Unclean at any speed...

[TomT]

Interesting article, published in the IEEE Spectrum...

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/unclean-at-any-speed" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[GregH]

Interesting article, published in the IEEE Spectrum...

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/unclean-at-any-speed" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But I like my high tech illusion..

 

[ERG4ALL]

Yup, those ICE cars have it all over EVs. Now if I could just figure out how to get my solar panels to charge my ICE car. The old adage holds true, "Best is the enemy of better."

 

[Alric]

You will notice the negative studies make terrible assumptions about energy costs and emissions of EVs. One study the article cites plugs all EVs to carbon emissions. No allowances for other energy sources:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12794&page=162" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Page 162

 

[GregH]

"I’m not suggesting that corporate sponsorship automatically leads people to massage their research data."

No, of course you're not. I've worked with the guys at the U.C. Davis center over the years and they're all good people. Oddly they spend a lot of their time countering biased anti-EV op-eds like this one. Funny how so much effort was spent talking about rare earth metal extraction and not a word on oil extraction, transportation, refining, delivery, refueling etc.. All op-eds cherry pick the data to make their case, nothing new under the sun.

 

[Petecomp1]

Interesting article but hardly definitive or unbiased. The key factor is, of course, the total negative environmental impact of EV manufacturing and fueling, which is addressed only by anecdotal evidence, not hard fact. Of course there will (currently) be fossil energy consumed during production of any vehicle or PV panel; the solution is to improve manufacturing process, not to abandon EV's!
I only know what I observe and experience first-hand and up-close since my acquisition of a new Leaf in March:
1. My transportation fuel cost is averaging $40/month vs. $380/month previously (which, by the way, mostly covers my $385/month overall leasing cost);
2. All my kilowatts originate from hydro, nuclear, wind and solar power (Pacific Northwest area, 7 cents/KWh), so I only speak for my particular circumstance here;
3. I no longer waste energy idling in traffic, waiting in line, etc.
And on and on... anyway, I guess according to this article I can park the Leaf and go back to driving my 18 mpg Honda Pilot with no environmental consequences. Seems a bit ridiculous from where I stand.
I hate the word "paradigm" but to me there is no doubt whatsoever that EV's provide a "local transportation paradigm" that is unquestionably better all around. It will stand the test of time IMO.

 

[DaveEV]

The article is pure FUD - the comments do a great job of breaking it down.

 

[timhebb]

The article seems thoughtful, balanced, even fair, and serious about getting at the truth.

So why am I not convinced? I've had most of the author's thoughts and doubts about the environmental impact of EV manufacturing, rare-earth elements, emissions from dirty production of electric power, etc. myself in the past (let's face it, the last one is an enduring staple of the knee-jerk anti-EV crowd).

In spite of all the piling on of claims, some vestige of common sense tells me it just ain't so. How could it be that the making of EVs could be such a nasty business that it would offset all the evils of fossil fuel production and combustion? Let's ignore the geopolitical costs for now, and restrict the argument to climate change and health issues. I'm just not able to digest it. And oddly, as reasonable as the author makes it seem, I have no recollection of any hard, compelling evidence being presented in his piece - just references to "respectable" studies.

Something's wrong here; I'm not sure what exactly, but I sure feel flim-flammed by that piece.

Could it be related to the fact that the author was a former advocate of EV's, and has turned over?

Shakespeare wrote, "Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds." Is what we're smelling the stench of a festered lily?

 

[Reddy]

Here's some food for thought. About 90% of the world's niobium is used for High Strength Low Alloy (HSLA) steel that are used to manufacture vehicle bodies, ship hulls, railway tracks and oil and gas pipelines. About 5% used from other niobium chemicals (carbides), 27% for high purity ferro-niobium, and only 2.5% for other niobium alloy (typically used in electric motors). I would imagine that similar data hold for other rare earth elements (REEs).

Take home message: 90% of the rare earths are used in conventional steels, and hence conventional non-renewable industries (oil, gas, transportation) and NOT in motors, EVs, wind turbines, or other similar clean technologies.

Finally, some real data to cite. I've got to remember that the next time I run into someone who thinks EVs or wind turbines will consume all of world's REEs. All we need to do is recycle the unused oil & gas pipelines to get more :lol:

Reference: http://www.bgs.ac.uk/mineralsuk/statistics/mineralProfiles.html (Here's the direct pdf download: http://www.bgs.ac.uk/downloads/start.cfm?id=2033),

 

[Nubo]

"Rare Earth Elements" are not particularly rare.

 

[walterbays]

NPR is doing a pretty good impression of Fox News: http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2013/07/29/electric-cars-green

 

[RobertC]

Interesting article, published in the IEEE Spectrum...

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/unclean-at-any-speed" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am an electrical engineer and a member of the IEEE and I am not sure why the IEEE would publish this uneducated article? The author, Ozzie Zehner, is a sociologist who is making a profit by making unsupported and misleading claims about alternative energy. I am disappointed that the IEEE would publish opinion that is not based on facts.

 

[prmiller]

Interesting article, published in the IEEE Spectrum...

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/unclean-at-any-speed" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's interesting in that it is a propaganda piece by a sociologist but IEEE still published it. I am not clear at this point whether Zehner really believes what he is saying, whether he found a niche where he could get some media exposure and make some money, or whether this is an extension on his research into manipulating public discussion on technical issues.

Rather than go through the litany of problems with the paper, I'll refer to letters published from IEEE members in response. They do a pretty good laying bare just what a hack this guy is.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/advanced-cars/letters-to-the-editor-responses-to-unclean-at-any-speed" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What I find most interesting is that he reflects a view that I have been waiting for but haven't seen yet. For decades environmentalist urban planners have made that argument that cars are evil and we have to move away from personal cars and use public transportation for the good of the environment. Oil is running out and pollution is out of control.

Now we are in serious danger of embracing a technology that will dramatically reduce oil consumption and emissions, but it's not the utopian vision they have pushed for decades and makes personal transportation even more viable for the future, not less.

I've been waiting to see what the response would look like from that particular direction, and this may be it. Hackles are being raised. There was no merit to his arguments, lots of propaganda and sleight of hand, with the goal of changing the discussion from the merits of EVs back to "cars are evil". Combine that with the existing reactionary argument that the government is trying to force us out of our ICE cars and we have the makings of a classic squeeze.

 

[Publius]

I listened to the Zehner on NPR and couldn't believe the stuff he was saying. A telling moment in the interview was when the presenter pointed out how studies show that people who drive EVs tend to buy renewable energy, reducing the environmental impact of driving electric. Zehener's response (I'm paraphrasing): those energy sources are not without pollution. I think that says it all.

 

[mkjayakumar]

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/ozzie-zehner-responds-to-his-critics

His response to all the criticiscm he has been getting to his article, is even more BS, no wonder that his rebuttal is getting a lot more flak (read the comments) than his original article. In his rebuttal he peddles a ridiculous 'price tag' theory, that if an item A has a higher price tag than item B, then A has to be more dirty with higher carbon footprint. He says Solar panels have a poor ROI than power through coal plants, so solar is more dirtier.

How do these guys end up writing in IEEE Spectrum ?

 

[GetOffYourGas]

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/ozzie-zehner-responds-to-his-critics

His response to all the criticiscm he has been getting to his article, is even more BS, now wonder that his rebuttal is getting a lot more flak (read the comments) than his original article. In his rebuttal he peddles a ridiculous 'price tag' theory, that if an item A has a higher price tag than item B, then A has to be more dirty with higher carbon footprint. He says Solar panels have a poor ROI than power through coal plants, so solar is more dirtier.

How do these guys end up writing in IEEE Spectrum ?

Boy, but wouldn't it be nice if this "price tag" theory was true. Then pure capitalism would work to reduce pollution on its own! We'd have nothing to worry about - our problems will be solved by our own greed!

 

[Publius]

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/ozzie-zehner-responds-to-his-critics

His response to all the criticiscm he has been getting to his article, is even more BS, no wonder that his rebuttal is getting a lot more flak (read the comments) than his original article. In his rebuttal he peddles a ridiculous 'price tag' theory, that if an item A has a higher price tag than item B, then A has to be more dirty with higher carbon footprint. He says Solar panels have a poor ROI than power through coal plants, so solar is more dirtier.

How do these guys end up writing in IEEE Spectrum ?

I wonder if he applies the same theory to income. My labor has a lower price tag than his, so I'm not as dirty as him.

 

[SanDust]

I wonder if he applies the same theory to income. My labor has a lower price tag than his, so I'm not as dirty as him.

THAT, is incredibly funny. :lol: You should post it as a comment.

 

[hill]

Interesting article, published in the IEEE Spectrum...

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/unclean-at-any-speed" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's interesting in that it is a propaganda piece by a sociologist but IEEE still published it. I am not clear at this point whether Zehner really believes what he is saying, whether he found a niche where he could get some media exposure and make some money, or whether this is an extension on his research into manipulating public discussion on technical issues.

Rather than go through the litany of problems with the paper, I'll refer to letters published from IEEE members in response. They do a pretty good laying bare just what a hack this guy is.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/advanced-cars/letters-to-the-editor-responses-to-unclean-at-any-speed" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What I find most interesting is that he reflects a view that I have been waiting for but haven't seen yet. For decades environmentalist urban planners have made that argument that cars are evil and we have to move away from personal cars and use public transportation for the good of the environment. Oil is running out and pollution is out of control.

Now we are in serious danger of embracing a technology that will dramatically reduce oil consumption and emissions, but it's not the utopian vision they have pushed for decades and makes personal transportation even more viable for the future, not less. ..........snip..........

there is another seriously competing interest at play that I've just started reading about. Our dollar has lost almost all of its value, what with massive printing, war costs etc. One of the final elements (in part) keeping it from its final death on the world market - is that the U.S. (for well over 1/2 century) has strong-armed mid east countries into ONLY selling their barrels in U.S. dollars. That is about to go away ... and (not 'if') WHEN that happens, boom ... things will not go well. The minority that control the majority of U.S. wealth will try to prevent U.S. dollars from being taken off the petrodollar standard, because in reality, energy/oil is the real money. Whether this happens in 4 months or 4 years - no one can say. I'll likely be a bumpy ride. Just sayin' .... we have one faction trying to diminish oil use/connections while the other faction wants us to (needs us to) forever be married to oil & the mid east.

.