1303Steve wrote:From birth to death a Prius has the same carbon footprint as a Hummer. The battery manufacture uses toxic and rare chemicals.
And an existing car has a far far smaller "footprint."
Even is left on "dirty petrol".
The largest part of a cars so called footprint is the manufacture and exporting process.
Baja Wes wrote:Where do you think the electricity comes from in Australia? It comes from dirty coal fired power stations.
Not all, and as we move further into the future even less will come from this source.
This is why electric cars, even though they have been around in small number for around 100 years, are called emergent technology. They are a stepping stone and a starting place.
Did you know that one Google search uses more power (and more emissions) than a 30 mile drive in a car? How efficient is your time on the web?
Baja Wes wrote:Although it might have shown the prius is better, it seems plainly obvious to me that a fuel efficient car like a diesel VW Golf is going to be far far better than the Prius. And the golf doesn't burn coal.
The same studies that brought about that paper and others like it also show that an existing car, using its existing technology and fuels, over the next 30 years is far far better than even the Prius.
1303Steve wrote:But we all drive old cars, well any pollution that was made in my old cars manufacture is long past, from now on they only get greener.
Right on... that is the whole point of converting older cars. They are inherently "greener" because they already exist. Converting to lower polluting drive lines means they become even more "green" over the next stage of its use/life.
silver wrote:1/2 of all my daily trip time is spent stationary
And an electric car is expending no energy when it's stationary!
Baja Wes wrote:Coal fired power stations have emissions of about 1kg per kWh. So the carbon footprint of the 38km electric car drive is about 6kg.
The average 2008 model car carbon footprint is 158g/km which is 6kg for a 38km drive. So they are about the same.
So even ignoring the improved efficiencies that are being achieved and the even greater ones that are coming - you are, in fact, confirming that a converted old, existing car is more efficient over the next 10-30 years than a new modern car.
Baja Wes wrote:A small efficient car like the VW bluemotion polo gets 99g/km, which is 3.7kg for the 38km.
But the manufacture and export of said vehicle more than negates the difference. Thousands of litres of diesel are used just to move a ship the distance each of those cars travels in an average trip.
Baja Wes wrote:My motorcycle that I ride to work is about the same as a bluemotion polo, so my Petrol burning motorcycle is better for the environment than the coal burning beetle.
You are leaving out the oil you replace, the contaminants other than carbon emissions that come out of the tailpipe etc etc.
The point you are missing, apparently for sake of argument alone, is that electric conversions are not only reducing future output, they are recycling the bulk of an existing vehicle without the wasted energy of smelting to make new panels and components, the manufacture and export of a new vehicle.
The point of an electric conversion is to extend the working life on an existing vehicle, while reducing its output/impact on the environment and the best thing of all, making people aware that non internal combustion drive lines are viable.
