The impact of the electric car: infographic

[MikeD]

Link: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/22/the-impact-of-the-electric-car-infographic/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[bdgotoh]

Seems pretty slanted to me. The number of charging locations ignores all of the people who charge at home, which is nearly everyone.

 

[blueblob06]

Seems kinda deceiving with a lot of those figures.

For example, it makes it sound like the government is blowing tons of money on investing in this technology and on incentives but it doesn't list the oil subsidies and investments the government spends billions on.... EV spending is peanuts compared to that.

They explain that even if a bunch of people buy Leafs, there's so much pollution that it wouldn't make a huge difference. That's not a great argument to begin with but if they are going to say that, why not say what percentage of government spending is on EVs. It's probably an equally microscopic percentage.

And I can't even comprehend how a Hybrid has a lifetime cost of $5,377 more and an EV $4,819 more than a conventional car....what are they using as a conventional car? A Geo Metro? And only driving 8,000 miles a year? They mention "the average conventional car costs $28,771" so these figures don't add up.

 

[johnqh]

Definie "lifetime".

Most gas cars will need major repairs at 100K. Start with timing belt/chain, then radiator, then maybe a engine/transmission rebuilt. There are simply way more moving components which are exposed to heat in an ICE car. EV do not have a record yet, but even if you have to get a completely new battery at 150K for $5000, it is way cheaper than an ICE's maintenance on powertrain.

I think "lifetime" in the article is the purchase + maintenance cost, without consideration of the on-going gas/electricity cost. That would be close, as EV still costs about 10K more than a comparative EV (without incentives), but should cost $5K less to maintain over 15 to 20 years.

And it is nuts to say "even if a bunch of people buy Leafs, there's so much pollution that it wouldn't make a huge difference". Refining gasoline REQUIRE ELECTRICITY, average 5kwh/gallon. In the city, one gallon of gas can get me about 10 to 15 miles in an ICE, yet 5kwh can give me 15 to 20 miles in Leaf. So all the pollution from an gasoline is NET INCREASE in an ICE over EV. I bet that was not counted in the article.

And I will repeat the following point:

Power companies cannot turn on/off power plants on demand. They can adjust the output somewhat, but there is an minimum. It is like an ICE engine. Even if you are at a complete stop and the engine is idle, you are still burning gas. The usage peaks during the day and bottoms at night, but the power plants (except solar) continue to run at night. That electricity is mostly WASTED right now. There is enough room in the power system to charge 2 million EV at the same time.

So, at least for those early adapters, the CO2 number should be 0, ZERO, NADA. While the ICE should be 8.08 + 6.6 = 14.68.

In addition, with 2 million of EV replacing 2 million of ICE, it reduces the need of gasoline, which reduces the electricity needed to refine gasoline. So it reduces the peak point of power generation, which can mean the lowering of the electricity curve overall. So in that sense, EV will LOWER the overall need of electricity.

There is also potential to have EV-to-grid technology to use EV's battery as energy storage for peak time. So you charge at night, then release the energy back to grid during peak time, thus farther lower the peak and reduce the overall electricity curve.

 

[aleph5]

Yep, definitely slanted. It shows the federal gov't costs for A123 and Fisker, but not for Tesla or the billions it continually spends subsidizing fossil fuels. Also, Fisker actually received $193 million of its loan, not $529M. It also states that the cheapest EV is the Mitsu at $30K, in contrast to the average of about $29K spent for a new car! Didn't they figure out that you can find the real price of a stripped LEAF and then subtract the $7500 credit shown elsewhere in the chart, to get the consumer's effective starting price for an EV at close to $21K, before state tax credits commonly offered and also before significant operational cost savings?

This is just dishonest. And I can imagine Michele Bachmann having one of these posters hanging in her office.

Seems pretty slanted to me. The number of charging locations ignores all of the people who charge at home, which is nearly everyone.

 

[FredinNY]

"And I can imagine Michele Bachmann having one of these posters hanging in her office"

Agreed...You don't have to be a political junkie to see that she's the anti-christ. Be afraid...be very afraid...

Yep, definitely slanted. It shows the federal gov't costs for A123 and Fisker, but not for Tesla or the billions it continually spends subsidizing fossil fuels. Also, Fisker actually received $193 million of its loan, not $529M. It also states that the cheapest EV is the Mitsu at $30K, in contrast to the average of about $29K spent for a new car! Didn't they figure out that you can find the real price of a stripped LEAF and then subtract the $7500 credit shown elsewhere in the chart, to get the consumer's effective starting price for an EV at close to $21K, before state tax credits commonly offered and also before significant operational cost savings?

This is just dishonest. And I can imagine Michele Bachmann having one of these posters hanging in her office.

Seems pretty slanted to me. The number of charging locations ignores all of the people who charge at home, which is nearly everyone.

 

[derkraut]

"And I can imagine Michele Bachmann having one of these posters hanging in her office"

Agreed...You don't have to be a political junkie to see that she's the anti-christ. Be afraid...be very afraid...

Yep, definitely slanted. It shows the federal gov't costs for A123 and Fisker, but not for Tesla or the billions it continually spends subsidizing fossil fuels. Also, Fisker actually received $193 million of its loan, not $529M. It also states that the cheapest EV is the Mitsu at $30K, in contrast to the average of about $29K spent for a new car! Didn't they figure out that you can find the real price of a stripped LEAF and then subtract the $7500 credit shown elsewhere in the chart, to get the consumer's effective starting price for an EV at close to $21K, before state tax credits commonly offered and also before significant operational cost savings?

This is just dishonest. And I can imagine Michele Bachmann having one of these posters hanging in her office.

Seems pretty slanted to me. The number of charging locations ignores all of the people who charge at home, which is nearly everyone.

Michelle Bachmann is the Anti-Christ? What have you been smokin', Freddie? :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[ERG4ALL]

It does appear slanted to me too. The article relies heavily on very large font to extoll the amount of government money that has been spent on EVs. To put these expenditures into perspective, on top of the oil subsidies mentioned earlier, Time magazine had a great article a month or so ago that highlighted the $400 BILLION spent on the uncompleted F35 after a decade of development. With pilotless aircraft that can withstand far more than a human, it may be obsolete before it is complete.

Now we've really only had mass market EVs in the hands of consumers for less than three years, and we have all these self appointed pundits calling for cessation of any help to get the volume necessary to succeed on its own. And this is for something that benefits individual citizens and the air quality in our urban centers. This is for plowshares, not swords. Where were all these watchdogs when an armament expenditure goes haywire?

Finally, many of these articles follow the old saying, "Good is the enemy of Better". Even though in the grand scheme of things the EVs may be making a minor impact, aren't any positive results better than none?