Suddenly, everything must be electric for autos. Detroit must be reorganized for electric and forced into bankruptcy to do it.

What is the logic? Supposedly, electric autos eliminate "dirty" energy. The only explanation is a reduced cost per mile. Electric autos will typically run on 3¢ per mile energy, while gasoline costs 10¢ per mile, with a lot of variation in details (Source, PDF, 24kb)¹, as if lower costs were the same as increased efficiency and reduction in pollution.

The lower cost per mile for electric vehicles is due to a reduction in distribution and retailing costs for electric power compared to gasoline, not increased efficiency. It's the same amount of energy used (or more) and almost the same pollution for electric vehicles.

Furthermore, the 3¢ per mile for electric will go sky high when autos increase the demand and there is not sufficient production or grid capacity. There's no cheap way to increase production and grid capacity; and natural gas is the only source available, when coal and nuclear are opposed. (Wind and solar are an expensive scam for frauds and idiots.)

A study by Argonne National Laboratory² concluded that electric vehicles will reduce CO2 emissions by 17% based on the average of all electric energy sources. But these sources include nuclear and hydroelectric, which do not emit CO2.

In 2007, nuclear reactors produced 19% of the electric energy, and hydroelectric, 6% (Source)³. This means 25% of the electric energy comes from these two sources which do not emit CO2. That's 8% more than the CO2 reduction from electric autos.

To add electric energy to transportation is to take energy which was being used for something else, which gets replaced with new sources of production. According to the government, "More than 90 percent of the power plants to be built in the next 20 years will likely be fueled by natural gas" (Source)⁴. Natural gas produces CO2—only 2/3 as much as coal but more than nuclear or hydroelectric.

Hydroelectric power will not be increased, because sources are not available. Increase in nuclear is opposed by greens who push for electric vehicles. Greens may not succeed in blocking nuclear, but their logic is based on no increase in nuclear.

The net effect is that there is no reduction in CO2 production through the use of electric vehicles. A larger share of the electric energy will come from natural gas (same as methane), but the result will not be a reduction in CO2 emissions.

It takes more energy to generate electricity and use it as a secondary source of energy to power vehicles than to use the same source of energy directly in the vehicles. This is because there is a loss of energy every time it is transformed. (See breakdown on 35mpg page)

But regardless of inefficiencies, using natural gas to generate electricity means foreign sources. Already, natural gas is being imported in cryogenic containers on ships. The gas is liquefied at extremely low temperature for shipment, so high pressure containers can be avoided. How do you liquefy methane at low pressure? You allow it to boil until the pressure drops. Boiling off methane puts methane into the atmosphere. Methane is said to be 23 times as strong of a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide.

Isn't the purpose of electric vehicles to reduce dependence upon foreign oil? Increasing dependence upon foreign natural gas is worse.

From the 35mpg page What really happens is this: The new natural gas electric plants will use turbines to convert the "fossil fuel" into rotational torque—the efficiency being 20-40%—not an iota better than the conversion efficiency for a modern auto engine, which could use liquefied natural gas directly. The torque from the turbine will then generate electricity, supposedly at an efficiency of 85%. Notice that there are two places where energy is lost in generating electricity. When combining them both—say 30% x 85%—the total is 25.5%, which is less than or equal to the efficiency of a gas burning auto. The electricity will be transported on power lines at 500 to 5,000 kilovolts costing about $2-5 million per mile. On humid days, about 50% or more of the electricity could dissipate into the air and ground, because 5 million volts does that. At least four transformers are needed to get up and down in voltage. Ideally, they might have 90% efficiency. The electric motor in the auto will supposedly have 85% efficiency. The net efficiency for electric cars is 30% for the gas turbine times 85% for the electric generator times 90% X 90% X 90% X 90% for the transformers times 85% for the electric motor in the auto, which totals 14% of the energy recovered for the electric auto. But the auto using natural gas directly would have an efficiency of 20% or more. It means electric autos are nowhere near as efficient as burning fuel directly. Often there will be even more losses with electricity due to line-loss, additional transformers, etc. And this assumes that someone will invent the battery, which is still grossly inadequate for autos. Furthermore, the efficiency needs to include the increased expense of the electric vehicle, because it takes a lot of energy and resources to produce something. And then the physical plant for generating electricity and transmission lines are very expensive. The pretense that no amount of expense is too great for saving energy is a fraud. Expense is energy burned.

 

5. Historical Perspective, by A. Jones

New book by environmental chemist, Klaus Kaiser, explains the chemistry and math of green myths for laymen.

The title is, Convenient Myths: the green revolution — perceptions, politics, and facts.