Well, how do you think gasoline is produced? It's unfortunately never a zero sum game.
Um, not sure if you're serious? I'm not saying gasoline is better. I just take issue with calling EVs "zero emission" vehicles when they are not. Indeed it is never a zero-sum game, even with renewable resources.
For the sake of argument let's only consider the operational requirements, not the initial energy requirements needed to build the EV or power source.
I disagree with your initial statement. There is a benefit from using electric cars.
See my first post...
I had to laugh at the 'zero emissions' thing. How do they think those batteries are being charged?
[snip]
Still though, I'd love to see this [EV racing] catch on.
I never said there wasn't a benefit of using electric cars. Their equivalent emissions are a fraction of even the best ICE cars. I never even implied that they were a bad idea. I just take issue with how things are said and have concerns about the safety of EVs.
And it will be much greater in the (relatively near) future when renewable resources will be more common.
Read this article:
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/early_elecgen.cfm
By 2040 renewables are projected to be a whopping 16% (vs 12% now) of the US energy supply. 27 years from now is quite a long ways away, and renewables will still be a small fraction of the energy supply in the US. That's not much more after a relatively long time.
You also added natural gas and coal emissions which isn't right. The fact is that both of them produce 67% of power in USA, but that percentage doesn't tell much because gas produces the 1/3 of emissions compared to coal.
I never 'added' their emissions. I said that burning natural gas produces "some amount of emissions." Am I wrong?
We have to add the actual emissions of these two sources in order to correctly calculate the benefits of electric cars vs cars that use ordinary fuel.
Fortunately, someone did this for us:
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php
I must correct myself here though. Apparently the equivalent emissions aren't nearly as different as I had previously learned. EVs produce about 62% of the CO2 equivalent emissions as an ICE.
Note that I never claimed to add up actual emissions. I never tried to calculate the benefit of EVs here. I used a rule of thumb, as I stated. I learned that rule of thumb when I was simulating and analyzing driving cycles of various vehicles during college. Clearly the cost of gasoline and electricity have changed since then and that number is no longer quite accurate.
You should use the new MPGe standard for further information on how an EV stacks up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_per_gallon_gasoline_equivalent
You didn't say that nuclear power plants have direct emissions but you took in took consideration the indirect ones which are a drop in the ocean. I don't think there is any reason to mention them! If you charge a car with power from a nuclear power plant there will be a 99% benefit in greenhouse gas emissions. I don't see any reason for mentioning them.
Nuke plats are very good. In fact, they're some of the most efficient power generators in the US right now. I will grant you that. I question your magical 99% number there.
And what's the problem with using references to the sources I used? I think it's better to talk with official numbers than personal estimates.
There's no problem with using sources. However, you offer little insight or thought about interpreting the sources you quote. Nor did you use them to address any of my points. You stated numbers that were accurate, but did not address anything I actually talked about, only things you seem to have made up that I never said.