AlterNet: Electric Cars Are the Key to Energy Independence

[marmar]

Electric Cars Are the Key to Energy Independence

By David Morris, AlterNet. Posted August 2, 2008.

Renewables won't give us energy independence unless that electricity is used as a substitute for oil in our transportation system.



Al Gore's heroic speech challenging us to make our electrical system 100 percent renewable promised it would simultaneously address three major crises: the weak economy, catastrophic climate change and the dire national security problems inherent in our dependence on imported oil.

He got two out of three right. A crash renewable electricity initiative would provide an immediate boost to our economy and could slow climate change, since electricity accounts for about a third of our overall greenhouse gas emissions.

But it would do little to enhance our national security.

Oil generates only 3 percent of our electricity. Therefore a 100 percent renewable electricity system does little to reduce our oil dependency -- unless that electricity is used to substitute for oil in our transportation system.

Al Gore knows this. In other venues he has mentioned electrified vehicles. But he needs to make electrifying our transportation the central element in his 10-year plan, for at least two reasons.

One is that it is an initiative that would prove far more compelling to the vast majority of Americans. Climate change is abstract, and the strategies to resolve it are remote. Our relationship to our vehicles, on the other hand, is both concrete and visceral. We desperately want to get off oil, especially when gasoline prices rise to $4 per gallon. ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/environment/93609/electric_cars_are_the_key_to_energy_independence/

[Marblehead]

1. good article

I want an EV

[DustyJoe]

2. Would Love an EV ... IF

I could charge it cleanly. I live 6 miles from a store and 3 miles from the post office and cannot ride a bike. Ironically I live 25 miles from 2 of the largest coal generating plants in the country with a third on the planning books. I would not want to have to charge an EV with electricity generated from those since I am sure a few tons of coal will have to be burned and spew their waste into the air here to charge up for a trip to shop for food. So until solar, nuclear or a non carbon based power generation comes availiable I will have to wait.

[Marblehead]

3. that makes no sense

they are already producing the energy, we already have the capacity for millions of EV...

[IDemo]

4. Please read ->

http://www.evadc.org/pwrplnt.pdf

One of the most common issues surrounding EVs today
is their status as ZEVs (Zero Emissions Vehicles). Critics proclaim that
EVs are simply “elsewhere emission vehicles” because they transfer emissions
from the tailpipe to the smokestack. Although there are emissions associated
with coal and oil-fired power plants, smokestack emissions associated with
charging EVs are extremely low. In fact, EVs can charge from zero-emission
sources such as nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, and wind power.

[azul]

5. EV plus solar panels equals 50+ years of driving freedom.

Sell them as a kit.

Perhaps the US driving public can now strike a deal with congressman and senators to drive like 50% less if they get us the hell out of the Middle East. Keep driving less until they get the message. If we can reduce our demand for oil we can leave those countries to their own designs, and reduce unnecessary deaths and prevent our bankruptcy from the costs of a fool's war.

[bananas]

8. Less CO2 emissions even if coal is used to generate the electricity

http://www.evworld.com/evguide.cfm
"For starters, in terms of carbon dioxide emissions, they generate a fraction that expelled by a normal gasoline engine car. For every gallon of gasoline burned, approximately 22 pounds of CO2, an important global warming gas, are created. If a car gets 25 miles a gallon it will emit 22 pounds of carbon dioxide over that distance, as well as other pollutants. By comparison, an electric car may travel the same distance consuming 5 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electric power at a rate of 200 watt hours/mile. Assuming the local grid is 100% coal-fired, roughly 5 lbs of coal would be consumed to create that 5kWh. Depending on the grade and carbon content of the coal, one kilowatt hour creates approximately 1.4 pounds of CO2. That's 7 pounds of CO2 vs. 22 pounds to travel the same 25 miles. But recall that the power grid isn't entirely coal-fired; it includes hydroelectric, natural gas, nuclear and a small, but growing segment of renewables."

[DustyJoe]

9. Coal

This is all well and good. BUT do NOT live 25 miles from 2 large coal burning plants that burn in tons per minute, not 5 pounds at a time. Watch the yellow plume engulf your valley looking as bad as the pictures of Beijing. Feel good that most of the power is being sent to southern CA while you choke on the fumes. Realize in southern CA they have clean nuclear plants but you live with coal fired that they benefit from. It is a double edged sword. Like I said in the earlier post, until thry can charge an EV with no carbon emission, then its no better for someone somewhere, but not for the area generating the power for these energy sucking black holes like southern CA. I would love to see if LA would like just one of these plants on Rodeo drive. I doubt it.

[Finishline42]

10. Most EV's will be recharging at Off Peak periods when

Coal fired plants are producing power that nobody is using. EV's are producing nothing during peak periods while they slice through the pollution of the cars/trucks you want to keep.

[StevieM]

6. If we could get electricity from carbon-free sources--nuclear, geothermal, hydropower, wind, solar--

then the automobile would indeed be emissions-free. Even now, though, I think that the emissions are fewer when they are burnt in the production of electricity rather then burnt on the road. But electrical cars would be a big step toward getting rid of fossil fuels.

Hybrids would also help, I believe, under a couple different scenarios: the car could run on E85 when not using electricity (and maybe the 15% that isn't ethanol could be natural gas, which I believe is cleaner then gasoline); or they could ultimately, perhaps, run on hydrogen produced at nuclear power plants.

Steve

[StevieM]

7. Actually, that second part may be wrong. It might not be possible to have a hybid that uses

ethanol. My knowledge of the science, I admit, is limited. But at some point we have to replace to ICE.

Steve

[TheWraith]

12. Anything combustible can be used to power an engine.

I don't know if existing gas hybrids like ethanol--as far as I'm aware, current engines wouldn't run well or for very long on pure E. But you could build an ethanol engine and use it with a hybrid drive.

[TheWraith]

11. No kidding. For that matter, just EVs would be a big step even without green energy.

Right now we're wasting tons of electricity at night that could be used to power EVs, and thus cut carbon emissions even if it still came from the existing grid.