
There’s a reason why climate scientists have reached the conclusions they have.
The present conclusion is that there is a problem with the model. The increasing CO2 should be causing a corresponding temperature rise. It is not, and they recognize that this is a problem. One new attempt to account for the predicted is that the heat is going into the oceans, but it is somehow heating the deeper water.
You said, “AWG ‘scientists’ do not understand that the earth is not a static system,†going so far as to use scare-quotes around scientists.
Static in terms of the trend, but it could have been worded better. These were clown quotes. Science has not relied upon consensus for over 300 years, and anyone who claims to be a scientist does not make an appeal to consensus. If the quotes scare any of you, science must scare you.
You’re fighting a cartoon version of climate science. In any case, it’s off-topic.
AWG is cartoon science. There are climate scientists, but they understand that the science is in its infancy. The climate is extraordinarily complicated, and the science is struggling to understand all the variables. This is how science works.
I did not bring AWG into the discussion, and I rarely discuss it outside a scientific context.
Dave Schuler: Who’s ignoring externalities?
Didn’t mean to suggest you were.
Dave Schuler: I’d start by phasing out our subsidies for fossil fuel consumption.
That would be a good place to start.
TastyBits: The increasing CO2 should be causing a corresponding temperature rise.
Technically, an increase in energy.
TastyBits: One new attempt to account for the predicted is that the heat is going into the oceans, but it is somehow heating the deeper water.
The oceans are warming.
TastyBits: These were clown quotes.
TastyBits: AWG is cartoon science.
Handwaving.
TastyBits: I did not bring AWG into the discussion, and I rarely discuss it outside a scientific context.
The main reason for the development of electric vehicles is to address the carbon footprint. If you see no cost to continued burning of fossil fuels, then, of course, you will see no benefit in their development.
@Zachriel(s)
The oceans are warming.
The oceans are one of the regulation mechanisms of the earth. Because of this, the “hockey stick” graph was a joke to anybody with any knowledge of the earth. Some years ago, the AWG “scientists” realized that they made a major mistake, and they have quietly stopped mentioning it.
According to the AWG theory, little of the reflected infrared radiation was being absorbed by the oceans, and therefore, the oceans could not account for the temperature rise. Now that the temperature has stopped rising, the earth has been storing heat in the ocean.
According to the AWG theory, the reflected infrared radiation was directly heating the air, and this was causing the temperature to rise. By dramatically decreasing the ocean component, the air temperature would continue to rise due to the trapped heat and to the increasing heat being trapped. Basically, runaway temperatures causing destruction.
Reality has struck, and they are scrambling to keep the AWG theory alive by any means necessary. Reality is a bitch.
Handwaving.
I am mocking everything about AWG theory. “Clown”, “joke”, and “cartoon” should be a clue. I can assure all of you that most people reading this get it.
The main reason for the development of electric vehicles is to address the carbon footprint. …
Which leads us to AWG, and therefore, it is on-topic making your “off-topic” comment meaningless. I entered the discussion about green electric generation.
There are numerous reasons to develop electric vehicles, but they are not replacing gas or diesel anytime soon. I am really not moved by an appeal to my emotions. Science is devoid of emotions.
TastyBits: I am mocking everything about AWG theory. “Clownâ€, “jokeâ€, and “cartoon†should be a clue. I can assure all of you that most people reading this get it.
Sure. All the experts in the field are joking clowns with cartoon theories. We get it. But it doesn’t make a good argument. The reasonable presumption is that climate scientists are intelligent, rational actors, and have perhaps reached the wrong conclusion.
TastyBits: I entered the discussion about green electric generation.
Your first comment discussed “portable energy”, an important characteristic for vehicles, of course.
@Zachriel(s)
Science is not conducted by consensus, public polling, or destroying data. Anything that claims to be “settled science” is anything but science. Science is based upon being wrong, but as new understandings arise, the science is modified.
An expanding universe has an explicit beginning. This would help to validate that God created the world, but like it or not, that is what the evidence shows. The difference between science and theology is that science can be wrong. It is possible that there is no beginning as we understand it.
The portability of fossil fuels is an outcome of their primary advantage. The primary advantage is the ability to house a large amount of energy in a small package. For wind or solar to match the output of a coal plant, substantially more space (land) and equipment are required.
This supports @Drew’s comment about electric vehicles actually being non-green, and he did not include the lost electricity during transmission.
TastyBits: Science is based upon being wrong, but as new understandings arise, the science is modified.
Sure. All the experts in the field are joking clowns with cartoon theories. We get it. But it doesn’t make a good argument.
TastyBits: This supports @Drew’s comment about electric vehicles actually being non-green, and he did not include the lost electricity during transmission.
Electric vehicles are green when their juice is green.
@Zachriel(s)
Sure. All the experts in the field are joking clowns with cartoon theories. We get it. But it doesn’t make a good argument.
I am able to mock because the “science” is foolish. I am fairly certain that I have been making a scientific argument, and the counter argument is devoid of science.
String theory is at the fringes of physics, and yet, it is not mocked. Why? String physicists are not claiming it to be “settled science”. They do not destroy data that conflicts with their theory. They do not claim that without funding the world will end. String physicists are not hustlers.
Electric vehicles are green when their juice is green.
Unless you include nuclear as green, electrical vehicles will never be green.
I forgot about uranium. A nuclear generation is hardly portable, and yet, its high energy content makes it far more useful than a windmill.
TastyBits: I am able to mock because the “science†is foolish. I am fairly certain that I have been making a scientific argument
Mocking is antithetical to argument.
That’s not completely true. Some of the designs of the new generation of small-scale nukes, trying to get certified, are about the size of a Volkswagen bus. They’re portable—they can be carried on the back of a truck. The key problem is certification.
What I’m hoping for is a thorium-fueled small-scale nuclear reactor. I’m thinking of something that could be buried in your backyard, would be self-regulating, cheap to fuel, and wouldn’t present the security risks that the large-scale guys do.
Who opposes such things? Mostly the same people who support green technology and the big boys.
@Zachriel(s)
Mocking is antithetical to argument.
I have been making an argument based upon science. I understand what science entails and how it works. I am willing to be proven wrong. At least one of you should be up to the challenge.
If a goldfish continually makes a claim to be a tractor, I will mock. Saying something three times does not make it true.
“For the Snark was a boojum, you see.”
Dave Schuler: What I’m hoping for is a thorium-fueled small-scale nuclear reactor.
Fusion may not be that far off. And electric cars are as green as their juice.