Electric Cars: Bad for Your Health?

This is ridiculous. What are the health effects of the existing fossil fueled vehicle fleet? Nobody figured that out before they were deployed. Bottom line is, if we don’t get rid of fossil fuels, the planet’s going to cook. The only valid point is the dependence on coal-generated electricity, though even there I’ve seen figures that PHEVs are more carbon efficient than gasoline-powered vehicles.

There are many problems with electric cars, but this “indirect costs” nonsense is not one of them.

This is the most ludicrous thing I’ve read all day.  Thanks for sharing!

@jeffBrown:  The oil lobby argument EV=more dirty electric power was debunked months ago.  Current capacity can power more EV’s than can be produced for the next 10yrs.  Try a refresher course on how to use google.

WWF : “Based on the average power mixes of both the US and the EU, the data indicates that Battery Electric Vehicules perform dramatically better on CO2 emissions than conventional Internal Combustion Engine Vehicules, whether fuelled by diesel or gasoline. This finding should lay to rest the so-called ‘long tailpipe theory’ which argues that the electrification of automotive transport merely transfers problematic emissions from the vehicle exhaust to the power plant. EV sceptics who subscribe to this view – evidently bereft of quantitative analysis – will frequently claim that ‘zero emissions vehicles’ are more accurately ‘emissions elsewhere vehicles’. This is true, of course, except that it neglects to mention that single point source emissions are far easier to control and clean – and the rather important fact that those emissions elsewhere are substantially reduced, as figure 16 illustrates.  The conclusion is clear: despite the variation in today’s power generation mix across states and nations, electrons beat liquids in terms of life-cycle CO2 emissions. Moreover, that advantage will unquestionably grow as power supplies become progressively cleaner, while the CO2 intensity of liquid fuels is likely to increase as we are forced – through

inability to escape the liquid hydrocarbon paradigm – to exploit more and more unconventional resources (...)”
Source :
http://assets.panda.org/downloads/plugged_in_full_report___final.pdf
(page 89)

Making ethanol from “crop waste” will destroy our topsoil and lead to starvation.  There are NO good ways to make biofuels, and using switchgrass will cause destruction and high food prices as well.  The only real answer is nuclear power using thorium, not uranium, as the prime fuel.  For details, see:
http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html

Good synopsis, Uci.  I have some comments to add to your review.

This NAS study contains a lot of good research, but its analysis of hidden costs reflects a bias for coal, nuclear, and gas, and against wind – as has often been seen in official studies.  For example, the report frequently emphasizes that wind turbines are responsible for about 30,000 bird deaths per year, but leaves to the reader to calculate from some information in a footnote that fossil-fuel power production is responsible for 1000 times as many bird deaths, and other anthropogenic causes lead to 10,000 times as many bird deaths.

They essentially ignore biomass power production and apparently think it has no growth potential.  Most estimates put its current contribution at 1.4% (50% above their number), and think it can double over then next 20 years.

The major focus of the report is on damages unrelated to climate change – which most scientists now think should be the primary focus.  They usually value CO2 damage at $30/ton, which makes it of similar consequence to the sum of NOX, SOX, and PM from coal plants, for example.

Their definition of externalities is quite restrictive.  They generally avoided trying to quantify damages associated with climate change, ecosystems, infrastructure, and security.

Far too much space is wasted in most of the chapters on things that almost anyone who has any interest in the subject already knows.  However, the chapter on Climate Change is first class.

They think cellulosic ethanol (from corn stover and switchgrass) has a lot potential, even though it is still effectively at zero except in a few highly subsidized, small demonstrations.  They explicitly ignore carbon emissions from indirect land use change – and go through a long, rambling, argument to justify that decision.  They do say that use of corn stover would reduce carbon sequestered in the soil, but do not attempt to quantify it.  The analyses they cite for the net CO2 emissions from future cellulosic ethanol processes are highly flawed (because they don’t properly account for change in carbon content in the soils), as I’ve explained here http://dotyenergy.com/Markets/Biofuels.htm .

Their efforts to compare the various technologies for power generation in a clear, concise, and comprehensible way, both in the full text and in the Executive Summary, are of limited value.

On the positive side, their analysis of PHEVs is refreshing.  They conclude that even in 2030, the non-GHG hidden costs of EVs will be over 15% greater than for conventional gasoline vehicles because of the large emissions and hazards associated with battery manufacture and disposal. 

GHG emissions per vehicle mile for EVs would depend strongly on the grid’s GHG intensity, transmission distance, battery technology, and user charging patterns.  They think there will be very little difference between most of the vehicle technologies with respect to life-cycle GHG emissions, though they expect cellulosic ethanol, hydrogen, CNG, and diesel to be a little better than the other technologies per vehicle mile.  Obviously, they don’t yet know about Windfuels.  We’ll try to inform them.  (We’ve updated a lot of the material on our website over the past few months, and more updates are coming soon.)

Finally, I’d like to turn to a previous comment posted by Christopher Calder.  His comment led me indirectly (though his interesting but error-ridden web page) to an absolutely must-read report, Agrofuels in the Americas.
http://www.foodfirst.org/files/pdf/Agrofuels_in_the_Americas.pdf
The above report really is of outstanding scholarship, timeliness, insight, and perspective.  Anyone serious about climate and energy will find it riveting and eye-opening.  It could be truly game changing if read by more decision makers, including Barack Obama and Steven Chu.

Any references to the people who are ON the NRC? Where does the NRC get funding?
If it’s “government” funding, then it’s OIL money.
“Empire of Oil” by Harvey O’Connor: read it and think again about energy information that comes from “unbiased” sources.

Amazing! The National Research Council is supposed to advise the American government?! Is this some kind of sad joke?

Actually, the report does devote 43 pages to Climate Change. See Chapter 5.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12794

As the electric grid becomes cleaner and the production of fossil fuels dirtier (e.g., tar sands and other non-conventional sources), the environmental advantages of battery-electric vehicles increases.

And this is why everybody should use renewable energy like wind, solar, water etc.

Just because its the “National Research Council” dosen’t mean it has anything to do with the goverment.  Sounds like either funded by oil or a consertivitve group.  Like some other research groups funded by political factions. They use statistics to prove what ever point they want to prove and to heck with the truth.  Its a lot easier to clean up a few thousand smokstacks (power plants and factories) than 30 million tailpipes.