SURPRISE: ‘GREEN’ CARS AREN’T SO GREEN

the whole green campaign is a crock of crap. its a job killer see spains economy every green job kills about 2 regular jobs. epa is into everything and global warming is a scam to get algore and cronnies more wealthy then they already are.

Not so surprising :)

I think it's funny that a hundred years ago the automobile was praised as a solution to pollution. Since cars didn't poop everywhere!

smelters which produce all these rare minerals - required for batery production (Mn, Li, Co, etc) - are conveniently NOT located in the US. One reason may be that they would NEVER pass the least stringent environmental codes... yes, I did say LEAST. The fact is these places - some major ones located in Russia - are the most toxic places on earth -> no animal/plant life exists within miles of these furnaces. Granted that the volume of material that goes into batteries is relatively minor but its impact is ridiculously toxic and not often aknowledged. In the US, electricity is mostly produced by burning coal, thus eliminating any benefit gained by zero emission electrical motors. NG and hydrogen have by far the least CO2 impact on the environment, H2 more so than NG, but H2 energy still requires advances in technology and vasts investments in distribution system before it can compete with gasoline. The best "doable" alternative to reducing Co2 emissions is charging an electric vehicle with a solar-powered station.

Most of the worlds supply of H2 is produced by ripping hydrogen molecules off of hydrocarbons, aka refined from oil. What's left of the hydro carbon chains is usually released into the atmosphere as CO2. The miniscule amount of H2 that is produced by electrolysis will fall under the same issue you mentioned about batteries being powered by coal plants.

Like I said, more tech advances are needed to develop clean processes, including the use of more common metals.

Maybe I'm conspiracy theory here, and the first time I'm gonna be deboosted, but I've never really believed in this story of CO2 causing global warming, in the first place. CO2 is only 0,038% of athmosphere, it only causes differences in temperature in way higher rates. That works for microclima, but we would have to increase this rate by ten to make any difference (and it would be minimum) in global scale. For me, this story of electric cars are only for decrease our dependency of fossil fuels, or, in other words, middle east, Russia and Venezuela. I'm a big fan of efficency, tough. Unfortunatelly, efficency is not something that sells when fuel is not sold in Tiffanys. We would need considerably bigger "motivation" to buy more efficient cars... like to worry destroying the whole planet because you're breathing.

The CO2 debate is a heated one, my beliefs are close to yours. Plants grow better with increased CO2, they also consume it at a higher rate when more is in the atmosphere, that, and it's not like the Carbon is alien to our atmosphere it was in the air before...

Newsflash, we are not plants. Secondly, more than 40% of our natural forests have been destroyed in the last 50 years, so your comparison is weak. If all CO2 on earth would be present in the atmosphere we would all be dead, this is why we prefer it be trapped under ground or within forests.

Trees are neither here or their in terms of CO2, trees release all of the Carbon they store when they rot. So having more or less of them doesn't mean anything. What is good is if it's easier to grow plants, our crops will yield more food and we will be able to grow crops in more places.

We would not be dead if all of the CO2 was released. Their is currently about 0.0387% CO2 concentration to the air on a global level, and this is after burning through approximately 30% of our oil reserves. At concentrations between 2 and 10%, Carbon Dioxide can cause nausea, dizziness, headache, mental confusion, increased blood pressure and respiratory rate. Above 8% nausea and vomiting appear. Above 10%, suffocation and death can occur within minutes.

We will never ever be able to raise the global carbon dioxide levels that high, even if we were to burn every last bit of plant life and oil reserve on this planet.

There green when the battery tech improves which has to start somewhere.
I think hybrids are promising for the tech, not just the "green" aspect.

lol you make it sound as though batteries never existed or weren't widely used before hybrids.

Surprise!! People were stupid to believe that they were green in the first place.

Wow you are all so quick to accept this quality, peer reviewed "blze.com" web article, because it matches your political leanings, without even the slightest questioning of it.

This article is crap.

"a study has found." Are you frakking kidding me? That's their basis for their argument? And 129,000 kilometers, whose a*s did they pull that number out of? (BTW that's only 80,000 miles.)

I researched the study, and here I shall dispel the lies y'all so happily consumed.

http://www.lowcvp.org.uk/news/1644/lowcvp-study-highlights-importance-of-measuring-whole-life-carbon-emissions/

http://lowcvp-isleint4.isledev.co.uk/assets/news/Response%20to%20Press%20Coverage%20on%20Life%20Cycle%20CO2%20Report.pdf

The first page is the original study, the second page is a letter from the authors debunking the false stories made from the study. Happy Reading, Spies!!!

The letter from the Authors of the study doesn't debunk the article. It merely suggests that these vehicles can/will be driven further then the break even point.

The article's statement of 129,000kms to break even remains valid.

The argument on the table now is whether the limited range of these vehicles will allow them to reach that break even point.

At 73 miles or 117 km per charge, the Nissan will have to go from full to no charge about 1100 times. If you push it to the absolute limit, and fully deplete your battery (i.e. push it up the driveway) every day it will take you just over three years before you reach that magical 129,000km break even point. Now given typical driving patterns where these cars aren't going to be driven from full to no charge every day. It's clear to see that in most cases by the time most of these vehicles hit the break even mark the vehicle's 8 year battery warranty will be expired.

True the vehicle can be driven past the warranty point, but the question is how many km's can the cars get in before the vehicle makes another large carbon expenditure in it's replacement batteries.

So Joe, you're still going to defend the article, when the authors themselves take umbrage with it? That's phenomenal research skills you are showing. The interwebs (blogs, no less) say that what i believe to be true is so, therefore, I believe what I read. Priceless.

Those links I provide clearly show that HEVs, PHEVs, EREVs and BEVs have lower lifetime CO2. Period. EOS. And in some cases, significantly lower. The goal is for mfrs, users, recyclers, et al to look at ways to make this number lower throughout the lifetime of the vehicle. There is no evidence in the study faulting alt fuel vehicles. Articles that point to the study and make that claim are outright lying. But you go on and continue to believe what you want. After all, Hummers are more efficient that Prii, right?

I have also yet to see where the magical number of 129,000 km comes from, but if you concur that it will only take 3 years for the Leaf to meet that number, then all other lower emissions after that point are gravy. 80,000 miles is not very long, Joe. And batteries are not going to implode after 8 years. In fact, most hybrids will never need new batteries, they will last the life of the car. Those that need replacing will often get their replacement fromm junkyards, ie. batteries whose lifecycles have already been factored once. The need to purchase brand new batteries is indeed quite a rarity.

There are plenty of articles to backup this article. If you cant find any then you shouldnt even be posting here as someone who is knowlegeable.

thetruth01, you show exceptional skills at twisting my argument into something it's not. I'm not talking about hybrids where the batteries never drop below 80% therefore allowing their long life spans. I'm talking about ev's in particular the leaf. That 3 year break even point is a ridiculous number to try and reach. Like I said you'll have to run out of power exactly when you pull up your driveway and recharge back to full every single day to reach it. My argument is for the average consumer. And you mustn't have comprehended what I was saying happens after the 129,000kms. Sure you start banking it, but the trick that these cars have to do is make sure the battery lasts long enough to offset the Carbon cost of the replacement battery. Once it does fail, you have another 40k-50k km before you in the clear again.

"misleading in its representation of the findings" .... another way of saying lies. What else can I add to this?

No, no it isn't, quit twisting it into something it's not. Anyone can look at a data set and be able to tell a different story without resorting to lies.

Can I call you a liar when you twist my argument into something I didn't intend?

MeanVulcan there are articles everywhere supporting or refuting everything. This topic, this Ricardo study, has been twisted by bloggers and writers with agendas. Facts have been distorted, lies have been created, and you all just eat it up. The authors of the study say so, not me.

Joe, the batteries do last long enough. There's no evidence to the contrary. That's the point you conveniently miss. Just like the Hummer/Prius "study" missed the fact that Prii last as long on the road as Hummers. Ignore facts and twist your new results to prove whatever you want.

When will you guys just admit that you were duped by an article that seemed to agree with your agendas?

I guess I should listen to you when you talk about twisting facts. You have shown your eloquence in this regard by twisting my replies.

However, you failed to grasp the idea that Prii, still run the same even if the battery is at 10% capacity. EV's are different the moment your battery life starts going you notice, your trip to the grocery store after going to work and back may have been ok with a brand new ev, but over time the capacity of the battery will decrease and "useful" batteries will be replaced before they entirely die.

"The authors of the study say so, not me."

The authors of the study do not say that lies have been created, that is your own spin on the subject.

"misleading in its representation of the findings" sounds like lying to me.

And you still havent shown any evidence for this supposed battery ruin after 80,000 miles.