Dispelling Myths about EVs' Envirnomental Impact

[LeftieBiker]

1) Quiet and smooth. No engine reving and herky-jerky start/stops.

Well, my *starts* are smooth enough, anyway. Those looking for smooth stops should probably avoid the Leaf.

 

[Assaf]

I hate buses, trains and planes. I would consider it terribly rude and thoughtless of me were I to force others to experience my body odours, strange habits and breathe in the same air and sputum droplets I have just breathed out. Likewise, vice-versa of course.

It is a vile loathsome experience sitting next to strangers whilst being forced to perceive the anal aromas of the standing occupants whose lower orifices now height-match the upper olfactory orifices of those seated. I would shoot myself rather than have to subject myself to that every working day. And I rather think many others have done exactly that, for those reasons.

Public transport, that is, without private carriages/suites, should be banned as an indignity to humanity.

Well, *I* consider it an indignity to Humanity and a vile and loathsome inheritance for future generations - that millions of people go every morning to exactly the same central location, and yet they each expect to be carried by a private 2-ton box of metal and electronics, and then they whine why "traffic" and "parking" are so bad.

It is indeed an unbelievable level of ignorance, to see the American style everyone-commutes-alone-by-car as Humanity's normal state, rather than an extremely entitled, wasteful and unsustainable aberration, for which Humanity is already paying a dear price.

And to the other person who mentioned Seattle buses being dominated by "smelly homeless" in the mornings: I ride Seattle buses 4 mornings a week, it is full of people like you and me (the 5th morning I work from home). Buses are full, sometimes packed (West-Coast packed, still a foot or so between people) and running very efficiently, thank you.
And I don't have anything against the homeless, that too is a phenomenon telling more about the barbarity of us the non-homeless than about them - but this is another story altogether.

Finally..... mmm... Donald? (the one with the juicy quotes above) Are you listening?
Since you chose to butt into the conversation in such a charming, graceful and respectful manner, may I mildly suggest that you might need some counseling? There was a little bit TMI and other downright weird stuff in your descriptions there. I'm serious.

 

[donald]

Finally..... mmm... Donald? (the one with the juicy quotes above) Are you listening?
Since you chose to butt into the conversation in such a charming, graceful and respectful manner, may I mildly suggest that you might need some counseling? There was a little bit TMI and other downright weird stuff in your descriptions there. I'm serious.

I'm quite serious about what I put. I have had to experience all that I have relayed there. Why did I have to suffer it, and why do people insist that I should regard mass transit as a panacea?

Of course I have used, and use, mass transit. There are times when the convenience (or simply because it is the only 'option' foisted on me by the local authorities) exceeds the indignity and I have to swallow my pride (along with droplet emissions from my fellow passengers). But you seem to be attempting to want to limit the choice of people, and cars are about choice.

For your information, and it might go some way to explaining my 'hang-ups' (!!), I used to actually be a bus driver which I did whilst I was at University. I did night and weekend work, which were mostly local Authority subsidised routes because there weren't enough passengers to make it a commercially viable service. On occasions I drove a full 30 miles route without picking up a single passenger. So the flip side of relying on mass transit is that lots of vehicles have to run around empty, or near empty, because with everyone not having cars you have to lay on out-of-hours services. So I'd like to see you figure that into your emissions assumptions too.

Well, *I* consider it an indignity ...that millions of people go every morning to exactly the same central location, .. by a private 2-ton box of metal and electronics

You're welcome to that opinion, but are you complaining about the vehicle they go in, or that they have their own vehicle?

If you were to balance those two things in your argument, it would be more meritable. However, your objection seems more to stem from people having their own transport.

An 8mpg bus compared with a 10mile/kWh / 300mpg car means you could run about 40 such cars for the same emissions and energy consumption as the bus. The bus isn't full all the time. Even if it were 50% all the time then that'd still mean it'd have to be an 80 seater bus to compete with 80 x 10mile/kWh cars.

So I ask again, evidence, please, for the assertion you made that it was 'obvious' that mass transit is beneficial on emissions and energy use.

 

[donald]

It appears that the rest of your response is not related to societal benefit, but to your own personal preferences. However, note that most of humanity does not have these kinds of choices available to them.

I've not remotely argued that mass transit is irrelevant for people with no other mobility.

But I would find it a non sequitur to argue that my choice of preferred transport should be limited by the fact that others do not have such a choice.

Surely, progress is where we all end up with a choice, whereas the 'defeat' of cars in preference for mass transit (under the remit of imposition and legislation) is a removal of choice. Progress of humanity was mentioned - is it progress to increase people's choices, or to remove them?

I say that working towards scenarios where mas transit becomes, de factor, obligatory is a removal of choice and is therefore retrograde and counter-progress. However, promoting and creating new avenues for private transportation in the form of 10miles/kWh personal transportation steps towards choice, and is therefore progress.

 

[Stoaty]

Surely, progress is where we all end up with a choice, whereas the 'defeat' of cars in preference for mass transit (under the remit of imposition and legislation) is a removal of choice. Progress of humanity was mentioned - is it progress to increase people's choices, or to remove them?

The problem here is that our choices are removing choice for those in the future:

“In 2009, a group of 28 internationally renowned scientists identified and quantified a set of nine planetary boundaries within which humanity can continue to develop and thrive for generations to come. Crossing these boundaries could generate abrupt or irreversible environmental changes.”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/16/2623241/times-earth-carrying-capacity-climate-change/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and

“An Illustrated Guide to the Science of Global Warming Impacts”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/09/28/330109/science-of-global-warming-impacts/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and finally, the evidence that climate change is due to the activities of mankind is now considered "extremely likely" by scientists:

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/extremely-likely-top-scientists-blame-mankind-more-clearly-ever-global-8C11274530" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[Pipcecil]

I was wondering: when you say "we run simulations" - do you work for an organization that does these studies? Or is it a hobby?
Assaf

I actually work for an MPO and do a decent amount of traffic modeling, including transit modeling - this also applies to running air quality analysis (both NAAQs and MSATs) based upon those traffic simulations. These models are quite complex and we throw numerous variables into the mix. Running the top of the line desktop computers (8 cores, SSD hard drives, 16 GB ram, etc.), it takes over a week to do a single traffic run calculation. We even get down to trip assignment (via transit or car) based upon demographic profiles and income based upon real survey data on car and transit use.

For transit its easily broken into this (for this region at least):

- Very few people (a negligable amount) choose transit based on a benevolent purpose, there are a few, but its a very rare when looking at hundreds of thousand trips per day.

- while people will use transit for events (concerts, football games, state fair), this is only small amount compared to the work based trips. In any mode of transportation (and suprisingly air too!), trips based on a destination to and from work (or for work) comprises ~90% of all trips (this is based on real world data!)

- Usually those that are identified as low income are more likely to use transit, and mostly use the bus system. We categorizes these as transit dependent populations, and mostly they are "zero car households"

- those whom elect to use transit (i.e. by choice not because they can't afford a car) almost exclusively use the train system (so much so they won't use transit at all if it requires a bus to connect to their final destination). Trains are just more "sexy" when it comes to transit, buses are almost always perceived as "dirty"

- People whom elect to use transit do so because of cost and/or time savings. Usually its cost savings here in this region, the trains make too many stops and the roads aren't as congested to make transit a quicker alternative as it may be in the case in other more densely population areas.

Interesting, we usually identify transit dependent (i.e. those that don't have a choice) by not having vehicles (taken through the American Community Survey data), but with the rise of those whom ELECT to become zero car households (living in the downtown areas) are harder to track, they would show as transit dependent despite the fact their transit use is by choice (and therefore no car by choice - or even using a car sharing system like zipcar).

I do like transit. I have been to other places around the US and used it and have been to Europe and used it. Boy, do I wish we had what Europe has in transit. But its very sad to me when I look at any potential transit route to and from work - despite the need to bike the last 8 or so miles to get to work (not even a bus comes near it), it would not only take me longer (I could deal with that), but cost me twice as much versus driving my Leaf. It is too hard for me to justify taking transit at any time to double my commute and double my cost. I wold rather spend that extra cash doing home efficiency improvements that don't cost extra time during my work day.

 

[donald]

The problem here is that our choices are removing choice for those in the future:

That may or may not be true, and it is clearer or more opaque according to the subject in question..

In the case of supporting EVs by using them instead of using mass transit, it seems highly opaque to me. If we go down the route of developing EVs, and then improving their efficiency and functionality, which will happen if there is a market need but won't if there is none, who is to say that we will not have +10M/kWh transport pods of the future, and as far as I can see that is helping future individuals with their choices, not taking them away.

Far far more obvious, in terms of limiting people's future options, are things like waste disposal and burial sites. We can't go on sending waste off to be buried in the ground, and insisting that when we die we have to be buried in a place that will remain undisturbed for enternity thereafter. Stuff like this looks like a much easier and more obvious 'win', in regards giving future folks more choices, than fretting about preferring personal transport to mass transit which is a wholly more complex multi-dependent consideration.

But me arguing that I am helping options for the future by buying and therefore promoting EVs is a far more complicated answer that to address my original querey above: I'd still really like to see someone's numbers on the claim that it is obviously better for emissions for everyone to use buses instead of EVs. Is that so difficult to answer?

 

[klapauzius]

But me arguing that I am helping options for the future by buying and therefore promoting EVs is a far more complicated answer that to address my original querey above: I'd still really like to see someone's numbers on the claim that it is obviously better for emissions for everyone to use buses instead of EVs. Is that so difficult to answer?

I thought this information was out there all over the internet?


The recipe is trivial:
Take the mpg rating for your average car, multiply by the average number of people it transports.
Do the same for a bus, tram, etc, compare the numbers, whichever is greater is better for emissions.

Lets assume 25 mpg and a single driver for your average car, so that comes to 25 person miles per gallon.
For a bus you have something like 3 mpg and say 20 people on average riding it, that comes to 60 person miles per gallon.
Therefore, the bus is better if you are concerned about emissions.

 

[donald]

I thought this information was out there all over the internet?


The recipe is trivial:
Take the mpg rating for your average car,...Therefore, the bus is better if you are concerned about emissions.

The discussion is about '...myths about EVs...'.

So, why would I take 'an average car' as the figure.

...and besides, the average ICE car I drive is around 60 mpg.

 

[klapauzius]

I thought this information was out there all over the internet?


The recipe is trivial:
Take the mpg rating for your average car,...Therefore, the bus is better if you are concerned about emissions.

The discussion is about '...myths about EVs...'.

So, why would I take 'an average car' as the figure.

...and besides, the average ICE car I drive is around 60 mpg.

Because for EVs, you would have to compare to an electric bus. Since the basic mechanics of energy consumption are likely the same between similar types of transport (ICE car vs. ICE BUS, or EV car vs. EV bus), the economies of scale will stay the same too.


Also note that these numbers are not densities, i.e. if you double the number of vehicles, the fuel efficiency halves.

I have not heard of an "average" 60mpg ICE car. That is presently an oxymoron.

For the US the average car, according to this article http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/In-Gear/2013/0406/Average-fuel-economy-of-US-cars-reaches-an-all-time-high" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, gets 24.6 miles per gallon.

In Germany (which is probably the top efficient country in Europe) its 8.2 l /100 km (2008) or 28.7 mpg.

I am curious in which country you live which has an "average" 60 mpg ICE consumption....

 

[timhebb]

How did we get from the superb post that started this thread to the incoherent blather that it has devolved into? (You all know whose posts I'm referring to...)

 

[klapauzius]

How did we get from the superb post that started this thread to the incoherent blather that it has devolved into? (You all know whose posts I'm referring to...)

Sorry....I always assume people are rational until proven... so I did reply :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

To the original post, actually nothing much to add, I really like the summary.
Although, especially after test-driving a Tesla a couple of weeks ago, the 'fun-to-drive' argument is probably more appealing to the main stream than the environment.

 

[donald]

Because for EVs, you would have to compare to an electric bus.

Go ahead. Show me a comparison of commercially available electric buses to commercially available electric passenger cars.

I'm not aware of the M/kWh for electric buses. Seems to be somewhat scant on material detail there.

The 'average' of cars I've been driving recently consists of a model Skoda Octavia SLX TDi 1896cc (one of the most economic diesel engine VAG has made in recent times), which I get an average of 75mpg from. A Vectra Di LS which averages 55-60. And a Renault Scenic diesel 1.9 dTi that does around 45mpg, and a works Astra that does around 65mpg. You tell me if I have an 'average' of 60mpg?

Again, I ask why you are comparing with ICE when the thread topic appears to be positing EVs have worse passenger mile emissions than a bus.

 

[donald]

How did we get from the superb post that started this thread to the incoherent blather that it has devolved into? (You all know whose posts I'm referring to...)

If it is directed at my posts, which it seems to be, it is because there was a post which claimed, without justification and implying EVs could not match mass transit performance;

Because obviously there are tangible societal benefits to transit.... CO2 reduction, tailpipe pollution reduction, economic efficiency improvements

.. and all I did was to call him on what appeared to me to be an unsubstantiated claim.

But if you wish to accept such claims, and object to answering my objective question go ahead. I will desist. I'm very sorry for questioning someone's belief when it is presented as an 'obvious' fact.

Really, I don't want to cause anyone any grief, so if no-one thinks it is a point worth questioning, which seems to run counter to supporting EV take-up, then I am sorry. I'm disappointed, but I did not seek to upset anyone.

Please ignore my posts. I do apologise for causing offence.

 

[Stoaty]

Please ignore my posts.

Done. Thanks for the reminder. The "Foes" list is still of use.

 

[Assaf]

Done. Thanks for the reminder. The "Foes" list is still of use.

Stoaty, is there such a thing as a "Foes" list, or is it a personal joke?

And is there some sort of moderation/admin on this site?

For example, to report someone who pounces upon a thread discussing environmental analysis, for Goodness' sake, posts there a piece of crud describing what comes of people's orifices, and disparaging a large chunk of Humanity in the process (maybe even most of us) as sub-human -

- and then turns around, colonizes the thread and pretends to lead some sort of "intellectual debate"?

Donald, it's not too late to sincerely apologize, for gratuitously bringing **** and people's assholes into the discussion. Your disgusting rhetoric has caused me and others to abandon the thread I started, and derailed any meaningful debate.

If you cannot apologize, please find another thread to defile. Thank you.

And yes, if there is such moderation to this site you *will* be reported there.

Otherwise, have a great weekend.

 

[Assaf]

Ok. The original offending post reported. If I wasn't a newbie I would have done so right away.

 

[Assaf]

@pipcecil: Thanks for the info. Wow, we've used the MPO data a ton in our pollution modeling at University of Washington (my previous workplace, but I still did a project with them this year and used the Puget Sound MPO).

I think the cities of, say, Texas and other West/Middle-America locations are very different from standard or "classic" million-plus cities. They are practically all suburb. Phoenix might be the most extreme example, at least among those I've had a chance to inspect on the ground. In these hyper-sprawled cities, moving towards transit is indeed a steep uphill climb.

Everywhere else, once a certain critical mass of commuters and activity concentrates in the center, and once people start paying even a fraction of the real cost of commuting alone (time, tolls, parking $$, etc.) - even a reasonably passable transit system quickly becomes more cost-effective for enough people to make it viable and even full and expanding.

The problem again, is the deep anti-transit attitude ingrained into too wide a sector of Americans, an attitude which is unfortunately concentrated among people of wealth and power.

The reflexive identification among these sectors of transit with the poor, the homeless, the brown, etc. etc. doesn't help either - because such populations have become the economic scapegoat for a crisis that was definitely not of their doing. So cutting transit, by a bunch of politicians who make 6-figure salaries and live in 7-figure homes - or never investing in transit in the first place - is the easiest thing in the world.

 

[AndyH]

More generally, if the environmental movement cannot learn to walk and chew gum at the same time, then we are all doomed anyway. It is possible to work on transit, cycling and walkability infrastructure, and simultaneously work on moving motorized transport from Oil to electric - without one arm trying to slash the other off.

Assaf, Could you amplify this view of the 'environmental movement' a bit please? I'd like to understand your view on this. Thanks!

 

[palmermd]

Done. Thanks for the reminder. The "Foes" list is still of use.

Stoaty, is there such a thing as a "Foes" list, or is it a personal joke?

click on the "profile" link on the bottom of one of his posts. Once in the profile you can add him as a foe and you do not have to look at any of his posts. Unfortunately it does nothing if someone else responds and quotes their nonsense.