-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
More anti-ev gibberish
- Thread starter qwk
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
BBC News - Electric cars 'pose environmental threat'
- - - Updated - - -
original research being discussed by The Guardian today http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/oct/05/electric-cars-emissions-bad-environment?cat=environment&type=article
- - - Updated - - -
original research being discussed by The Guardian today http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/oct/05/electric-cars-emissions-bad-environment?cat=environment&type=article
Been in a meeting all morning so couldn't post this. On the BBC News homepage they change the headline to say:
At no point does it say that in the story, but as usual the BBC wraps quotes around a lie to protect itself.
Also notice that, again, this is in the Business section of the website and not the science section. Yet the editor, Jorn Madslien, swears that he is not anti-EV.
At no point does it say that in the story, but as usual the BBC wraps quotes around a lie to protect itself.
Also notice that, again, this is in the Business section of the website and not the science section. Yet the editor, Jorn Madslien, swears that he is not anti-EV.
Last edited:
A quick read through the full text of the study indicates that this isn't a hack job: the authors have a lot of back-up for the components of the analysis, and the general framework seems sound. The devil is in the details, of course.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Reading the conclusion, the study doesn't really say anything I didn't know (that EVs may not make a lot of sense given coal/oil heavy electricity). There's also talk about the life-cycle of current EVs (which are basically new so has less recycling associated with it) and the authors acknowledge that in subsequent generations, the recycled content may improve. As always it's the headline that's misleading.
No problem with the study. It says exactly the same as a German one in 2010 and British one in 2008 that I have posted here before. The problem is that the BBC Business department (again) thinks this is now newsworthy and puts it on the front page.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Bobbyllew comments on the latest BBC gibberish The LlewBlog - Electric Cars - Electric Cars Choke World to Death!
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Right on cue: http://seekingalpha.com/article/910111-electric-vehicles-front-loading-the-filth
- - - Updated - - -
I'm afraid Bobby is wrong about the study not taking into account the impacts of drilling and refining ICE fuels.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
Every time he bashes Tesla, he gets a ton of comments. And when he gets all those comments, his rating as a blogger goes up. SA loves it, because of more click-thru on the ads, driving up their revenue. I'm also sure that's why he responds to so many comments - it refuels the fire and drives up the count even further.
Right, John? (I'm sure he reads all the posts here -- just no incentive for him to respond here.)
Right, John? (I'm sure he reads all the posts here -- just no incentive for him to respond here.)
mitch672
Active Member
Yes, so it's best only a select few of us respond (or none, even better) and don't even click on the link as that generates traffic to site.
Perhaps take the text of the articles and post them here, asking people to NOT click on the link, depriving SA and other sites he posts his "wisdom" of even the web traffic, never mind comments as well. Just a thought...
Perhaps take the text of the articles and post them here, asking people to NOT click on the link, depriving SA and other sites he posts his "wisdom" of even the web traffic, never mind comments as well. Just a thought...
Thumper
Active Member
The full article that JP cites, Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Electric Vehicles - Hawkins - 2012 - Journal of Industrial Ecology - Wiley Online Library seems to be a reasonable attempt to look at overall environmental impact of at least two EVs compared to similar ICEs. Unlike John's anti-EV spin job, it does not conclude that EVs are a bad thing. It is realistic to keep and eye on mining pollution and electricity generation sources as we move forward.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I'd have to double check but I think the study mentioned using the GREET model when calculating ICE values.
- - - Updated - - -
- - - Updated - - -
Probably, but I'm not sure how many hits we bring. Besides, it's like a train wreck, I can't stop looking.
Has anyone had time to look into the details behind the report? JP reports 200+% increases in human toxicity exposure, but if that's from .002mg to .005mg /150,000km driven it's meaningless....if it's directly linked to a 200% increase in mortality rate it's substantial....I don't have time to look....anyone? anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
Not that I'm cancelling my reservation. Give EVs 100years to improve their supply chain and things will be much more comperable on the production side I'm sure.
I responded and called him out on 6 screw- ups he made.
He used part of the iron phosphate to raise the eutrophication. Duh it has phosphate in it.
He used the study that cut off at 150,000 km, c'mon the average end mileage is over 200 K km.
He tried to use quasi comparators- not the real batteries used in the tesla or the leaf
He used kwhr not weight to scale up
Coming from someone whose done a number of LCAs the base one is lousy and his is just plain sloppy. 6 strikes in one article. Wow
- - - Updated - - -
ASG, that 200% is BS. The way they calculate it is by taking a function of the TLV and ingestion toxicity. It's important for vapors, and liquids, or even solids that leech into the groud, but when you are talking about sealed substances it becomes less of an issue. I would be more concerned about particulates from car exhaust or breathing in gas vapor at the pump. I did an analysis once and the steady state for fueling a gas car contaminates a few gallons of water.
He used part of the iron phosphate to raise the eutrophication. Duh it has phosphate in it.
He used the study that cut off at 150,000 km, c'mon the average end mileage is over 200 K km.
He tried to use quasi comparators- not the real batteries used in the tesla or the leaf
He used kwhr not weight to scale up
Coming from someone whose done a number of LCAs the base one is lousy and his is just plain sloppy. 6 strikes in one article. Wow
- - - Updated - - -
ASG, that 200% is BS. The way they calculate it is by taking a function of the TLV and ingestion toxicity. It's important for vapors, and liquids, or even solids that leech into the groud, but when you are talking about sealed substances it becomes less of an issue. I would be more concerned about particulates from car exhaust or breathing in gas vapor at the pump. I did an analysis once and the steady state for fueling a gas car contaminates a few gallons of water.
Thumper, the LCA analysis was actually pretty bad. The main reason was that they decided to use 150000 km as their cut off. That is an very low number and well below the typical life of a modern car. They also mentioned that others used 200,000 km which is normal and gives EVs an advantage. Interesting LCA but its tripe since their initial premise is wrong and unreasonable
Similar threads
