Study: Electric cars not as green as you think: WWF Germany

[JohnWxy]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10231102-54.html


The environmental benefits of electric cars are being questioned in Germany by a surprising actor: the green movement. But those risks don't apply in the U.S., the American electric-car lobby asserts.


The German branch of the environmental group World Wildlife Foundation (WWF) has conducted a study together with IZES, a German institute for future energy systems, on the environmental impact of electric vehicles in Germany.

Just like the U.S., Germany has an ambitious goal of introducing electric vehicles. Germany, which today has 41 million cars, aims to have 1 million electric cars or plug-in hybrid vehicles on the road by 2020. The conclusion of the study is that these electric cars only reduce greenhouse gases marginally.

The study, which was published in German in March, has not been widely circulated in English yet. The WWF Germany said a summary in English is set for publication this summer.

"What surprised us was that the carbon dioxide savings were so small," Viviane Raddatz, vehicle expert at WWF Germany, said in a phone interview from Berlin.

In a best-case scenario, the WWF assumes that the 1 million electric cars or plug-in vehicles would be running on renewable electricity and used at maximum mileage. Electric vehicles do not yet have the range of regular cars.
(more)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[zbdent]

1. difference is ...

In America, people think a hundred years is a long time, and a hundred miles is a short distance (to drive) ...

(not my original ... if only it was ...)

[excess_3]

2. EVs --> huge economic benefit

the money not spent on gasoline,
stays in your own country

everybody wins

[wtmusic]

3. Electrical generation will only get cleaner over time

Starting to see VW's anti-EV fingerprints in a lot of German sources.

[JohnWxy]

4. True, but time is something we don't have much of. see link.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=202915&mesg_id=202915


even if he is a bit pessimistic we don't have 20 years before we start do more to bring down GHGs.

[wtmusic]

5. All the more reason to invest in 4th gen nuclear.

No way that solar and wind will provide enough energy in under 20 years. We need to be building another nuclear plant every week. Can't happen? It already has - in the early eighties.

"Finally, Hansen wants a renewed research effort into so-called fourth generation nuclear plants, which can use nuclear waste as fuel. "In our opinion deserves your strong support, because it has the potential to help solve past problems with nuclear power: nuclear waste, the need to mine for nuclear fuel, and release of radioactive material."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/01/scentist-letter-hansen-barack-obama

[rollingrock]

6. Electric cars are 100% green

the title is misleading, because the cars themselves are 100% green. There might be a question of where the electricity comes from, but electric vehicles themselves are 100% green, since they produce no carbon emissions when in use.

If the electricity comes mostly from coal-fired power plants, then obviously you're going to have pollution, but that's not the fault of the electric vehicle. It's the fault of the energy provider. Likewise, if the electricity you're getting to power your EV comes from 100% renewable sources such as win, solar, hydro, then there won't be any emissions to worry about.

[The Croquist]

8. Electric cars are not 100% green!

They may be better then gasoline powered cars but they are not 100% green.

Bad news rollingrock, every action you make creates CO2. If you walk to the store you emit CO2. If you eat a veggie meal you emit CO2. If you smelt metal and make plastic for an electric car or buy one you emit CO2. If you use power from a coal plant, oil plant, nuclear plant or "win, solar, hydro" you are contributing to CO2 production. If you drive down a road made from concrete or asphalt you are contributing to CO2 production. When you die your corpse will emit CO2. Life sucks.

The question is "how much".

[rollingrock]

9. Huh? Say what?

That's some strange logic you got there. What does human physical activity have to do with vehicle emissions? When you drive an electric vehicle, the electric vehicle by itself emits ZERO C02. When you walk into a store or ride a bike, your BODY emits C02 when you breath, not the vehicle.

The Tesla Roadster for example, a 100% electric vehicle on sale in the US, is officially rated as a ZEV vehicle by the EPA, the lowest possible emission rating for any automobile in the US. ZEV stands for Zero Emission vehicle, meaning there is no measurable emissions coming out of the vehicle when in use!

[The Croquist]

11. You claimed that "Electric cars are 100% green" and I disagree.

To claim that an EV is CO2 free is just wrong. You can argue that at the very moment that is driving down the road it is not emitting CO2 but that doesn't mean that driving it doesn't produce CO2 except for the last time when you never again recharge the battery.

When my gas powered car is sitting in my driveway it is a ZEV. When a Tesla Roadster is sitting in the driveway recharging, it is indirectly producing CO2. Directly or not, CO2 is CO2. Blaming the power company for CO2 emitted for energy you use is like going to an anti-sweatshop rally wearing your Nike LeBron James basketball shoes. The bottom line is if you drive either a Celica or an EV less, there will be less CO2 in the atmosphere. I don't care what the EPA rates the Tesla Roadster.

If you are walking or riding a bicycle you are the vehicle. Both walking 5 miles or driving 5 miles produces CO2. It is a viable comparison.

That doesn't mean that EVs suck. It just means they're not perfect.

[The2ndWheel]

10. "are 100% green, since they produce no carbon emissions"

If that's the definition of green, then we'll carve this planet up in no time.

[IDemo]

7. Binary thinkers have created a false dilemma over EV's

Electric vehicles have been neatly dovetailed into two distinct and conflicting definitions by the media and an uninformed public. They are either (mis)represented as completely green, with zero emissions, or misrepresented as ecological disasters: a black cloud of smoke will billow from the nearest coal plant every time you touch the accelerator. The same thinking, or lack of, goes for the perceptions on the general suitability of EV's as replacements for the family gas guzzler: they are described either as people movers for seniors and others with low travel requirements, or wunder-cars worthy of George Jetson.

If an EV doesn't fit the needs of someone who wants to drive to the vacation cabin four hundred miles away up in the deep snow country, a few simple words of advice: Don't.Buy.One.

If you live in an area of the country with coal-fired power, anywhere from 46 to 51 percent of the country, depending on whom you talk to, and are uncomfortable with the concept of driving a coal burning car, again: don't. That's a simple word meaning choose another transportation option. Nevermind the studies showing lower greenhouse gas output per mile for EV's even when running on coal fired electric.

So simple, even binary thinkers can understand it.