Sure. but what does that have to do with this thread? The point isn't about safety. The point is EV's may be heavier than a comparable ICE today but they will drop in weight. Thus if heavier == more polluting, then EV"s will evolve to pollute less.
And btw, the crash data shows that more people get hurt/die in heavier vehicles than the lighter ones, especially top heavy SUV's. Light cars being dangerous is a fearmongered myth.
actually HEAVY cars polluted greatly. Singling out EV's merely to make that point is disingenuous. SUV's pollute more than sedans could easily be the headline. Yes i own an EV and it's better on so many levels of public policy. Decreasing weight will increase the EV range. So i suspect if they can cut weight, they will. Batteries may become lighter for same power density. ICE's will never not emit pollutants associated with burning carbon fuel..EV's can if they source from renewable. And guess what, the electric market is slowly moving that way.
Regenerative braking does NOT use the brake pads. So how can they produce more pollution? Blaming EV's for stirring up tire materials on the road put there by every vehicle is disingenuous as well.. Bad science.
The review, from the Environment America Research and Policy Center, looked at 11 previous studies of net metering’s effects on both the grid and on society as a whole, all of which found that owners of grid-connected solar arrays offered net benefits to the electricity system, including reduced environmental compliance costs, reduced costs in capital investments, and in avoided energy costs. In particular, the studies determined the median value of solar power as being “nearly 17 cents per unit,” which contrasts with the US average retail electricity rate of about 12 cents per kWh, which means that not only has solar net metering not been harmful to markets, but that utilities have actually been underpaying for the use of this solar electricity.
“The solar studies reviewed in this report confirm that huge amounts of solar have already been developed without paying the full value that solar brings. Not only does that mean that solar customers have likely been subsidizing non-solar customers and the utility, but that over the long term, continued development of solar promises downward pressure on electric rates for all.” – Karl Rábago, Executive Director of the Pace Energy and Climate Center
In addition to the more obvious solar benefits, such as avoided energy costs and reduced capital investment costs, the review also pointed to distributed solar as being important in grid resiliency and in helping to stabilize electricity prices by mitigating some of the fluctuation in fossil fuel prices, thereby reducing financial risks and saving money for all grid users.
The review also makes a great case for the increased and widened adoption of net metering policies in order to keep up the momentum of solar growth in the US.
“Net metering is a critical tool to ensure fair compensation for owners of solar energy systems and to continue to fuel the growth of solar energy. Public officials should support and strengthen net metering as sound public policy to stimulate private investment and job growth, and to encourage utilities to diversify and strengthen the grid.” – Shining Rewards
The document suggests that states should “lift arbitrary caps” on net metering in fast-growing solar markets, should include environmental and societal benefits when evaluating the benefits and costs of net metering programs, “consider the simplicity of net metering” when looking at programs that will compensate customers for their solar production, and “ensure that all people can take advantage of net metering policies” with virtual net metering programs for homes that aren’t able to install solar.
“While some utilities claim they’re subsidizing solar panel owners, our report shows the opposite is probably true. If anything, utilities should be paying people who go solar more, not less.” – Rob Sargent, co-author of the report, and senior program director at Environment America
guard your lane, as they say. it works. and helps drivers too.
especially when entering an intersection, as a bike, ride like a car, take the middle of the land through the intersection. Don't sneak all the way up along the right when there's a light/stop sign. get in line just like every other vehicle. go through the intersection as a car, then about 50 yards afterwards, move to the right more and ride like a bike. So easy.
what's your ultimate point? trying to be a logic professor? a language critic? a pedagogue on the proper terms for arguing? or do you have something useful to contribute to the topic.
do you think mining for anything is going to be cleaner than mining for something else? who cares on actual precise apples to oranges. An assumption is good enough. the reality is you can't re-use coal. You can reuse the metals. so i'll take the dirty metal mines over the dirty coal mines. coal lifecycle can be 2 times cleaner than copper/lithium. that's erased the minute one recycles the minerals. 4 times cleaner? then recycle the material a few more times. etc. the stuff is too valuable to just throw away.
yes, the study is flawed and incomplete in many ways. i hope no one really takes it seriously, though people are. one thing that is clear without needing explicit cost modeling however is both petroleum and lithium mining are dirty. So assume they are equally dirty. (why do we need to know the precise dirtiness, which is never going to be known) Can you recycle the petroleum that has been burned? no. lithium or whatever the new batteries get made can be recycled. Yes, recycling can be dirty. but at least it's recovering some value thus bringing down the negative value of mining it. thus comparing the 2 lifecycles, batteries are "cleaner" overall.
yes. i think we are sort of in agreement. i suspect the average battery, unabused after 10 years will still be sufficient as well. at a minimum, it will be as sufficient as the worn ICE motor at least. what you have then is replacing the motor vs. replacing the battery to get a "new" car. 10 years from now motors will still likely be similar in complexity to manufacture, thus remain as costly as today. Batteries will only diminish in cost and are vastly simpler. the cost of gas vs. the cost of kilowatts to go the same distance is much more. I get approximately 5 miles to the kilowatt, a little worse in the winter and a little better in the summer. That's.03/mile at.15/KW. generally speaking ICE's are easily.10/mi. my work reimburses at.50/mile. i don't know how they compute it but obviously they are accounting for all the nitnoids you mentioned. remember we are talking averages so of course the most efficient ICE will do better. but the average ICE won't. it's also easy to compute a comparison baseline from scratch. above average 40 mpg ICE @ ~$3/gal is.075/mile, which doesn't include the maintenance that you mention. considering if the cost of petroleum goes up or down, the cost of electricity will be somewhere following that ball park too, it's one big energy market. So assuming things generally go up in cost, 10 years from now you'll still have the same low TCO for EV and higher TCO for ICE. now how much more did you spend per year in ICE vs. EV? (to keep the discussion easy) assume 10K miles driven per year. 100K miles. EV: 100K *.03 == $3K. ICE: 100K miles *.10 (which is low) == $10000. At 10 years the EV SAVED $7K to pay for that $7K battery (which likely won't cost 7k by then). The ICE has nothing to show for it and will have to pay more to get back to "new".
i don't want to argue with people but we seem to be playing ourselves for chumps by parroting all of this antii-EV stuff. there really is an economic case to be made for them, today. and an environmental one. and a geo-political one. 10 years (the time it will take to make a serious turn in the transportation infrastructure) is going to go by in a flash. I hope we aren't still debating this then.
yes i skimmed the article. the difference isn't that significant. There are other articles purporting that batteries are NOT decaying at nearly the rate predicted so the 8 year warranty model is fairly risk free for the manufacturers. And you said 8k with an actual 17K cost which i don't know how that matters to my wallet.8 years from now, when the warranty for my Leaf battery runs out and i have to pay out of pocket, the cost will be less than an equivalent 2015 $7K. how much does it cost to replace a motor in an ICE today ~5-6K??? I can replace a battery and get a "new" motor just the same when the time comes. resale of a junker ICE has the same dynamics. it's really a guesstimate what will be the market dynamics 10 years from. However there's nothing that we know today that would lead one to conclude EV technology is doomed to be a much worse value than ICE. It's already pretty cost competitive and there's a huge gearing up of the electric infrastructure and industry which implies a positive outcome more than a negative outcome.
of course. my bubble isn't really defined by the behavior of those coal hungry parts of the US. They are status quo, no one is debating that. But they will continue to decline as this trend has already started. Your "overwhelming majority" who are no more CO2 efficient may be correct TODAY but that is not the point. the point is will we ever move away from diesel or gas by simply arguing that there's no difference, thus stay the course. No. It's impossible by definition of your proposition, efficiently burning petroleum will never get to zero CO2 or transportation independence. In fact Jevon's paradox implies the opposite, that we'll just burn the same amount and go further. That is the difference. and using these "studies" to misinform the general discourse is a disservice. I guess we can agree to disagree.
btw, the exact theory you propose about the cost of diesel technology applies to EV, the cost of an EV is already competitive with ICE. my 2013 Leaf was ~25000 out of pocket. it compares in quality to somewhere between a honda civic and accord. that "costs" about ~25000. EV costs are going down and range is going up. And when you consider that i've visited the dealer for service exactly zero time's and my cost per mile is about 1/3 of gasoline/mile, my TCO is actually lower, if you insist to compare dollars to dollars.
It's really not informative to quibble about the differences. they aren't relevant and only serve to perpetuate incorrect policy. And in the end, the CO2 potential of an EV world dwarfs any efficiency argument by diesel/gas.
i would think the production/disposal cost of the rest of either an ICE or EV would be about the same, a car body is a car body, as to not be instructive.
coal and fossils will remain a predominant power source for the near future. however, this http://thinkprogress.org/clima... might help you understand more about the unreliability of EIA predictions.
funny, here's the first google'd article on the cost of leaf battery
http://www.greencarreports.com...
and it's $5500 TODAY. When Tesla battery production gets into gear and other manufacturing follows, the price of a replacement battery will be cheaper and the range will likely be more. I don't expect my current leaf battery will be dying anytime soon, so i suspect TCO actually is cheaper than an efficient ICE economy car.
these coal vs petroleum studies distract from the real transformative nature of EV: the transportation sector will NEVER transition to clean energy if you never change the fuel powering the vehicle. Arguing that somehow ICE and EV are "equivalent" in certain areas of the country simply allows (lazy thinking) people to falsely continue their current patterns with seemingly "analytical" justification. this also means they will NEVER be able to decouple from the world geopolitical energy dependencies either. Since if i can't drive to work because i am utterly dependent on my car having gasoline because i CHOSE to buy a new ICE instead of an EV, that means i am likely utterly supporting some evil empire somewhere. if you don't really care about these bigger issues, then nothing anyone can say will convince you. But EV is vastly more pleasurable experience than ICE for both the driver and passenger. Most of the people posting negative EV opinions have never actually experienced one so their ICE-only vision of the world limits them. For the few who've put or find themselves in a life position of having to drive 100's of miles a day or live in an apartment with no easy charging, obviously EV is not your choice, yet. But for many people, they are a great choice.
if you purchase green energy on your power bill, you are 1) supporting the transition of the grid infrastructure to cleaner energy which is happening faster than expected, whining about it not being sufficient to power ALL of the needs is similarly shortsighted. 2) completely undermining the thesis of this study. You can purchase green energy at parity to conventional if you care to look. And where it's not parity, it generally not much more than a penny higher per kilowatt. Many energy markets are deregulated now so it's very likely most parts of the US can purchase green energy from a supplier in their section of the grid.the price per kilowatt/mile still dwarfs the price of btu/mile. my Leaf adds maybe $15 a month to my electric bill. that's just one visit out of several to the gas station for our other ICE car. if you are a high electric user and you decide to install solar panels, it's trivial and cheap to add a few more to accommodate the extra energy consumed by an EV. There's a compelling economic story emerging that should further shut up the EV nay sayers.
what's interesting to observe too is the coal industry is actually dying in this country. the thesis of coal vs petroleum would be valid if the electric grid stayed constant. it's not. it's moving to a greener place.thus the point of the study is lost on me.
there's a deeper point to all of this and that's to drive less period, EV or ICE, neither is good. Until we can accept and live like that, much of this discussion will continue to wallow in circles.
$7 a month to have the grid used as a battery for a 10KW array? that's peanuts. The $ amount of electricity that array is saving the owner dwarfs this. I think someone needs to reimburse the power companies so they can maintain the lines. Of course it's $7 today and who knows what it will be 10 years from now when rooftop solar is more than %1 of the power grid. But for less than $100/year is NOT a disincentive for a 10k solar system.
come on! agw predicts extreme variability in weather as the climate heats up. that is why there is extreme cold in places unaccustomed to that, and vice versa, more or less heat, rain, snow, wind, whatever. this has been recorded in enough places over the last few decades to be empirical evidence of the prediction. the logic makes sense too since more energy in the system means weather systmes have more power to do what they do. one weather system does not work in isolation of other neighboring systems.
Slashdot Mirror
to keep turkish evil maids from planting files.
Sure. but what does that have to do with this thread? The point isn't about safety. The point is EV's may be heavier than a comparable ICE today but they will drop in weight. Thus if heavier == more polluting, then EV"s will evolve to pollute less. And btw, the crash data shows that more people get hurt/die in heavier vehicles than the lighter ones, especially top heavy SUV's. Light cars being dangerous is a fearmongered myth.
actually HEAVY cars polluted greatly. Singling out EV's merely to make that point is disingenuous. SUV's pollute more than sedans could easily be the headline. Yes i own an EV and it's better on so many levels of public policy. Decreasing weight will increase the EV range. So i suspect if they can cut weight, they will. Batteries may become lighter for same power density. ICE's will never not emit pollutants associated with burning carbon fuel. .EV's can if they source from renewable. And guess what, the electric market is slowly moving that way.
yes. this "science" will now be quoted by the EV haters as justification to hate them more.
Regenerative braking does NOT use the brake pads. So how can they produce more pollution? Blaming EV's for stirring up tire materials on the road put there by every vehicle is disingenuous as well.. Bad science.
The review, from the Environment America Research and Policy Center, looked at 11 previous studies of net metering’s effects on both the grid and on society as a whole, all of which found that owners of grid-connected solar arrays offered net benefits to the electricity system, including reduced environmental compliance costs, reduced costs in capital investments, and in avoided energy costs. In particular, the studies determined the median value of solar power as being “nearly 17 cents per unit,” which contrasts with the US average retail electricity rate of about 12 cents per kWh, which means that not only has solar net metering not been harmful to markets, but that utilities have actually been underpaying for the use of this solar electricity. “The solar studies reviewed in this report confirm that huge amounts of solar have already been developed without paying the full value that solar brings. Not only does that mean that solar customers have likely been subsidizing non-solar customers and the utility, but that over the long term, continued development of solar promises downward pressure on electric rates for all.” – Karl Rábago, Executive Director of the Pace Energy and Climate Center In addition to the more obvious solar benefits, such as avoided energy costs and reduced capital investment costs, the review also pointed to distributed solar as being important in grid resiliency and in helping to stabilize electricity prices by mitigating some of the fluctuation in fossil fuel prices, thereby reducing financial risks and saving money for all grid users. The review also makes a great case for the increased and widened adoption of net metering policies in order to keep up the momentum of solar growth in the US. “Net metering is a critical tool to ensure fair compensation for owners of solar energy systems and to continue to fuel the growth of solar energy. Public officials should support and strengthen net metering as sound public policy to stimulate private investment and job growth, and to encourage utilities to diversify and strengthen the grid.” – Shining Rewards The document suggests that states should “lift arbitrary caps” on net metering in fast-growing solar markets, should include environmental and societal benefits when evaluating the benefits and costs of net metering programs, “consider the simplicity of net metering” when looking at programs that will compensate customers for their solar production, and “ensure that all people can take advantage of net metering policies” with virtual net metering programs for homes that aren’t able to install solar. “While some utilities claim they’re subsidizing solar panel owners, our report shows the opposite is probably true. If anything, utilities should be paying people who go solar more, not less.” – Rob Sargent, co-author of the report, and senior program director at Environment America
The transition won't happen overnight so I think your worries if over subscription are misplaced.
guard your lane, as they say. it works. and helps drivers too. especially when entering an intersection, as a bike, ride like a car, take the middle of the land through the intersection. Don't sneak all the way up along the right when there's a light/stop sign. get in line just like every other vehicle. go through the intersection as a car, then about 50 yards afterwards, move to the right more and ride like a bike. So easy.
do you drive a car? I bet you do. I do, and i ride a bike. i bet you speed once in a while. I do. no one is perfect.
petroleum instead of coal.
i meant to say petroleum vs. coal but the argument is still valid. you can't recycle "sort of dirty" petroleum out of a tail pipe either.
what's your ultimate point? trying to be a logic professor? a language critic? a pedagogue on the proper terms for arguing? or do you have something useful to contribute to the topic. do you think mining for anything is going to be cleaner than mining for something else? who cares on actual precise apples to oranges. An assumption is good enough. the reality is you can't re-use coal. You can reuse the metals. so i'll take the dirty metal mines over the dirty coal mines. coal lifecycle can be 2 times cleaner than copper/lithium. that's erased the minute one recycles the minerals. 4 times cleaner? then recycle the material a few more times. etc. the stuff is too valuable to just throw away.
yes, the study is flawed and incomplete in many ways. i hope no one really takes it seriously, though people are. one thing that is clear without needing explicit cost modeling however is both petroleum and lithium mining are dirty. So assume they are equally dirty. (why do we need to know the precise dirtiness, which is never going to be known) Can you recycle the petroleum that has been burned? no. lithium or whatever the new batteries get made can be recycled. Yes, recycling can be dirty. but at least it's recovering some value thus bringing down the negative value of mining it. thus comparing the 2 lifecycles, batteries are "cleaner" overall.
yes. i think we are sort of in agreement. i suspect the average battery, unabused after 10 years will still be sufficient as well. at a minimum, it will be as sufficient as the worn ICE motor at least. what you have then is replacing the motor vs. replacing the battery to get a "new" car. 10 years from now motors will still likely be similar in complexity to manufacture, thus remain as costly as today. Batteries will only diminish in cost and are vastly simpler. the cost of gas vs. the cost of kilowatts to go the same distance is much more. I get approximately 5 miles to the kilowatt, a little worse in the winter and a little better in the summer. That's .03/mile at .15/KW. generally speaking ICE's are easily .10/mi. my work reimburses at .50/mile. i don't know how they compute it but obviously they are accounting for all the nitnoids you mentioned. remember we are talking averages so of course the most efficient ICE will do better. but the average ICE won't. it's also easy to compute a comparison baseline from scratch. above average 40 mpg ICE @ ~$3/gal is .075/mile, which doesn't include the maintenance that you mention. considering if the cost of petroleum goes up or down, the cost of electricity will be somewhere following that ball park too, it's one big energy market. So assuming things generally go up in cost, 10 years from now you'll still have the same low TCO for EV and higher TCO for ICE. now how much more did you spend per year in ICE vs. EV? (to keep the discussion easy) assume 10K miles driven per year. 100K miles. EV: 100K * .03 == $3K. ICE: 100K miles * .10 (which is low) == $10000. At 10 years the EV SAVED $7K to pay for that $7K battery (which likely won't cost 7k by then). The ICE has nothing to show for it and will have to pay more to get back to "new".
i don't want to argue with people but we seem to be playing ourselves for chumps by parroting all of this antii-EV stuff. there really is an economic case to be made for them, today. and an environmental one. and a geo-political one. 10 years (the time it will take to make a serious turn in the transportation infrastructure) is going to go by in a flash. I hope we aren't still debating this then.
yes i skimmed the article. the difference isn't that significant. There are other articles purporting that batteries are NOT decaying at nearly the rate predicted so the 8 year warranty model is fairly risk free for the manufacturers. And you said 8k with an actual 17K cost which i don't know how that matters to my wallet.8 years from now, when the warranty for my Leaf battery runs out and i have to pay out of pocket, the cost will be less than an equivalent 2015 $7K. how much does it cost to replace a motor in an ICE today ~5-6K??? I can replace a battery and get a "new" motor just the same when the time comes. resale of a junker ICE has the same dynamics. it's really a guesstimate what will be the market dynamics 10 years from. However there's nothing that we know today that would lead one to conclude EV technology is doomed to be a much worse value than ICE. It's already pretty cost competitive and there's a huge gearing up of the electric infrastructure and industry which implies a positive outcome more than a negative outcome.
of course. my bubble isn't really defined by the behavior of those coal hungry parts of the US. They are status quo, no one is debating that. But they will continue to decline as this trend has already started. Your "overwhelming majority" who are no more CO2 efficient may be correct TODAY but that is not the point. the point is will we ever move away from diesel or gas by simply arguing that there's no difference, thus stay the course. No. It's impossible by definition of your proposition, efficiently burning petroleum will never get to zero CO2 or transportation independence. In fact Jevon's paradox implies the opposite, that we'll just burn the same amount and go further. That is the difference. and using these "studies" to misinform the general discourse is a disservice. I guess we can agree to disagree. btw, the exact theory you propose about the cost of diesel technology applies to EV, the cost of an EV is already competitive with ICE. my 2013 Leaf was ~25000 out of pocket. it compares in quality to somewhere between a honda civic and accord. that "costs" about ~25000. EV costs are going down and range is going up. And when you consider that i've visited the dealer for service exactly zero time's and my cost per mile is about 1/3 of gasoline/mile, my TCO is actually lower, if you insist to compare dollars to dollars. It's really not informative to quibble about the differences. they aren't relevant and only serve to perpetuate incorrect policy. And in the end, the CO2 potential of an EV world dwarfs any efficiency argument by diesel/gas.
and how do you think the cost of EV's will come down if "we" move people to more efficient ICE? i don't think anyone moves anyone in a market.
i would think the production/disposal cost of the rest of either an ICE or EV would be about the same, a car body is a car body, as to not be instructive.
coal and fossils will remain a predominant power source for the near future. however, this http://thinkprogress.org/clima... might help you understand more about the unreliability of EIA predictions.
i suspect it's a lot cleaner than cleaning up oil drilling sites, or oil spill (e.g. BP in the gulf)...
funny, here's the first google'd article on the cost of leaf battery http://www.greencarreports.com... and it's $5500 TODAY. When Tesla battery production gets into gear and other manufacturing follows, the price of a replacement battery will be cheaper and the range will likely be more. I don't expect my current leaf battery will be dying anytime soon, so i suspect TCO actually is cheaper than an efficient ICE economy car.
these coal vs petroleum studies distract from the real transformative nature of EV: the transportation sector will NEVER transition to clean energy if you never change the fuel powering the vehicle. Arguing that somehow ICE and EV are "equivalent" in certain areas of the country simply allows (lazy thinking) people to falsely continue their current patterns with seemingly "analytical" justification. this also means they will NEVER be able to decouple from the world geopolitical energy dependencies either. Since if i can't drive to work because i am utterly dependent on my car having gasoline because i CHOSE to buy a new ICE instead of an EV, that means i am likely utterly supporting some evil empire somewhere. if you don't really care about these bigger issues, then nothing anyone can say will convince you. But EV is vastly more pleasurable experience than ICE for both the driver and passenger. Most of the people posting negative EV opinions have never actually experienced one so their ICE-only vision of the world limits them. For the few who've put or find themselves in a life position of having to drive 100's of miles a day or live in an apartment with no easy charging, obviously EV is not your choice, yet. But for many people, they are a great choice. if you purchase green energy on your power bill, you are 1) supporting the transition of the grid infrastructure to cleaner energy which is happening faster than expected, whining about it not being sufficient to power ALL of the needs is similarly shortsighted. 2) completely undermining the thesis of this study. You can purchase green energy at parity to conventional if you care to look. And where it's not parity, it generally not much more than a penny higher per kilowatt. Many energy markets are deregulated now so it's very likely most parts of the US can purchase green energy from a supplier in their section of the grid.the price per kilowatt/mile still dwarfs the price of btu/mile. my Leaf adds maybe $15 a month to my electric bill. that's just one visit out of several to the gas station for our other ICE car. if you are a high electric user and you decide to install solar panels, it's trivial and cheap to add a few more to accommodate the extra energy consumed by an EV. There's a compelling economic story emerging that should further shut up the EV nay sayers. what's interesting to observe too is the coal industry is actually dying in this country. the thesis of coal vs petroleum would be valid if the electric grid stayed constant. it's not. it's moving to a greener place.thus the point of the study is lost on me. there's a deeper point to all of this and that's to drive less period, EV or ICE, neither is good. Until we can accept and live like that, much of this discussion will continue to wallow in circles.
$7 a month to have the grid used as a battery for a 10KW array? that's peanuts. The $ amount of electricity that array is saving the owner dwarfs this. I think someone needs to reimburse the power companies so they can maintain the lines. Of course it's $7 today and who knows what it will be 10 years from now when rooftop solar is more than %1 of the power grid. But for less than $100/year is NOT a disincentive for a 10k solar system.
no. time will fairly quickly diminish the value as 64 bit cpus get faster.
come on! agw predicts extreme variability in weather as the climate heats up. that is why there is extreme cold in places unaccustomed to that, and vice versa, more or less heat, rain, snow, wind, whatever. this has been recorded in enough places over the last few decades to be empirical evidence of the prediction. the logic makes sense too since more energy in the system means weather systmes have more power to do what they do. one weather system does not work in isolation of other neighboring systems.