Electric Cars Use More Oil and Coal and Produce More Emissions

Most people think that electric cars don't use oil. They are wrong. Electricity is not a naturally occurring fuel. We make it with the cheapest fuel we can find. Right now oil and coal make the electricity used in electric cars. Much energy is lost in the process of conversion. More pollutants are released into our atmosphere. Until electricity is made with other fuels, electric cars are not a "green' solution.
oilprice.com...
Also, it takes several barrels of oil to make a solar panel and I doubt they can ever produce that amount of energy back. Oil is cheap fuel, and we will use it regardless of misinformed protest.

reply to post by earthdude


In some places alternative energy solutions are being developed. Waterfalls can generate a lot of energy, or large rivers. I think electric cars are a step in the right direction. At least people are trying. Before long oil and gas will be too expensive for anyone to afford, then there will be none left.

That's all well and good! But they aren't creating extra electricity for these cars, it's just what's already created for households etc.

Also, with fuel prices where they are, I'd rather take an electric car any day!

I may sound selfish but saving money in my wallet for my family for NOW is more important to me than the environment which will be affected maybe never or very very far in the future!

Originally posted by faryjay
That's all well and good! But they aren't creating extra electricity for these cars, it's just what's already created for households etc.

Also, with fuel prices where they are, I'd rather take an electric car any day!

I may sound selfish but saving money in my wallet for my family for NOW is more important to me than the environment which will be affected maybe never or very very far in the future!

Be prepared to spend thousands on batteries after a few years. The batteries are made with Rare Earth, mostly from China. Buy an electric car and support the Chinese economy. I'll bet I could take an electric car, remove the motor and batteries, operate it with a small gas engine, and lower your transportation costs even further. Just wait until everybody is charging their cars and see how much electricity costs.

What if the person that owns the car is living on a grid that powered by solar energy? Or a wind farm or a hydro electric dam? Do they still use more oil then?

This is a false argument used by conservatives all the time because they are opposed to all societal progress. Even though coal is very polluting, powering a bunch of electric cars from a coal plant actually pollutes less than thousands or millions of separate gas engines. Not to mention some peoples' electricity comes from wind or hydroelectricty, so they aren't polluting at all.

reply to post by buster2010

No, but the energy costs more. Until oil is $200 dollars a barrel, it is the cheapest way to make electricity. It would be nice if energy providers wanted a better world, but they want money instead.

Good find OP, S&F for you!

I was involved with the Ford Escape Hybrid and Mercury Mariner Hybrid launches back more then a few years ago now and have always been aware of the fact that electric cars/suvs don't solve any environmental issue but rather just displace the issue from consumer consumption to manufacturing consumption. For those that claim that they are saving money on their daily commutes often forget to mention the increased sticker price on initial purchase of the vehicle versus the traditional gas model.

reply to post by CB328


I am very liberal and despise the oil companies, but I cannot ignore the truth. I would love to see mass production of energy by alternative means, but it is not economically feasible yet. I admit I have not done my research, but I would love to see comparative studies done on power plants vs. little engines. So much electricity is lost in transmission that I bet they are equal.

Most wasteful way to use gasoline is to use it with engines that are running in sub-optimal rpm, like normal gasoline cars. Electrical cars have very good efficiency themselves, and the plants that produce the electricity can run at optimal efficiency the whole time, reducing the wasted gasoline. Not earth shattering savings, but good step towards greenness.

I found you lose 7% average in transmission of electricity. Still looking to see how much E is lost in conversion.
www.eia.gov...
Interesting site, I found that electricity costs relate to rednecks per capita . More rednecks= cheaper electricity.

There is subjective and there is objective. Objective is doing the research and bearing out unbiased numbers. Subjective is "My Aunt Jenny told me so it must be true".

What everybody's government knows is that once oil is done financially for the average person, what they know, is that the pony show is over.

Once the pony show is over a whole lot of bipedal hairless simians have to go away.

reply to post by Apollumi


Yup, trying to look objectively at electric cars, just until doomsday, like you say. I wanted this thread to take the people who think they are so "green", down a peg or two. We are still a huge consumptive force regardless of how much we alternate our energy sources.

An electric vehicle will produce more carbon dioxide emissions and use more energy than its gasoline counterpart of the same size and weight. For example, let’s use our Hollywood activists impressing his friends with his overpriced electric vehicle powered by an electrical power plant burning coal on a Navajo Indian reservation in Arizona. For comparison purposes there are 115,000 Btu’s in a gallon of gasoline that will take a car of comparable size to the electric around 40 miles. Therefore a gasoline car will use 2875 Btu’s per mile. Meanwhile burning 115,000 btu’s of coal loses around 70% of its energy content in the conversion from coal to heat to steam to mechanical energy(generator) to electricity. (There’s a little problem called entropy where energy that does work creates losses in the form of lost heat, noise, friction, etc.) So of the original energy content we get 34,500 Btu’s of electricity. We’re not through yet because we lose another 5% warming bird’s feet in the power line going 1500 miles to Los Angeles. Then we convert the electrical energy to chemical energy (charging a battery) another 40% to 60% loss. Then we convert back to electricity to drive the wheel train another 10% minimum until we finally show up at the Oscars. So from the original 115,000 Btu’s of coal burned we probably get to utilize less than 15,000 Btu’s to actually move the vehicle. Assuming that the electric car also gets 40 miles to 115,000 btu’s we would have to burn about 900,000 Btu’s of coal to generate enough electricity
to go the same distance as 1 gallon of gasoline. In short, the only accomplishment of the electric car is to move its emissions to Arizona rather than down town Los Angeles make a Hollywood moron feel good and increase fossil fuel demand.

Finally for the "glue heads that have gone organic" posters that talk about only using renewable energy. Renewables represent about 8% of the the electrical power generation. 90% of renewable is hydroelectric. Therefore wind,solar and biomass(by the way biomass is burning wood for the most part) represent at best about .8% of total electrical power generation.So double it and it still won't work. If anyone that espouses renewables had taken any physics or math you would understand no matter the squandering of resources for the "magic" technology that's going to make it economical you can't overcome physics.

The only solution is nuclear powered or hydrogen powered cars

Then we have a real energy efficient car. Not a high cost electric alternative.

Originally posted by buster2010
What if the person that owns the car is living on a grid that powered by solar energy? Or a wind farm or a hydro electric dam? Do they still use more oil then?

That's true. The importance of electric vehicles is that they will be sustainable by alternate means of providing electrical energy. Not so for any fossil fuel based machine.

While today's electricity is primarily sourced via fossil fuel means, it certainly will not be so in the future.

reply to post by billyjack

Dude, you scientifically rock. You did the math. This is the greatest thread I have ever created and someone less lazy than me has backed me up. You made my day. Conspiracy unveiled. Big oil should pay me. I would be the first liberal they ever paid. Gullible masses with your fake green plastic flowers sprayed with air freshener. Ride a bike.

Originally posted by charlyv

Originally posted by buster2010
What if the person that owns the car is living on a grid that powered by solar energy? Or a wind farm or a hydro electric dam? Do they still use more oil then?

That's true. The importance of electric vehicles is that they will be sustainable by alternate means of providing electrical energy. Not so for any fossil fuel based machine.

While today's electricity is primarily sourced via fossil fuel means, it certainly will not be so in the future.

Our children will be dead of old age before that happens. Packets of energy laying underground for people to grab will be cheap for a long time.

Maybe you should research first before starting inflammatory threads. Here's some info debunking the whole electric cars cause pollution myth: www.cleanfleetreport.com...

The real question is,

Can I drive this thing to the jobsite and back, which is currently at about 165 miles a day?

How long will the battery last if you are constanly charging it hard and all the time?

Can I afford to purcjase the thing in the first place? I just passed 159,000 miles on the old 98 Neon.