Electric cars have been introduced world wide with the idea that there will be some decrease in carbon footprints along with decrease in air pollution. But we have to charge an electric car on regular basis. From where that energy will come, is a big question. Some countries have hydel power generation, and some have thermal energy, the other may have solar also.
Second question is about water, air and soil pollution? If we shifted from air pollution to water and/or soil pollution, we have the ability to handle such mega scale pollutions?
In the light of the above, what is your analysis and views?
EVs produce fewer emissions overall than their gas-powered counterparts, but there are caveats. That means factoring in emissions associated with oil drilling and power plant smokestacks, as well as from mining metals such as nickel and cobalt that are needed for electric-car batteries.
Yes, because traditionally internal combustion motorization is one of the few main sources of greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric pollution with toxic, carcinogenic chemicals. The development of electromobility can significantly reduce the level of greenhouse gas emissions if the batteries are charged with electricity generated from renewable energy sources. In addition, the most environmentally friendly and environmentally friendly technology for powering motor vehicles are engines powered by the combustion of hydrogen with oxygen. Some car concerns already produce cars powered in this way, but the scale of this production is negligible and definitely too small.
Have a nice day, Best wishes,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Yes, it will contribute to solve climate change associated problems.
I agree with Nawab Khan that all aspects of this issue are not easy. I think that the main result of using electrical cars regarding the clear air will be more for big cities than for Earth in general.
The definition of "electric car" doesn't really describe the technology. We should differentiate between power train and electricity supply considering only road vehicles without grid connection. The greatest benefit of electric powertrains is the energy recovery by the recovery battery as a mandatory element. The electricity supply to overcome friction losses etc. can be designed by using a combustion engine with generator, a fuel cell, or a battery. A real intelligent green strategy would have already started at about 2010 to introduce mandatory electric powertrains with recovery by about 2020. Because than any combustion engine would operate at more ore less constant operation conditions and efficiency and emissions could be optimized on a clearly better level than with any mechanical power train. Such a roadmap would allow a high flexibility for technical development where needed and a clear decision where the facts of energy efficiency are clear. This would have been a really strategic win-win situation by real feasible solutions instead of permanently discussing CO2 and other emissions of mechanical power trains. Looking at the actors (automotive industry, politics, environmentalists) a mixture of short term thinking (contract periods of CEOs, elections etc.), arrogance, greed/technical incompetence generated the compromises we have today, where everyone knows better what should have been really done. The next coming problem that might not be really solved is the lithium supply connected with environmental problems as e.g. water supply. But we have officially a climate problem and not a sustainability problem consequently it is important to find investors for CO2 certificates and lithium mines. Even under environmental aspects a hydrogen powered optimized diesel engine might be still for a certain time the best solution as a power generator for an electric powertrain if there would not be the witch burning of combustion engines in general. Thus I am very sceptic that we will really have an open fair discussion about the best solution.
I agree with Wolfgang Georg Winkler the issue is much more complex and is crossed by the actions and strategical planning of diverse groups of interests and political influences, and technical aspects have never been the real prime mover.
Efficiency of the whole system is rarely talked about, and the "longer tailpipe" argument was introduced early but without a real systemic analysis.
The issue of the batteries is often left out of the picture when the EV development and promotion is talked about in divulgative and promotional efforts, but is a key aspect of the whole logistics and long term sustainability of the EV industry as is proposed today. As an example, I can attest to the fact that an association of manufactureres was already doing research by proxy on Lithium environmental impacts more than a decade ago in anticipation to what was called the inevitable advent of EV predominance that would make Lithium batteries widespread and would become an issue of disposal/recycling. I know about this because as I live in the "natural laboratory" of the Atacama Desert, the natural Lithium levels in soils and water attracted interest of the researchers hired to gather the evidence which had the implied intention of building a database of published research about environments rich in lithium that would help build the case it was not at all a potential contaminant, and even could be considered a good element to have in soils and waters. This kind of strategic moves made in advance have nothing to do with science but with strategical planing and corporate interests, and is completely legal.
Bottomline, there's no real discussion but an agenda driven discussion, and a thorough technical analysis probably would deliver a completely different outcome than the one that is being pushed.
Absolutely. It will help reduce the Carbon emission level which is also the main source of Global warming.
This is going to be the drive during post pandemic phase. Electric cars have proved their benefits already in several countries. The question of recharging is a minor aspect which will find a better solution sooner or later. Solar panels to some of the vehicles do meet this requirement as well. Air pollution has been the principal cause of many health problems. I do not know of any soil or water contamination unless you are talking of vehicular cleaning and servicing which can be regulated with several new technologies that have emerged in the recent past.
Sure it will, since it will reduce the vehicular emission of greenhouse gases such as Carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide to the barest minimum. These gases among others make the atmosphere opaque to the outgoing infrared Earth radiation thus intensifying global warming with its stories of woes in the developing world.
Electric car is one of the option to solve climate change problem. The best option is conserve the nature for ever.
In nations such as Norway, Iceland, Chile or New Zealand with high proportions of renewable electricity generation in their energy mix, the answer should be clear; electric propulsion is a potential solution for continuing to use private cars while reducing GHG emissions. For other nations where fossil-fuels makes up the majority of electricity production, the benefit is less clear. All you are doing is shifting the fossil fuel type and the location of the exhaust pipe (tailpipe) in such regions. There are benefits for air quality, most fossil-fuel power plants have air pollution controls minimising particulates, but the GHG emissions may be largely unchanged.
Why not promote walking, cycling or public transport in urban / suburban settings as a GHG reduction strategy? Replace intra-continental air travel with passenger rail? Sometimes we need to adjust our basic premise at the same time as considering substitution strategies?
Climate change as well as global warming are associated with use of fossil fuels as well as multiple human practices that increase carbon footprint in the earth. However, while electric cars may reduce use of fossil fuels, it is not automatic that other human activities will reduce by the same margin. Besides, alternative use of the fossil fuels may still equally complicate the issue of carbon emissions
Electric vehicles will only aid in the decrease in the rate of atmospheric GHG loading, but will do absolutely nothing to decrease current GHG atmospheric concentrations. All considered, decreasing the rate of GHG loading should still be a priority. Efficient sequestration of current overabundant atmospheric GHGs receives less publicity but may prove to be a top priority. As a friendly reminder to those concerned about the electric energy generating source, remember, electric engines are nearly 95% efficient compared to the 25% efficient internal combustion engine. So....even electric cars charged with electricity generated from coal-fired electric plants are still aiding in the reduction of atmospheric loading of GHGs.
It might, it might not, the dynamics surrounding climate change are global problems, emissions start from extraction of resources . Production line is carbon intensive and hence means High Carbon emissions are emminet .Manufacturing of electric cars is not an outright solution to reduction of emissions arguably electric charging stations means more pressure in production of electricity which currently most countries are still far away from turning to renewable energy. My personal take is either conversion of cars which currently use petrol or diesel into electric this will minimise the consumption of more extractive resources and also limit emissions.
Yes, if everyone could buy an electric car, we will make a huge difference in the pollution that is still there and does not go away.
Here in North America where pollution is still strong, the electric cars are still expensive. Governments still subsidize the Big Oil companies. I have a gasoline car, so all my friends and neighbours.
However, in the USA I have a nephew who is a pilot. He just leased his first Tesla. He used a gasoline car for 15 years, now he does NOT pollute, whereas his uncle in Canada still pollutes! I wish the government take my gasoline car and replace it with an electric car.
No and Never, In the pre-Cambrian age, earth surface temperature was almost 22 D.centigrade, and nowadays 15-16 D. centigrade. Why there was a high temperature in the Pre-Cambrian age? What are the causes of paleoclimate change? Electric vehicles + Zero industrial emission will help up to 20 % or less. There will be periodic ice age and warm age in future as like past era.
- Badges
- Science topic