Audi of America President Disses EVs

[deezle 0]

The President of Audi America doesn't think much of GM's Volt, nor EV's in general. In a Lutz-like rant he states that those who will buy electric vehicles are less-than-rational. link to story

[lebikerboy 96]

I agree with him in one respect. There would be a net increase of CO2 in a lot of areas of North America because of the amount of coal fired electric generators.Even here in the Metro Vancouver area,where you'd think EV vehicles would be a perfect fit except, for the fact that BC Hydro is already running their natural gas driven electric generator plant far more than they used to...

Edited September 10, 2009 by lebikerboy

[Francesco 71]

I'm not sure I follow about the "net increase" statement. True, most US electricity is from carbon sources, but it is inherently cleaner to produce large quantities of electricity for large numbers of vehicles than it is to burn petroleum in individual engines.

[Francesco 71]

It requires 1.85 kWh of power to refine crude oil into a Litre of gasoline. The Tesla Roadster can go 11 Km on 1.85 kWh of charge. So an electric car can go 11 Km on the same amount of power it takes just to refine the Litre of gas that a gas car uses to go the same distance.

[booneylander 37]

I'd be curious to see exactly how the numbers shake out.I've always thought that a full electric city would be net cleaner and more efficient than a full IC-vehicle one. *Should* be cheaper too. Assuming the cost of production/environmental impact of an IC car versus a "green" electric car would be similar (let's assume someone implements a 100% recyclable high capacity electrical storage cell - which I don't think anyone can argue, should ultimately be do-able).For these reasons:-A fixed installation power plant *should* be significantly more efficient than a small IC gas/diesel engine could ever be.-The power plant should be able to implement far greater emissions controls on stacks, so that pollutant emission per unit of motive power should be significantly less "in theory".-The power plant is running 24/7 so it doesn't pollute more and use more fuel less efficiently during warm-up twice a day.-Even a power plant running on fossil fuels should be able to burn basically crude oil, so eliminate most of the petroleum refining industry.-You can burn raw renewable fuels in a stationary power plant. (ex: You can direct-fire a coal plant with waste hog fuel from forestry operations - and be carbon-neutral).But I really have no idea how the numbers in practice shake out.

[Francesco 71]

The American national fuel mix for electrical generation is about 72% fossil fuel-sourced, 28% nuclear, hydro, or non-hydro renewables. Canada's mix is vastly more in favour of non-fossil sources (76.4% vs. 23.6%), with Quebec at the top of the heap (98% non-fossil fuel).

Sources:

http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/how-clean.html

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/eneene/sources/elee....php#generation

[MikeT 744]

In France, electric cars are nuclear-powered.

[Francesco 71]

Yeah, pretty much (75%?). It's a pity that Italy rolled over to the greenies who put a stop to any and all nuke power generation there for more than 20 years. EDF will have a big hand in Italy's renewed push to establish nuclear power as an alternative to thermal plants running on Gulf-sourced oil.

[MikeT 744]

France is at about 80% last time I heard.....

[Francesco 71]

Yeah, maybe. Latest I can find is 78% as of 2007. France and Italy are determined to move past Germany in PV energy production within the next ten years.