On par with asking if replacing gas guzzlers with new vehicles is a net positive if you consider the resources required to build that new car.

Tuesday I asked a frequent commenter and staunch electric vehicle advocate whether he ever questioned the ethics of building an EV that can save one owner 400 gallons of gas per year while using enough batteries to build ten Prius-class hybrids that could save their owners a combined total of 1,600 gallons of gas per year. I then spent an hour in stunned silence as the critical importance of that question crystallized in my mind. I didn’t get a responsive answer from the commenter, but I did get one of those rare moments of clarity when everything suddenly falls into place.

For years the mainstream media, scientists, elected officials and promoters have written and spoken ad nauseum about how a new generation of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, or PHEVs, will liberate America from the tyranny of imported oil. The problem is the promises are based on flawed assumptions and utterly false. At their best, PHEVs and EVs are all sizzle and no steak when it comes to national energy independence. At their worst, they are deep cover saboteurs that will undermine America’s drive for energy independence while stridently claiming to be part of the solution.




  1. Chris1 says:

    Interesting discussion:

    #3 (et al):

    There can be no such thing as clean coal, clean natural gas, clean diesel, clean gasoline, or clean wood-burning, because these are all hydrocarbons and produce CO2 as a byproduct. Even if you remove the “impurities” (and we have done a pretty good job of that with gasoline) you still create greenhouse gasses as a byproduct.

    As for nuclear, despite the propaganda, the real reason more plants aren’t being built is that when all is added up, the cost of construction, cost of operation, cost of disposal of the fuel (BIG problem) it is one of the most expensive ways to produce power.

    Most nuclear plants in the US are approaching end of life. The law pushed to allow more expansion will most likely be used to replace/refurbish existing plants.

    That pretty much leaves hydroelectric, solar, wind, and hydrogen. Hydrogen production issues will need to be resolved before it is really viable as a clean fuel.

    C1

  2. Mr. Fusion says:

    #64, Jag,

    I don’t think of ‘dro as being a Luddite. To me, he appears to just like arguing contrary positions. Since he doesn’t have much intelligence or imagination, his arguments almost always turn to ad hominems.

  3. Jägermeister says:

    #68 – Mr. Fusion

    You’re correct, again. 🙂

  4. ArianeB says:

    WOW! The amount of ignorance in this whole thread is stupefying.

    The article at the beginning of this thread comes from advocates getting rid of all private vehicles, and almost every one of you in this thread is trying to figure out how to keep private vehicles on the road.

    If we can’t get EVs to work, then our society is royally screwed. The days of gas powered vehicles is numbered. By 2020 gas will be too expensive or impossible to get.

    #63 “Who the hell is talking about lack of electricity for the cars. I’m talking about the kind of electricity generation that’s available, which will generate as much pollution as gas cars.”

    Do your research dude. Studies have been done that say if we all drive electric cars instead of gas powered cars, the amount of gasoline needed to generate the electricity to power those cars is approximately half what we are pouring into our tanks now. That means half the pollution.

    Of course the article is right in that there are huge obstacles in the way of converting America’s fleet to EV.

    Which is why I’m convinced the future isn’t in cars, its in electric powered bicycles for short distances, and trains on electrified rails for freight and long distances.

  5. Qon Quixote says:

    Dumb shits!
    Read the last few lines of the source.

  6. ErrUmm says:

    Here is what sounds to me like a wrong assumption of the original article: the table used assumes 48watts of battery power. So the article says that it is best to distribute this to more cars in the form of hybrids instead of full electrics, and if the electrics hoard them all the rest of us will be forced to use gas and then, there you go, the whole thing falls down.

    But isn’t there more than 48 watts of battery to go around? Are we running out of batteries? The whole argument pivots around a fixed total number of batteries. Even if that is a problem right now, as time passes production will go up and prices down.

    What am I missing?

    And this is a separate question from all the arguments above, so don’t start yelling (at me) about LiPO vs NIMH vs LiFE vs lead or nukes vs coal.

  7. Jägermeister says:

    #73 – Qon Quixote el Dumb shit! – Read the last few lines of the source.

    It’s been read and commented on, long before your post, el Dumb shit!

  8. Rick Cain says:

    Are We Heading Down The Wrong Road With Gasoline Vehicles?

    The horse carriage has been a useful and reliable transport menthod for hundreds of years.

  9. Rick Cain says:

    BTW Seeking Alpha is a far rightwing, libertarian investment website that hates any government regulation while conveniently ignoring that lack of regulation is why we are in disaster mode right now.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 9414 access attempts in the last 7 days.