New Republic Mag: ‘The Modern Automobile Must Die’ – ‘If we want to solve climate change, there’s no other option’
Excerpts:
‘Transportation is now the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States’
‘In 2010, a NASA study declared that automobiles were officially the largest net contributor of climate change pollution in the world.’
‘The power generation sector may have emitted the most greenhouse gases in total. But it also released so many sulfates and cooling aerosols that the net impact was less than the automobile industry, according to NASA.’
The problem is that most automakers seek to meet those requirements by developing electric cars. If those cars are charged with electricity from a coal-fired power plant, they create “more emissions than a car that burns petrol,” energy storage expert Dénes Csala pointed out last year.
“For such a switch to actually reduce net emissions, the electricity that powers those cars must be renewable.”
https://newrepublic.com/article/150689/modern-automobile-must-die
h/t to Climate Depot
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Fine. Their cars first, though. Then we’ll “kill” ours. We plomise.
Yes, they should lead by example. Ditto for the population reduction supporters. But they are hypocrites, so they won’t.
Let those that think Population is a problem FORCE sterilization on their own children first
All we have to do is place everyone under house arrest so they can’t use transportation. Then stop transporting food and other goods. Curl up and die to “save the world.”
“For such a switch to actually reduce net emissions, the electricity that powers those cars must be renewable.” Notice that they don’t say “low carbon.” Nuclear produces far more low carbon power than wind and solar combined.
Anthony, I wish conservatives such as yourself would engage in more critical thinking in this area.
I am a libertarian BTW and love you blog for the most part. But when you cover renewable energy, electric cars, etc, you just slap on your conservative hat and go to town. Instead, put on your free market hat and ask yourself: Is BEV technology disruptive, even without any subsidy? The answer is clearly yes when you actually examine the information available critically.
Tony Seba is a good source of general info if you want a quick overview. And I could care less about CO2 emissions, but if I did,, it certainly makes more sense to power a car with an 85% plus efficient drive train than one with 20% efficiency. Even of the power plant uses coal. But again since CO2 is not a problem, ask yourself: How about the other pollution created by cars? Electric cars require no OBDII systems, no catalytic converters, O2 sensors, etc, in order to keep emissions low. Modern power plants already clean most of the smokestack emissions of harmful chemicals, etc. So the electricity going into BEVs is made clean, even if from coal (unless you fret about Co2). Try sitting next to a diesel F350 for a few minutes and let me know how clean you think that thing is. We should all want a nicer, cleaner environment in which to live. Liberals, conservatives, and Libertarians alike.
Thanks for hosting this blog. Great stuff really.
gator,
how the heck can a technology that has to be subsidized before anyone will buy it be “disruptive”?
I wish you electric car guys would spend even a couple of minutes studying up on a little bit of physics.
The car itself might be 85% efficient, however the system that creates and distributes that electricity is less than 50% efficient. In some places, way less.
BTW, the internal combustion engine has been way above 20% efficient for decades.
Spouting bad data to support their belief system is what we have come to expect from liberals, not conservatives or libertarians.
The problem of pollution from cars was resolved decades ago as well.
In some places, the air coming out of the tail pipe is cleaner than the air being sucked in.
Great, then why don’t you turn your car on tonight in your garage and sit in it to take a nap sir? And Sir, I did study physics with calculus and differential equations at UF. Open your mind drone.
For someone who claims to have studied physics, you don’t seem have bothered actually understanding any of it.
UF? There’s your problem.
Gator,
Just take a close look at how many of the rare raw materials that are used to produce the motors and batteries are mined in many 3rd world countries, and then tell me that’s OK with you. Then take a look at how worn-out battery packs are discarded. None of that is good for the environment or the human condition either. So it’s not all as rosy as you paint it.
Also, the OBDII systems, catalytic converters, O2 sensors, etc. are a small part of the modern internal combustion engine. Electrics have their own special systems as well, not the least of which is the charger and charge maintenance systems. In the end, all this probably washes out anyway and we are left with the obvious issues: battery technology is not nearly good enough to replace liquid fuels, and the current electric infrastructure will take billions, if not trillions to upgrade if we are to replace just surface transportation with all electric vehicles. There’s just no way to sugar coat it; from an engineering perspective it looks like EVs will remain a niche product for some time yet. Probably a long time. Which is a pity, because I really like most of the properties of EVs.
So said Kodak, the actual inventors of digital photography. You may want to read the Innovators Dilemma for some background.
Kodak invented the technology indeed but they figured it would not take off in favor of film. They were very very wrong.
Early digital cameras were quite low-res and nowhere near the picture quality of film, so Kodak’s position was fairly reasonable, at first. As the technology was refined and resolution/quality of digital images improved, the convenience of the digital camera (no waiting for development, easy to retake shots, no need to restock film) started to shine and it began to penetrate and then dominate the market.
Film still has an edge over digital in picture quality, but the difference is small enough now that only photography enthusiasts really care about it these days.
gator,
The two situations aren’t comparable at all. The fact that you would even imply they are just shows how little you really understand about the issues.
Kodak was wrong, therefore anyone who doesn’t favor electric cars is wrong.
Geeze, can’t you guys come up with new fallacies?
Modern brain cells must die to fear climate change.
Dead brain cells, thus, foster electric cars that require long times to wait for recharging.
I can see it now –masses of people waiting at charging stations for hours on end to juice up their new electric, dead-brain-cell, auto creations. Really, though, who do you know who will wait hours for an electric juice up, when they can use a car that FILLS up in a few minutes with eeeeeeeeeeeevil carbon juice?
And, yeah, how do you create the electric juice for the alternate-power? — with carbon-produced juice, right? So, what’s the success here? I’m not seeing it yet.
Design a car that requires hours to infuse with electric energy that, in turn, requires fossil fuels to produce the electric energy to run it, … and requires fossil-fuel energy to even build the car, … driving across vast landscapes of noisy, bird-killing blade farms and wondrous expanses of silver panels collecting sunlight, when they can, and probably frying anything that might land on them (not sure about that). And this solves what?
Fix the errors in my sarcasm/pessimism. I like to make it the best I can. (^_^)
“I can see it now –masses of people waiting at charging stations for hours on end to juice up their new electric, dead-brain-cell, auto creations”
Someone will just create an app for that.
Well, another idiotic solution would be to have cars emit more “sulfates and cooling aerosols” to put them on par with power plants.
Shhhh…
Climate extremists keep finding new ways to demonstrate their stupidity.
Here’s something that bothers me: “Transportation is now the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States” (The NASA quote, main article)
It bothers me because like most countries, America has exported its CO₂ producing heavy industries to the Far East. All those manufacturing industries are gone. We just import stuff. Cargo ship after cargo ship after cargo ship.
Maybe I’m easily bothered.
But something tells me that the atoms of oxygen that I breathe might well have cycled through a Chinese panda or a Venezuelan water buffalo. Or a Canadian goose, or a Nigerian politician. While we’re on wild animals.
GoatGuy
When the electric car manufacturers learn to cut their prices to bring them in line with current gasoline-powered types, they’ll have a chance to increase sales. Along with this, they’ll have to increase cruising ranges, decrease recharge times and expand the number of recharging stations. So the whole business is still a pretty tall order and certainly won’t happen overnight.
At $1500 per kiosk, electric vehicle charging stations would run around $450,000 for a grocery store parking lot with spaces for 300 vehicles. Then you would need 60,000 solar panels to supply the juice which would require an area of 1500′ x 900′ and cost 50,000 x 300 = 15,000,000 to power recharging stations at 1 store.
How many public parking spaces are there? X $55,000 per space to allow for Solar powered recharging of electric vehicles. (Each parking space would need a spread of solar panels covering an area 50′ x 10′)
Good example of the result of low energy density of batteries & solar. Let’s add an adjacent pin-wheel farm (couple hundred acres) to power it during the night, at least if the wind’s blowing.
Found a good spot for another practical example
Google 37.336431, -121.893403
A parking garage in San Jose Ca. It contains some 1542 parking spaces.
To add the 1542 recharging kiosks, batteries and needed Solar Panels would cost $84,810,000
It would require covering an area between San Pedro St to the west, W Santa Clara on the South, N 21st on the East and Jackson on the north or around 132 city blocks with solar panels to power the parking structures recharging kiosks.
High density parking would also need to become a thing of the past
“When the electric car manufacturers learn to cut their prices to bring them in line with current gasoline-powered types, they’ll have a chance to increase sales”
They would if they could. The cost of manufacture is too great for them to do so without govt. subsidies.
Ha!
I’m doing my thing as an unrepentant denier.
I just took delivery of my brand new, gasoline powered, gas guzzling new car. Total on the clock is 12 miles.
I plan to drive it often, and as fast as I can.
I also have my new NRA bumper sticker, but I think I will just hide that under my bed. No point in having my brand new paint job scratched by one of those tolerant and inclusive greenies.
We do what we can; and this is my contribution.
Ok, so never mind the cost and environmental impact that would occur from having to redesign and reconstruct our cities, suburbs, and countryside – all of which were laid out around the automobile!
Horses and carts are still available.
And Horses are 100% renewalable. Though they do have a habit of emitting methane from one end and CO2 from the other.
Muscle cars will still be racing on the road long after global warming died
GeneralLee speaking…Yes
‘Transportation is now the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States’
HUH? Then the US of A must really be radically different from the rest of the world. Because all the LDV traffic in the world (LDV = Light Duty Vehicle, the kind that can be run on accumulators) accounts for app. 3.25% of human emissions of CO2. And you can’t run locomotives, trucks, etc. on accumulators – but you can run them with hybrid diesel-electric engines: see e.g. General Electric EMD G16, Komatsu XDE170, Liebherr T282C, Belaz-75710 (3430 kW), etc. ..
Again, somebody was dreaming instead of checking data for the article. Unfortunately, this type of crap gets published so often with little or no protests that is comes over as sensible.
Well, consider the source…NASA. Oh how the mighty have fallen.
Here’s something I just posted on the Seeking Alpha TSLA page:
[Instead of EVs these are the alternatives I like:] a serial hybrid [without two power trains like a parallel hybrid such as a Prius] like Nissan’s e-energy series, ideally with a plug-in option, and ideally with a rotary engine supplying power to the battery, for lightness, compactness, and low cost. Toyota is working with Mazda along this line in its under-construction factory in Alabama.
Next, I like the radical new ICEs coming next year from Mazda (SkyActiv-X) and GM, which they allege will be 30% more efficient. Their low up-front cost will make them ten times more popular than EVs and therefore reduce ten times more emissions.
Next I like the cleaned-up diesels coming next year incorporating Bosch’s new tweaks.
[I should have added that I like the on-coming 48-volt electrical system will also make ICE cars more efficient.]
For trucks, I like natural gas as a fuel, and I wish Obama’s climate advisors had settled for the “half a loaf” solution they provide instead of chasing after the purist electrification ideal.
This is the first I have heard of any plans to increase the voltage for a car’s electrical system.
Do you have more information on it?
With electronics getting less power hunger and the advent of LED lighting, I thought the need for such an increase would have gone down.
There are lots of recent stories on it if you Google for “48-volt automotive electrical systems”. The first story in the list, from the NY Times, is at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/business/electric-cars-48-volts.html
It says that these systems provide 70% of the value of a hybrid for 30% of the cost. Also, that at a cost between $650 and $1000 they can improve milage by 15%. Also that lots of automakers are interested in them, and that Volvo is going to implement them in all its cars.
also search for “mild hybrid” — here’s a link to Wikipedia’s entry on it: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwibxpKfooTdAhX4FjQIHUc6AO4QFjAAegQIMhAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMild_hybrid&usg=AOvVaw16-X_dNR2isQ3powK7we0G
Sounds like most of that improvement is from what they are calling “mild-hybrid”, not just efficiency improvements from using 48V instead of 12V. The 48V is necessary to provide the power for it.
Here’s a run-down of what’s involved in a mild hybrid: Retention of the 12-volt system for light-duty tasks; Electrically powered water and oil plumps and A/C, rather than being belt-powered or mechanically powered; electrically boosted turbocharger (aka supercharger) at start-up; regenerative braking (optional); a combination starter/generator, which can power the car on its own for short distances, and give the engine a smooth boost when it’s running on reduced cylinders; greater plower to heat seats and windshields; power for the components needed in an autonomous driving system; heating at start-up for the catalytic converter; smoother start/stop at traffic lights; etc.
Fuel efficiency is boosted about 15%, and emissions are reduced by 25%. Acceleration is increased. Various pundits estimate that by 2025 between 10% and 15% of autos sold worldwide will be mild hybrids. The components are being pioneered by parts-makers like Bosch, Continental, and Delphi, not auto-makers.
Well, that’s what they want this week – next week they’ll come for something else.
Better to say ‘no’ NOW’, and resolve to stop indulging them in the future.
What is climate change pollution?
Climate change pollution is what comes out of alarmist’s mouths.
I like Climate Change Pollution…It’s a Gas
The “cars-must-die” meme is wrong on two levels:
1) We need more CO2. We’ve been at starvation levels for more than 30 million years.
2) Global Warming is good and is NOT caused by CO2. We live in an Ice Age, and CO2 has close to zero correlation with global temperature. Even on Gore’s favorite time scale (10s to 100s of thousands of years), temperature led CO2; not the other way around.