Green Cars Have a Dirty Little Secret
online.wsj.com
Green Cars Have a Dirty Little Secret
1–4 of 4 posts
Re: Green Cars Have a Dirty Little Secret
#2i hate articles like this because they seem to assume a vacuum. These things always have to start somewhere. The first generation is rarely the best there is.
It's the same way i feel about consumer web startups. Sure they may not initially solve an "important" problem, but as these folks move on to new endeavours they will bring the model with them.
Re: Green Cars Have a Dirty Little Secret
#3I don't see why he's basing his calculations on electric cars that only live for 90,000 miles. Electric cars might not make it to 200k - the new models are new enough that we don't know how long they'll be driven - but 90k seems crazy low.
I don't like how he derides the 8.7 tons of CO2 emissions prevented. The average household directly produces 12.4 tons per year - 94% from our cars.[1] If we converted all ~200 million cars in the U.S. to electric, that's 1.7 billion tons of CO2 over the vehicles' lives. To put that in comparison, that's 30% of our TOTAL CO2 use in the US annually.[3] I know these savings aren't going to be yearly, but the point is that 8.7 tons is nothing to scoff at.
The author also totally glosses over our reliance on fossil fuels, rising oil prices, improvements in manufacturing for electric cars, and the lower cost for fuel to consumers.
[1] http://www.thehcf.org/emaila5.html [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_Unite... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dio...
Re: Green Cars Have a Dirty Little Secret
#4My presumption is that if and as batteries become increasingly manufactured, and perhaps reconditioned, from recycled batteries, the cost/benefit improves. Essentially, battery deterioration is the result of structural deterioration that is rectified by the input of some energy. This is, or should be made to be, significantly less demanding of energy -- and disposed byproducts -- than is original sourcing from raw materials. I.e. no materials are actually "lost" during the deterioration, and materials used in remanufacturing/reconditioning should be largely recyclable, as well. And reprocessing should take a lot less energy than sourcing and separating from raw materials.
The question then becomes whether the lifespan of a battery technology will be long enough for such benefits to emerge. Given that, already, the net CO2 benefit is at least positive (ignoring, for the sake of this argument, other "green" factors), this seems to be a risk worth taking.