Maybe theoretically, but if you do the math then even 100% coal isn't dirty enough – the Tesla Model S gets 24 MPGe in that case, compared to just 17 MPG for the BMW M5. Energy cost compares favorably as well – charging in Hawaii (37¢ per kWh!) would only cost 14¢/mi, compared to 20¢/mi for the M5 (@$3.50).
The question has never been, "which is the cheapest/cleanest to operate?" Batteries have been the clear winner for some time. The challenge that faces EVs is, "does the high initial price of batteries negate the lifetime savings?" We're not there yet for family cars, but for full-size luxury sedans it seems to have arrived.
In my Golf TDI I have a demonstrated of $0.114 per mile. That's in less than ideal conditions, with lots of city driving. If I drove almost all highway, I'd be getting more like 45mpg rather than the 34mpg lifetime I have, so at the current price of diesel ($3.90/gal) that'd be more like 8.6c/mile.
Hawaii is a worst-case scenario. Many electric vehicle owners (including Tesla) see about two or three cents per mile.
At California prices it costs 6.5¢/mile, and at average US prices it costs 4.7¢/mile. When you use Tesla's Supercharger stations it's free.
Similar to hybrid cars. They are better for the environment but that isn't that offset by the production of the batteries needed for the hybrid engine?
No. By abstracting the source of the energy, we can make one change in the method of power generation and immediately make a large number of electric cars "clean". So if we replace a coal plant with a nuclear or hydroelectric or solar plant, then everyone charging their electric cars with energy from that plant will suddenly be using clean energy. This isn't possible with the millions of gas cars out there, because they are only capable of using gas.
No. The oft-cited "Dust to Dust" report has been thoroughly debunked: http://grist.org/article/dust-to-dumb/ For just one example, they assume (with no real justification) that a Hummer will last 300k miles and a Prius just 100k. Invalidating that single assumption flips the result, and it's not the only one.
There's a false equivocacy going on in our heads when we fall victim to this kind of misinformation. "One advantage vs. one disadvantage. They must cancel out!" This is why it's important to do quantitative analysis. In reality, the addition of a battery and motor only adds about 10% to the embodied energy and disposal impact of a car, which itself is dwarfed by the fuel burned in its lifetime (by about 3:1).
The interesting question for me is: why do people worry about the Nickel in their car's battery but not in their car's steel-alloy frame?
0 mpg - stopped at a light
15 mpg - typical city driving
35 mpg - typical highway driving
A powerplant is always running its turbines. It's like car motor that is always on cruise control on the highway, without giving up energy to stop in traffic or throttle down.
The peak energy usage is normally right around dusk, since that is when people are getting home from work, lights are coming on, etc. If people charge their cars at this time that only makes things worse. Hopefully we get smart chargers that slow charging at this time, so while it doesn't cause a huge peak the car is still charging, and then increases charging power during the night. Just a thought.
It's not. Even the worst, dirtiest coal plant is going to be more efficient than your car engine, since it converts much more of the energy (given of as heat) into electricity. Economies of scale definitely apply to power plants.
Gas powered motors are still less brittle than grid-powered ones - it'd be tough to power a military force on grid power for example, but at that scale we should be using local fission powerplants anyway (ie, nuke subs).
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_inves...
TLDR: Electric vehicles still win, but only just barely when you include the battery manufacturing costs.
The paragraph on that page that mentions batteries is not at all rigorous - it doesn't attempt to be. The statement "It could be predicted that most Priuses will be junked at age 10 years" strikes me as pretty contentious.
"Oh, electric cars are no good - we need hydrogen cars!" Or something like that. Who's saying that? Seemed to be energy companies, but it's IIRC. Electric cars allow for any energy source to be used (as well as multiple), in the generation of the electricity. I suspect a lot of people don't want that flexibility/freedom, and would instead prefer to lock down a few more generations of drivers to one specific type of fuel, even if it's not gas.
However, he made some good points: * Fossile fuel electricity generators (utilities power plants) are often times more efficient than burning the same amount in your car
* Also, all the electric infrastructure needed to distribute electricity is much 'greener' than the system needed to distribute fossile fuels to your local gas station.
So even though the power is from coal, it's production/transport/consumption makes it more efficient than simply using your 'gasoline' powered car.
As much as these are interesting points, I have not broken down the real impacts Elon mentionned, but I thought they made a lot of sense.
Replace "often" with "always". I don't know of any power plant that's less efficient than an automobile engine.
The efficiency increase just by going to fossil fuel grid power is pretty insane all by itself, even accounting for transmission losses. Even if we just kept burning fossil fuels in our power plants, and converted all cars to electrics, the efficiency increase would be incredible.
In the summer, on a clear day, I can look out my office window westward from the lakefront and see a thick cloud that covers everything past a certain distance.
(Thanks to hatberet further down)
Shows the electricity production by state; nowhere does using an electric produce more CO2 than a gas car.
Also, not everyone lives in America. 100% of electricity in my country comes from renewable resources.