I would like to note that according to Renault officials, an electric car with French electricity would emit only 12 grams of CO2 per kilometer. (compared to 120 grams for current ICE cars)

This extra low figure can be explained by the fact that France gets the quasi totality of its electricity by nuclear and hydro.

Still to Renault, an electric car powered by 100 percent coal would get 120 grams of CO2 / km, but as they noted no country is 100% coal…

I now believe that electric engines are the next step for cars, not biofuel, not hydrogen.

I would like to note that according to Renault officials, an electric car with French electricity would emit only 12 grams of CO2 per kilometer. (compared to 120 grams for current ICE cars)

This extra low figure can be explained by the fact that France gets the quasi totality of its electricity by nuclear and hydro.

Still to Renault, an electric car powered by 100 percent coal would get 120 grams of CO2 / km, but as they noted no country is 100% coal…

I now believe that electric engines are the next step for cars, not biofuel, not hydrogen.

Beyond that – a recent discover made by me – Using Lithium Batteries in the same vehicle as using Lead-Acid Batteries – as an Electric Vehicle – also uses about a third less energy to get the same mile driven!

So – as Batteries become more effective – not just the range of EV’s will improve – but the Energy Effectiveness (Fuel Efficiency?), or Wh per Mile Driven will become less, as battery packs are lighter for a given kWh or Range Requirement.

But here is a question – How many Watt Hours of Energy (Wh), are actually consumed in the refining and in the delivering to your car – a gallon (or a litre) of Gasoline? This is one Argument that should be taken up, researched, and reported on. Since – it could then tell wether it is better to use that energy to refine crude for gasoline – or to just power Electric Vehicles with it.

As we stand now – we use energy from Electricity in the Refinement processes – to power the Refinery, and in the delivery processes – right up to pumping gas into your car! Could this same energy be more efficent and less poluting – charging your EV Batteries? Once We know this answer – then we have a real decision to make! (I suspect – an EV will go farther on the inserted electrical energy in a gallon of gasoline, than and ICE Vehicle will go on that same gallon of Gas! (May that is – Gas3.0?)

Beyond that – a recent discover made by me – Using Lithium Batteries in the same vehicle as using Lead-Acid Batteries – as an Electric Vehicle – also uses about a third less energy to get the same mile driven!

So – as Batteries become more effective – not just the range of EV’s will improve – but the Energy Effectiveness (Fuel Efficiency?), or Wh per Mile Driven will become less, as battery packs are lighter for a given kWh or Range Requirement.

But here is a question – How many Watt Hours of Energy (Wh), are actually consumed in the refining and in the delivering to your car – a gallon (or a litre) of Gasoline? This is one Argument that should be taken up, researched, and reported on. Since – it could then tell wether it is better to use that energy to refine crude for gasoline – or to just power Electric Vehicles with it.

As we stand now – we use energy from Electricity in the Refinement processes – to power the Refinery, and in the delivery processes – right up to pumping gas into your car! Could this same energy be more efficent and less poluting – charging your EV Batteries? Once We know this answer – then we have a real decision to make! (I suspect – an EV will go farther on the inserted electrical energy in a gallon of gasoline, than and ICE Vehicle will go on that same gallon of Gas! (May that is – Gas3.0?)

No more oil dollars to prop up corrupt governments that don’t value human rights and foster terrorism. See Venezuela, Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia.

Electric cars also mean lower oil demand, which means reduced volatility in energy prices, which means lower costs for everyone because of reduced market speculation.

Reduced dependence on gasoline also means that we’re not going to be counting on a limited number of refineries that could be attacked or knocked out by a hurricane. More security.

I could go on and on, but the energy security argument has a lot of legs in my book. It’s a great way to get conservatives on board.

No more oil dollars to prop up corrupt governments that don’t value human rights and foster terrorism. See Venezuela, Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia.

Electric cars also mean lower oil demand, which means reduced volatility in energy prices, which means lower costs for everyone because of reduced market speculation.

Reduced dependence on gasoline also means that we’re not going to be counting on a limited number of refineries that could be attacked or knocked out by a hurricane. More security.

I could go on and on, but the energy security argument has a lot of legs in my book. It’s a great way to get conservatives on board.

Growth of both wind and solar power is greatly outpacing electrification of transport, which also facilitates the replacement of oil for transport.

I think the word “pollution” is not clearly defined here. CO2 is not a health hazard and is not listed as a pollutant and is not controlled at this time by the EPA as a health hazard. When it comes to controlled pollutants, electric cars are better even with coal.

If you are talking about CO2, then they are not. But it is a moot point. To reduce CO2 enough to make a difference all coal has to be phased out. Phasing out half of coal use won’t help. It all has to go.

http://biodiversivist.blogspot.com/2009/10/wwf-study-puts-global-warming-into.html

Growth of both wind and solar power is greatly outpacing electrification of transport, which also facilitates the replacement of oil for transport.

I think the word “pollution” is not clearly defined here. CO2 is not a health hazard and is not listed as a pollutant and is not controlled at this time by the EPA as a health hazard. When it comes to controlled pollutants, electric cars are better even with coal.

If you are talking about CO2, then they are not. But it is a moot point. To reduce CO2 enough to make a difference all coal has to be phased out. Phasing out half of coal use won’t help. It all has to go.

http://biodiversivist.blogspot.com/2009/10/wwf-study-puts-global-warming-into.html

Thanks and you’re right, that is a very important point. But I didn’t miss it. I didn’t include it because, in my mind, that point is part of the argument about whether or not coal powered EVs are cleaner than gas powered cars—the argument that I think is pointless to have in the first place.

Gasoline powered cars are (according to the government website http://www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/atv.shtml) only 15% energy efficient. Even after 100 years of ICE powered motoring, the actual energy efficiency of these engines is still a very well kept secret, shrouded by the motor industry’s use of totally unrelated ratings like ‘fuel efficiency’ (ie. making a car more fuel efficient has little to do with the engines energy efficiency.. which is essentially a fixed figure)

There isn’t a coal fired power plant in the world that uses a high friction reciprocating engine similar to a car engine. They all use steam turbines and as a result are on average between 40 – 60% energy efficient… up to 90% if co-generation is used.