This New Study About the Impact of Electric Cars on the Envi

[GURPS]

This New Study About the Impact of Electric Cars on the Environment Leaving Liberals Sobbing


Since the American economy is still somewhat a free market system, the government needs to find a legally legit way to create these regulations, fines, taxes, and penalties.

And now you know exactly why the government “cares so much about the environment” and is constantly pushing man made climate change. It’s their way into the private sector.

These same hippie-dippie liberals are also big fans of the electric car, and it’s “positive impact” on the environment, often posting pictures of their smug faces on social media as they putter around town.

Well, I got some bad news for those folks…

From Washington Examiner:

Electric cars are worse for the environment per mile than comparable gasoline-powered cars, according to a new study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. This contradicts the common assumption that electric cars are cleaner. In spite of this, the federal government still pays $7,500 for every electric car purchased — a subsidy the nation would be better off without, say the authors.

The study was authored by four economics and business professors: Stephen Holland (University of North Carolina, Greensboro), Erin Mansur (Dartmouth College), Nicholas Muller (Middlebury College) and Andrew Yates (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill).

In monetary terms, electric cars are about half-a-cent worse per mile for the environment than gas-powered cars, on average. This means that if a government wants to tax a car based on how much it pollutes, electric cars should be taxed half of one cent more per mile driven than gasoline cars.​

 

[DEEKAYPEE8569]

From Washington Examiner:

Electric cars are worse for the environment per mile than comparable gasoline-powered cars, according to a new study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. This contradicts the common assumption that electric cars are cleaner. In spite of this, the federal government still pays $7,500 for every electric car purchased — a subsidy the nation would be better off without, say the authors.

The study was authored by four economics and business professors: Stephen Holland (University of North Carolina, Greensboro), Erin Mansur (Dartmouth College), Nicholas Muller (Middlebury College) and Andrew Yates (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill).

In monetary terms, electric cars are about half-a-cent worse per mile for the environment than gas-powered cars, on average. This means that if a government wants to tax a car based on how much it pollutes, electric cars should be taxed half of one cent more per mile driven than gasoline cars.​

The article doesn't seem to address; in non-monetary or environmental impact terms; but the one commenter addresses it:

"J.D." says:
It's the same look I get when I try to explain to people about wind power. The energy density of gasoline is so freaking high that in order for a "clean" technology to compete it either has to be super "clean" or magically have an energy density much higher than any other man-made material ever attempted.

Also, few do any research at all into how dirty battery technology is. Go look at where lithium is mined. It is not pretty. Also look at the energy investment in mining and transporting this and the rare earths needed for high-tech batteries. And they try to paint me, as a conservative, as ignorant about science.

Let me throw another curve ball. Anybody who is 100% bought in to climate change ever look at any of the numbers of what it would take to turn things the other direction? I don't know about them, but I am not giving up air conditioning and biking to work is not going to happen with where I live. Do you like plastics? Look at your computer in front of you. Look around wherever you are and start estimating how much polymer is around you. The primary source for monomer (the chemical you start with in the plastic-making process) is petroleum.

My graduate research was in solar energy. As close as we were in the lab to exceeding efficiency numbers for coal, do you know what the "next generation" solar cells are made out of? The base is metal oxides....typically no big deal because you wear and eat them. The rest of it is pretty darn nasty. Lead, gallium, arsenic, germanium, tin... Most pretty water soluble. Few are good for humans in any quantity, especially in your water supply. Even the polymer sensitizers are....polymers (see above for the problem here).

I am not saying we shouldn't keep working on some things as less pollution, generally, is a better thing. But we really must get better as evaluating the true "cost" of the newer technologies both in dollars and actual environmental footprint. Just because it's "not fossil fuel!" does not make it better.

 

[Vince]

Electric cars are worse for the environment per mile than comparable gasoline-powered cars, according to a new study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

You really think Obama and his enviroweinies will believe this? :

 

[Gilligan]

The article doesn't seem to address; in non-monetary or environmental impact terms; but the one commenter addresses it:

"J.D." says:
It's the same look I get when I try to explain to people about wind power. The energy density of gasoline is so freaking high that in order for a "clean" technology to compete it either has to be super "clean" or magically have an energy density much higher than any other man-made material ever attempted.

Also, few do any research at all into how dirty battery technology is. Go look at where lithium is mined. It is not pretty. Also look at the energy investment in mining and transporting this and the rare earths needed for high-tech batteries. And they try to paint me, as a conservative, as ignorant about science.

Let me throw another curve ball. Anybody who is 100% bought in to climate change ever look at any of the numbers of what it would take to turn things the other direction? I don't know about them, but I am not giving up air conditioning and biking to work is not going to happen with where I live. Do you like plastics? Look at your computer in front of you. Look around wherever you are and start estimating how much polymer is around you. The primary source for monomer (the chemical you start with in the plastic-making process) is petroleum.

My graduate research was in solar energy. As close as we were in the lab to exceeding efficiency numbers for coal, do you know what the "next generation" solar cells are made out of? The base is metal oxides....typically no big deal because you wear and eat them. The rest of it is pretty darn nasty. Lead, gallium, arsenic, germanium, tin... Most pretty water soluble. Few are good for humans in any quantity, especially in your water supply. Even the polymer sensitizers are....polymers (see above for the problem here).

I am not saying we shouldn't keep working on some things as less pollution, generally, is a better thing. But we really must get better as evaluating the true "cost" of the newer technologies both in dollars and actual environmental footprint. Just because it's "not fossil fuel!" does not make it better.

Exactly. ^.