EV Fundamentals IV: The Environment and Electric Vehicles

Relevant Abbreviations:

BEV: An electric vehicle powered solely by energy stored in its battery pack is a battery electric vehicle.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a "Greenhouse" gas produced by automobiles and power plants. Global warming has been linked in large part to CO2 emissions.

EV: Any vehicle that uses electricity to power all or part of its wheels is an electric vehicle.

ICE: Internal Combustion Engine: The automobile power plants of the dark ages of the 20th century that produced smog and warmed the planet.

NOx: Smog-creating chemicals known as nitrogen oxides pose other health risks.

The environmental advantages of driving an electric vehicle have been discussed in previous articles in the EV Basics series. Now is the time to examine these advantages in greater depth. A well-planned media campaign to discredit electric vehicles may have been noticed by some readers recently. The majority of people who are against EVs say things like, "A car has to get its energy from somewhere, doesn't it? Whether it comes from a battery pack or a gas tank, what difference does it make?" These are legitimate inquiries. I'll respond by explaining why electric vehicles consume less energy overall, emit less smog, and emit less greenhouse gases than vehicles powered by internal combustion engines. By the time this article is finished, readers should know why using electricity from the grid rather than oil-based gasoline to power cars is better for the environment.

Driving electric vehicles would not produce any pollutants that contribute to smog, such as NOx, if all of our electricity came from renewable sources like wind or solar power. However, the majority of the sources that currently supply power to our utility grid produce NOx and other pollutants that pose health risks to nearby communities. When compared to the exhaust from ICE-powered automobiles, how much pollution are power plants responsible for? The findings of Sherry Boschert's research, who is the author of the book Plug-in Hybrids: The use of EVs would reduce the amount of NOx produced by automobiles by 32 to 99%, according to The Cars that Will Recharge America. Although the figures from various studies vary, virtually all agree that the reduction in NOx and other local pollutants would be substantial. Any given location's total reduction in pollution would be determined by the power plants nearby. Cleaner power plants would have a greater impact on overall pollution reduction than dirty ones. However, due to the fact that tail pipes produce smog right where we live and work and power plants are typically located far away from population centers, nearly all urban areas would see a significant improvement in local air quality.

On the other hand, greenhouse gases are a serious issue regardless of where they are produced—at home or on another continent. EVs can also lessen this impact on the environment. An electric vehicle (EV) would not emit any greenhouse gases at all if it were charged from a grid that was powered by power plants that did not emit any greenhouse gases, just like smog-forming pollutants do. However, even when charged by the conventional grid of today, EVs produce significantly fewer greenhouse gases. Chip Gribben concludes in his research paper "Debunking the Myth of EVs and Smokestacks" that EVs charging solely from power generated by outdated coal-burning plants would still reduce CO2 emissions by 17 to 22 percent in comparison to ICE-powered automobiles. EVs would cut greenhouse gas emissions from cars by at least 71% in California and Arizona, where the grid is relatively "clean."

When oil runs out, many people believe that the most significant global catastrophe related to oil will occur. Clearly, we can only extract so much oil from the ground, tar sands, oil shale, etc. Society could completely collapse if we do not have a suitable oil replacement in place by the time it becomes impossible to find and prohibitively expensive. In this regard, EVs assist in two ways. Gribben comes to the conclusion that EVs that are charged from the grid use energy twice as efficiently as ICEs that are fueled by the existing infrastructure for oil and gas. Assuming a grid that is exclusively supplied by power plants that burn fossil fuels, EVs use half as much fossil fuel to travel the same distance because they are twice as efficient. Therefore, we may conclude that EVs would enable humanity to "stretch out" our limited oil supply and maximize "mileage" from the oil that is available.

We would also be able to power our cars from the power grid, a more adaptable energy source, if we switched to EVs. "Get all your cars on the grid, then clean up the grid!" says Paul Scott, co-founder of the Plug-In America advocacy group. The development of renewable power generation will directly benefit our automobiles if we immediately switch to grid power. An increasing proportion of our grid's power demand will be met by power plants using alternative energy as fossil fuels become more scarce and more expensive. We can continue driving without having to rebuild our transportation infrastructure if we use EVs during this transition. We will be prepared when fossil fuels run out completely!

"Don't believe the hype!" is the last line from the rap group Public Enemy. Unimaginable sums of cash are available to the oil and gas industry. Numerous media outlets pick up their stories when they spend a small portion of their profits to create the impression that EVs are just as bad for the environment as ICE-powered automobiles. Millions of people take them seriously when they try to refute the scientific consensus that our automobiles are dangerously warming the planet. It is the responsibility of everyone who cares about our planet to combat these misleading campaigns. You are responsible for disseminating the truth about EVs to people who have been bombarded with propaganda from the oil industry. Now head out into the world and get people straight.

Compare the Top 5 Electric Vehicles

Should the average consumer participate in this fad for electric cars?

I'm not sure. Really. Despite the fact that I killed myself when I was 14 in Fairbanks while attempting to light a pile of debris on fire with my 5-gallon container of chainsaw fuel, I support clean energy but prefer gasoline. But that's another tale similar to Human Torch.)

Gas has that lust-for-life feeling of hard acceleration and immediate horsepower return.

But if you give me $101,500, or $9,900, as a down payment and $1,658 per month for a lease, maybe I'll reconsider. The cost of a Tesla Roadster is that much. It has a range of 245 miles and a 3.7-second acceleration time from 0 to 60 mph.

I stop here as I imagine driving that black Roadster down Highway 99 to Bakersfield in my head. Continue past Bakersfield and up the Grapevine to Vallejo and Magic Mountain, stomping on BMWs and Mercedes that make an effort to be quick. Ah, hybrids are out of the picture for the purposes of this post. No Camry or Prius from Toyota. Avoid the Ford Escape and Honda Insight. Only electric. Lead-acid and lithium battery conversions are also not included.

Additionally, Tesla is the only company operating a production vehicle at this point. In point of fact, ZAP needs to be added to the mix as well. A line of small transporters are manufactured by the Santa Rosa-based business. "As part of a strategy to capitalize on the growing automotive and electric vehicle market in China," the company agreed in July to acquire 51% of Zhejiang Jonway Automobile Co. Ltd., a Chinese automaker, for $29 million.

Models that are anticipated to be available soon are on this list. So, here we go.

1. Tesla: In a nutshell. I could truly blow the doors off my friend Al's TA in OK City because it is quick and cool-looking. He enjoys racing that 1977 Pontiac big block with a lot of horsepower on the track.

2. Volt of Chevy. Very helpful. It looks good and is versatile. The range is 40 miles, and the price is $41,000. However, it can travel an additional 340 miles thanks to a gasoline-powered generator. coming out in the fall.

3. LEAF Nissan. Not bad. It has a custom back end and kind of looks like a Prius from the beginning. The SV package was advertised for $32,780, whereas the SL package cost $33,720. A universal transceiver, a photovoltaic spoiler, and a rearview monitor are all included in the SV. It has a 100-mile range. due in December in California.

4. Coda. Nice name. I think of the most recent Led Zep album. However, it is a new business in the United States. The website that calculated a comparison of my 2000 VW Passat and a Coda's annual costs impressed me. Passat: $725, Coda: $124. Although Coda does not disclose its retail price on its website, it is anticipated to be in the low to mid $30,000 range.

5. Sigma. Sigma/Montelle kit cars are a viable option, according to ElectricCars.com. It is made by EV Concepts, can go from 0 to 60 mph in 6 seconds, and its top speed is between 100 and 120 mph. Models with two-wheel drive start at $23,000, while models with all-wheel drive start at $55,000.

According to dailytech.com, Ford will also launch a line of electric vehicles and a stylish electric version of its Focus sometime next year. The Focus will have a range of about 100 miles. In addition, Audi, Mercedes, and others are reportedly conducting research and development. Fisker Automotive Inc. of Irvine is also developing a vehicle, but it will be a hybrid.

Disclosure. None of these cars have been tested on me. I would have to rely on Katie Fehrenbacher of Earth2Tech.com, who can be seen piloting some of them in the video, for that.

Every month, it seems more likely that going electric is a viable option. Who knows, though? "Bah!" yells a friend of mine who has spent the majority of his life working in the oil patch. to most of this discussion. His forecast: Including shale and oil sands, there is simply too much oil and natural gas in reserve.