I Shall Call It "total Enviormental Impact!"

[RUCRAYZE]

You will still burn fuel to make electric power. Wind and sun will not even make a dent in demand. And add charging our cars with it would make it many times harder to supply enough.
All electric power is currently subsidized by tax payers in one way or another. Delivery of centrally produce power over long distances results in waste.
Generate to much it is wasted ,generate to little people go with out.
An ELIO type car that gets every bit of power from a gallon it can is the best way to reduce. Sticking a battery in a car and then claiming it gets 50 mpg is a scam.
Put a small engine in a light weight car with enough room to cover your needs, enough power to move at highway speeds with out taking all day to get there. Keep refining it to save weight and reduce unnecessary power , then you will see what efficient means .
VW did it with the 80's Rabbit diesel bit of a dog bare bones as it could get but the thing did get 62 MPG with out any problem.

taught my kids to drive stick on my VW diesel- totally forgiving, pop the clutch and it took off smoothly, couldn't stall it!! was a great car

 

[Jay3wheel]

taught my kids to drive stick on my VW diesel- totally forgiving, pop the clutch and it took off smoothly, couldn't stall it!! was a great car

VW's have been like that since the 50s. At least the late 50s.

 

[Elio Amazed]

Most experts say that we've got coal for a couple hundred years.
Most experts say that we've got NG for at least a hundred years.
Many experts say that we may only have 30 some years of oil given the projected future demand.
So, barring cold fusion, positive sum hydrogen cells, or some other energy source breakthrough...

The EV is the future.

But, as Tony says, It not quite ready for prime time yet.
Because of all it's costs, it's just not within the average common man's budget.
That having to pay 50% or more of the cost of the vehicle on a new battery bank every ten years is quite a deal breaker.
It has an Uncle that supports a good part of it's R&D and that's perfectly OK with me as a taxpayer.

The only way I'd consider an EV at this point is if I put a 5Kw grid-tied solar array on the roof.
There's still a 30% federal tax "rebate" and some states still give incentives.
I might just be able to have it installed for a net cost of $7500.
At that point, I'd be more concerned about EV range than EV MPGe.
Including powering the EV, a $7500 solar investment could pay for itself in a little over 5 years.

 

[tonyspumoni]

I would consider a diesel-powered Elio but under two very specific circumstances: if it was more than 14% more efficient that the petrol version (the CO(2) penalty of diesel versus gas, volume normalized) AND it didn't require a urea injection system to meet NOx standards. I would NOT consider an EV version for reasons already stated.

 

[Folks]

I'm the

I would consider a diesel-powered Elio but under two very specific circumstances: if it was more than 14% more efficient that the petrol version (the CO(2) penalty of diesel versus gas, volume normalized) AND it didn't require a urea injection system to meet NOx standards. I would NOT consider an EV version for reasons already stated.

Please don't make me go back and read all that. All I know is that you've apparently settled on the right side of the equation. We've not even touched on the rare earth super magnets used in the brushless motors required for electric. Last I heard China has practically a monopoly on neodymium and cobalt.

 

[tonyspumoni]

I'm the

Please don't make me go back and read all that. All I know is that you've apparently settled on the right side of the equation. We've not even touched on the rare earth super magnets used in the brushless motors required for electric. Last I heard China has practically a monopoly on neodymium and cobalt.

Spalding: "I wanna hotdog, and a hamburger, and a cheeseburger."
Judge Smales: "You'll get nothing and like it!"

----Caddyshack----

Yes, China has a monopoly on many rare earth metals. I wasn't even going to go there unless I had to. You'll get nothing, and like it.

 

[tonyspumoni]

I'm the

Please don't make me go back and read all that. All I know is that you've apparently settled on the right side of the equation. We've not even touched on the rare earth super magnets used in the brushless motors required for electric. Last I heard China has practically a monopoly on neodymium and cobalt.

Spalding: "I wanna hotdog, and a hamburger, and a cheeseburger."
Judge Smales: "You'll get nothing and like it!"

----Caddyshack----

Yes, China has a monopoly on many rare earth metals. I wasn't even going to go there unless I had to. You'll get nothing, and like it.

 

[Rickb]

Ok, one last time.

Electric cars are the future. The end.

Are electric cars more efficient that ICE cars assuming similar size and aerodynamic values.
Yes, by far.

Are power plants, of any kind more efficient than a group of ICE cars.
Yes, by far.

Are Electric cars more environmentally friendly.
Shrugs. Presently, that's a hit or miss and open to perception.
For the long haul, electric beats ICE by far.

Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) fuel cycle.
Oil is drilled from locations hostile to the USA, and/or environmentally sensitive areas, transported half way around the world by ship (requiring fuel), refined (requiring fuel), transported again by truck (more fuel), then to a gas station near you. About 25% of the oil is consumed from start to finish (to the pump)

Electric Engine Fuel Cycle.
Coal is mined in the USA (bad for environment), transported within the USA (less distance and more efficient), burned to make electricity (environment again), electricity charges car.
Or nuclear, mined (environment) in the USA, transported and refined in the USA, consumed (environment) and produces electricity.

Winner, electric.
No hostile countries. This is HUGE. If this doesn't kick you out of your seat, then you have been asleep for the past 50 years and all of this Mid east crap (honestly longer). If you add the defense expenditure to your total fuel cost, it would probably add $2-5/gallon.
In the future, electricity will be produced by more (not all) but MORE environmentally friendly sources. Solar, wind, and fusion (it is coming)
So when? Like all technologies, the road has pitfalls. Electrical sources are only getting better. Oil sources are, and never have been good.

B-b-but lithium is bad for the environment and requires more energy to refine than oil.
Um. no. it doesn't. I don't know where to start with this myth. It's just silly. Lithium was considered waste by many mines. It can be easily recycled and refined, and quite frankly, it's merely a gateway to a higher level power supply: Capacitors.

Is the Elio more environmentally friendly than an electrical car?
Well first you have to find an electric equivalent.
The Elio is using existing technology to make an inexpensive car. It is using lego pieces that are all well established in a new pattern that is cheap to produce, in a configuration that is energy efficient, and simple simple simple.
There are no electrical comparisons. Why?
There is no massive parts infrastructure to draw on.

But more importantly, is a power plant with 1-5 generators running at optimal power settings more efficient that 1,000's of cars at 20-40% power or idling in traffic?
Goodness no. I mean, it's not even close. It's laughable.

But let's be honest. There is NO comparison to the Elio, except an EV Elio.
If/when that happens, then and only then will a proper comparison occur.

In the mean time, let's dispense with the often disproved ideas of the EVIL electric cars.

But who perpetuates these childish myths for the general public with seemingly sound "science"?
Answer: Do a search on Elio. Check the first 1-5 links and you'll find some MASSIVE negative pages DEDICATED to making the business model of the Elio look horrible. These are made by paid professional Shills. They are also the same people who have convinced you that a new car should AVERAGE $30,000 and should last only 5 years.

In our next episode:
Why Big Auto Makers fear the electric car and have convinced you to do the same.

I have to agree and thought this was an interesting lithium source.

 

[Ekh]

2


Thank you! WE SPEAK YOUR NAME!

Hey now! You get my point. Our dependence in oil is not only reflected in the tail pipe, it's seen in the whole process of making and owning a car. That was my initial question. Which will consume less total energy from conception to death (aka life cycle)?

Edit: my opinion is, due to it's size, simplicity and efficiency EM would win! I biased, clearly.

IMO, that's the correct way to look at it: total life cycle environmental impact against total life cycle cost (build, sell, market, buy, insure, fix, dispose of, recycle)

 

[tonyspumoni]

No one seems to have taken issue with the fact that all those electrons for all those EV's have to come from somehwere. Totally right, Ekh. We could make the future happen today - EV vehicles for all - and they'd still burn fossil fuels, just indirectly. As long as my dog craps on my neighbors lawn, it's not crap, right?

Buying my wife a bigger bra won't make her rack bigger, and filling my car with a 300 lbs of battery won't save on fossil fuels either. EV vehicles are the future in the same way that flying cars were supposed to be the answer to relieving traffic congestion. Smitty901 I think raised the point that the electric transmission grid is heavily subsidized. I'd like to hear those who say "EV IS THE FUTURE" to say "I will vote for the taxes to strengthen our electricity grid."