how are electric cars better for the environment than gas powered cars? Don't

  • Thread starter Thread starter frownupsidown7
  • Start date Start date
F

frownupsidown7

Guest
they both use fossil fuels? ok so in the U.S, the pursuit of being better for the environment, car companies are developing all electric cars. But I must say I'm a bit confused! I thought we were trying to cut down on the amount of fossil fuels...doesn't electricity fall under this category? Why are people constantly getting solar panels and why is wind power so important if its all going to now be double time used because everyone's going to be using electric powered cars? I'm so confused I don't think there is anyway out of this, I think driving a vehicle is just going to be bad for the environment no matter what. My ideal world would be to ride a bicycle and drive a Paggio/Vespa around but that wouldn't work in LA...can somebody help me? I have a genuine concern for this...what is the way of the future for vehicles? what can the middle and lower class do about this whole issue?...why sky blue [actually turning gray, but still =P]
 
I like David's answer. It's the first time I have heard somebody say it.

A gas powered vehicle MUST use fossil fuel
An elec powered vehicle doesn't have to.

Actually arguing the pros and cons of types of fuels misses the point. The real mistake the human race is making is it's continuing addiction to fire. This is caveman technology and it is easy to imagine a world without it. A much better world.
 
electric cars emit no pollutants. they have to be recharged. the emissions are easier to control at the power plant than from each car.
 
Many small gas engines are unregulated or are only regulated on a less strict scale so your paggio/vespa may be more polluting than a car relative to it's size.

It is also true that vehicles that run on a fuel are designed for one fuel for efficiency. Electric vehicles operate on a different principal and so while an internal combustion engine is around 30% efficient without considering drive train losses, the electric motor is around 95% efficient. This is how some battery electric vehicles can work with only a battery capacity equal to the power of one or two gallons of gasoline.

The electricity for an electric vehicle can come from one of many sources or even a combination as it is presently on the grid. Currently about 46% of our electricity comes from coal but you might also power your vehicle on a home solar panel installation by selling the peak power during the day to the grid and buying cheap power at night to charge your vehicle. An electric vehicle will become "cleaner" as it gets older if the power source becomes cleaner. This is not generally a trick that fueled vehicles can do.

If all vehicles on the road were tomorrow turned to electric the current grid has sufficient off peak and excess unused capacity to charge around 80% of these at night. This is energy that is currently wasted as power plants cannot be turned off or backed off like you can to your car gas peddle. I would expect that a balance would not be difficult to come by in the realistic time that it would take to transform our entire fleet of vehicles. Further it is highly unlikely we will see that many electric vehicles on the road in any foreseeable future. There may always be other alternatives.

Human powered vehicles are a great way to travel with less pollution. Options include skateboards, bicycles, recumbent, and velomobiles. Many of these have had electric motors attached as power or only as "assist" engines and so they become human/electric hybrids.

Mass transit is another way that less pollution will be put into the air. Although the vehicles may be more polluting the greater ridership means that it equals less pollution per person.

I can recall very gray sky's in the Eastern state when I grew up. I was amazed at the blue sky's in the West when I traveled there. Today, when I travel back to the Eastern homestead the sky's are blue. Positive change can happen. Often it is not a matter of available technology, but the will to implement it and a willingness to change our habits. This is much more difficult if we feel it is futile. We have to avoid such temptation to just give up.
 
You are correct in the sense that both gas burning vehicles and electric vehicles use fossil fuels - one uses the fuel directly (the gas burner), and the other uses the fossil fuels indirectly... Yes, "indirectly".

Right now, coal is providing the majority of the electricity in the United States. Sure, some is provided by wind and solar, but those are both small percentages of the total. The rest is made up by natural gas burning generator stations, nuclear, and hydroelectric.

So yes, if more electric cars are put on the road, more electricity will need to be generated to provide more power to charge the batteries of the electric vehicles.

That's a little item that many of the radical environmentalist crowd don't want to admit.

What's the solution? I really don't know. I would say increasing fuel efficiencies of vehicles, while at the same time increasing the amount of electricity generated by solar, wind, and yes, even coal and natural gas burners... Kind of like the "all of the above" bill that some senators were trying to have debated on the floor of the Senate. It called for an approach that used all available technologies - solar, wind, increased fuel efficiencies, AND increased domestic energy development.

Why?

Because the sun doesn't shine at night, and the wind doesn't always blow - so solar and wind are only viable for part of the time. Something has to "make up the difference" for night and/or when the wind isn't blowing. Another thing that isn't realized is that even if wind and solar energy production is increased, you'll still have to have fossil fuel burning power stations burning fossil fuels - because they don't "ramp up" to production at the flick of a switch (like turning on a light). It takes time to ramp them up to full production, so they'd have to be on "hot standby" - burning the fuels, with steam ready to turn turbines at a moment's notice.
 
You are correct in the sense that both gas burning vehicles and electric vehicles use fossil fuels - one uses the fuel directly (the gas burner), and the other uses the fossil fuels indirectly... Yes, "indirectly".

Right now, coal is providing the majority of the electricity in the United States. Sure, some is provided by wind and solar, but those are both small percentages of the total. The rest is made up by natural gas burning generator stations, nuclear, and hydroelectric.

So yes, if more electric cars are put on the road, more electricity will need to be generated to provide more power to charge the batteries of the electric vehicles.

That's a little item that many of the radical environmentalist crowd don't want to admit.

What's the solution? I really don't know. I would say increasing fuel efficiencies of vehicles, while at the same time increasing the amount of electricity generated by solar, wind, and yes, even coal and natural gas burners... Kind of like the "all of the above" bill that some senators were trying to have debated on the floor of the Senate. It called for an approach that used all available technologies - solar, wind, increased fuel efficiencies, AND increased domestic energy development.

Why?

Because the sun doesn't shine at night, and the wind doesn't always blow - so solar and wind are only viable for part of the time. Something has to "make up the difference" for night and/or when the wind isn't blowing. Another thing that isn't realized is that even if wind and solar energy production is increased, you'll still have to have fossil fuel burning power stations burning fossil fuels - because they don't "ramp up" to production at the flick of a switch (like turning on a light). It takes time to ramp them up to full production, so they'd have to be on "hot standby" - burning the fuels, with steam ready to turn turbines at a moment's notice.
 
You are correct in the sense that both gas burning vehicles and electric vehicles use fossil fuels - one uses the fuel directly (the gas burner), and the other uses the fossil fuels indirectly... Yes, "indirectly".

Right now, coal is providing the majority of the electricity in the United States. Sure, some is provided by wind and solar, but those are both small percentages of the total. The rest is made up by natural gas burning generator stations, nuclear, and hydroelectric.

So yes, if more electric cars are put on the road, more electricity will need to be generated to provide more power to charge the batteries of the electric vehicles.

That's a little item that many of the radical environmentalist crowd don't want to admit.

What's the solution? I really don't know. I would say increasing fuel efficiencies of vehicles, while at the same time increasing the amount of electricity generated by solar, wind, and yes, even coal and natural gas burners... Kind of like the "all of the above" bill that some senators were trying to have debated on the floor of the Senate. It called for an approach that used all available technologies - solar, wind, increased fuel efficiencies, AND increased domestic energy development.

Why?

Because the sun doesn't shine at night, and the wind doesn't always blow - so solar and wind are only viable for part of the time. Something has to "make up the difference" for night and/or when the wind isn't blowing. Another thing that isn't realized is that even if wind and solar energy production is increased, you'll still have to have fossil fuel burning power stations burning fossil fuels - because they don't "ramp up" to production at the flick of a switch (like turning on a light). It takes time to ramp them up to full production, so they'd have to be on "hot standby" - burning the fuels, with steam ready to turn turbines at a moment's notice.
 
Back
Top