The Great Beyond

Why doesn't anyone consider the quality-of-life impact that an electric car could have on the environment, instead of only focusing on "greenhouse gases"? Shifting all the pollution that ICE-powered cars produce to power plants means that I don't have to deal with asthma nearly as much as I do now.

Even so, your statement "might as well just fire up your Hummer" is ridiculous. Electric power is produced from a variety of sources. Yes, coal- and natural-gas-powered plants are contributors, but so are nuclear, wind, hydroelectric, and solar sources. You would have to use a composite number to justify a sweeping statement like that.

Also consider that you cannot compare this car to, say, a 48MPG Prius, simply because it is an extremely-high performance car. Cars witht his performance would normally struggle to get 10-12 MPG. When electric cars filter down to the common consumer, they will have much higher equivalent MPG ratings.

Wow. Is Nature tapping grade schools for "talent" now?

Perhaps the writer ought to stick to the topics he has some knowledge of.

Sounds like someone talking out of thier butt.. the amount of CO2, NO2, SO2, etc.. etc.. etc.. is FAR greater from a car than even the worst Coal plant in equivalent power. Fortunately I live in a area of the country where over 35% of our power comes from Nuclear, and 25% from Hydro and rest split between NG & Coal plants which are far from here and not in the metro area. THe only way to wean ourselves off fossil fuels is to start with EVs. Then with combination of EVs, Solar, Hydro and MODERN Nuclear power reactors we will be able to replace the oil, coal and NG facilites. I hope to see that in my lifetime.. but doubt it.

Sure, if you're only power comes from a creaky old anthracite coal plant far away across a failing power grid, and you really exercise the vehicle, you might get up to the CO2 output of a Hummer H3...

However, the average electrical outlet in the U.S. is only getting 50% of its power from coal. More than 25% comes from non-CO2-emitting sources (nuclear, hydro, wind, and a sprinkling of solar).

Also, the average Tesla customer is highly likely to be buying carbon offsets, green power, or even their own solar panels or wind turbines (the first two options are cheap and easy enough for almost anyone to do it).

Oil was $50 a barrel last year, $112 a barrel today...and it'll be well over $200 by 2010.

So the issue in the future won’t only be the environmental cost but the overwhelming cost at the bowser!

I found this article over pessimistic. We all know there are going to be more obstacles to overcome with the EV but for me the EV is going in the right direction. Though I take the environmental benefits into consideration I am also very keen to get out of the grasping clutches of my greedy government, oil industry and oil producing countries and I am going to hold on to my old reliable and petrol efficient Micra until I am pretty sure that a reliable and reasonably priced EV has come into being and then its gone and I am sure there are many people doing the same.

The guy wrote this article must be part of the oil companies campaign to kill the electric car again. Gas is so expensive now and the price of basic necisities replec the increase in transportation. We need electric cars on the road now!

Mr. Cressey, this report was extremely biased and poorly researched.

Why exactly is it that coal plant emissions are a problem specifically when charging electric cars? Coal plants are not aware that electric cars are connected to the grid and suddenly start belching pollution. They pollute all the time, regardless of where the power is used.

But then that would mean that the coal plants are the problem, not the EVs, and that clearly doesn't fit with your agenda.

Your comparison between coal and gasoline immediately shows that you have either not thought this though, or you are deliberately distorting the picture. Do you think gasoline just springs magically from the ground, fully refined, right at your local petrol station? Not even considering the energy required to ship the oil around, the energy required to simply refine oil into gasoline produces about the same amount of CO2 as the charging the Tesla from a the typical power grid. Much of the oil produced today requires high pressure water or steam to get it out of the ground, which takes more energy. That water then has to be removed from the oil before refining, taking even more energy. Then you should take into consideration the waste of natural gas from flaring, which nobody figures in, but which still produces significant CO2.

With EVs, we have a choice or where we get power, coal, natural gas, oil, nuclear, wind, solar, hydro, etc. With gasoline, we don't have choices.

There are no panels I can put on my roof to turn sunshine into pollution-free gasoline.

I don't know what cars with the Tesla's performance the previous poster is referring to that "struggle to get 10-12 MPG." Here are the EPA ratings (city/highway) for cars that equal or better its performance:

BMW M3 - 14/20
Corvette (base) - 16/26
Corvette (Z06) - 15/24
Lotus Exige - 20/26
Porsche Carrerra 2 - 18/26
Porsche 911 Turbo - 16/23

"... all the car does is shift the emissions away from the tailpipe and to the power station."
This is second time just in a few days that I read this. I seems some authors are just copying what they hear or read elsewhere without even thinking about it.

I fully agree with Michael, and just want to add:

Daniel, when using the "US figures" did you consider that an internal combustion engine has a much lower efficiency than the power plants you use for your comparison? Might this change anything?
There is a great surplus of unutilized "off-peak" electricity at night. How is this included in your "calculation"? If we reach the point in time where this might not be enough for electric cars anymore, we hopefully have many more solar power plants already.
Did you think of options to filter/capture emission, and what are the possibilities here when comparing car vs power plant?

And this is only a tip of the iceberg ...
It's important to think critically, but I would expect that you post researched facts here rather than making bold claims.

The zero emissions claim made my Tesla is legitimate although should be qualified to state that the vehicle can produce zero drive-time emissions (subject to user choice). Unlike gas powered cars, the Tesla does not require production of pollution. It's up to the owner to choose green electricity over fossil-fuel electricity (power utilities offer this choice, unfortunately at a premium).

People who can afford a Tesla can afford green electricity. But ultimately, if EVs are to prosper, a forward looking goverment should subsidize green energy with a tariff on non-green energy until such time as the two reach price parity.

"According to US figures, motor gasoline produces about 156 pounds of carbon dioxide per million British thermal units of energy (70 kilograms per 109 joules). While nuclear energy puts out 0 pounds, coal produces over 200 (90 kg per 109 joules). So if you’re charging up your Tesla with juice from a coal power station you might as well just fire up your Hummer."

The above statement is wrong and misleading:

1. You would not charge up your Tesla with juice from a coal power station. If youre charging up the Tesla you will presumably use the US national grid which, as per the US figures, produces 28.8% power from Nuclear, Hydroelectric and “Other Renewables”, which produce 0 pounds of carbon dioxide and 20% from Natural gas, which produces 117 pounds of CO2 per million BTU.

2. Assuming the balance electricity to be that of coal at 215 pounds of CO2 per million BTU, if we make this correction, then the electricity used to charge the Tesla will be producing 133.5 pounds of CO2 per million BTU consumed compared with 156 pounds of CO2 per million BTU of gasoline.

3. What we are really concerned about is the BTU per Km or mile. The electric vehicle consumes far less energy to propel a car per Km or mile than a petrol car. Thus we are talking about far less CO2 production per km than a petrol car.

4. The Tesla can also be charged using Solar Power in which case the CO2 used would be 0

5. Besides CO2, petrol and diesel engines produce other toxins like CO, lead and other carcinogens which are belched out in close proximity of other motorists, pedestrians and houses in the vicinity. These are 0 in electric engines.

All in all therefore, environmentally, the electric vehicle wins hands down

Can you translate the BTU data into miles/km down the road?

Richard writes:
"The electric vehicle consumes far less energy to propel a car per Km or mile than a petrol car."

Why should that be? I would think it would depend on things like the weight of a car, its wind resistance, etc. And *if* all the electricity used to propel an EV came from a coal plant (I'm not saying it would, just 'if'), then it might well be that an EV would take more energy because of the losses in transmission, losses in charging the battery (e.g. from heating the battery--the losses through the radiator and hot exhaust of a gas car would correspond to the loss at the power generation plant to similar things), and other conversion losses. No?

Michael Maxwell writes-
"Richard writes: "The electric vehicle consumes far less energy to propel a car per Km or mile than a petrol car." Why should that be?"

Because there are umpteen losses in a petrol driven car which are not there in an electric car. Incomplete combustion, losses when the petrol explodes – heat losses, then some of the fuel escapes from the valves and rings, mechanical losses between the piston and the crank, losses between the crank and the transmission, losses between the transmission and the differential, between the differential and the wheel.

According to the Seattle Electric Vehicle Association “even in a modern fuel injected, computer driven automobile, for every dollar of fuel we purchase, 85 cents goes up in smoke and heat .. We only get 15 cents on the dollar at the driving wheels!”

An electric vehicle directly powers the wheel, none of the above losses. An electric motor is highly efficient.

"I would think it would depend on things like the weight of a car, its wind resistance, etc." – You think wrong – that is approx the same for both vehicles so is not considered. We are talking about the energy used to propel the wheels.

Bottom line – taking ALL LOSSES of both vehicles, including the ones you have mentioned above, the Tesla roadster goes 2.18 km per megajoule (3.6 Kwh) compared to 0.63 Km per MJ in a Honda Civic VX. That’s 3.46 times more distance for the same amount of energy used!

"And .. No?" - No

Tom - "Can you translate the BTU data into miles/km down the road?" - See above

you know what would be better if they would put a solar panel on top of the car. that would be really cool. WHO AGREES WITH ME!!!???

Michael, are you saying you are more alergic to car smoke than powerplant smoke, per KWH delivered to wheels? How did you calculate this? Or are you just saying you live in an urban area with lots of cars, compared to people who spend more of their time downwind of powerplants?

Richard, thanks for the figures on the U.S.'s mixture of electric plants.

I am not clear whether that's BTU of fuel, coming out of the plant, or at the wall outlet.

The powerplant- transmission line- battery charging- car system has some losses analogous to petrol cars' and some unique losses, including differences in size and weight required by the batteries that effect efficiency and performance.

It's the end-to-end totals that matter.

Individuals could get their power in different ways, but in the absence of an agreed-on model of how many will when, I think present behavior is the fairest comparison. And if we add variables for what electric drivers will do, we should also consider petrol and hybrid drivers' options and technology changes.

@ Jason: they do that in Sweden: http://www.koenigsegg.com/pressreleases.php?view=16

The Dutch did it to a speedboat earlier:
http://www.uberreview.com/2008/05/dutch-build-the-first-solar-powered-speedboat.htm