Politically inconvenient truth about electric cars

[G-CPTN]

President Nicolas Sarkozy would dearly like to end France’s rotating presidency of the European Union on a high note by brokering this week a deal on a grand European response to global warming and energy efficiency. The ultimate plan is to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent with member states at the same time drawing their future energy needs from clean renewable sources by the same percentage amount. Under the circumstances, it is no surprise that the automobile industry has found itself at the heart of the climate change debate.

Indeed, Mr Sarkozy’s own government commissioned months ago one of France’s leading energy experts – Jean Syrota, the former French energy industry regulator – to draw up a report to analyse all the options for building cleaner and more efficient mass-market cars by 2030. The 129-page report was completed in September to coincide with the Paris motor show. But the government has continued to sit on it and seems reluctant to ever publish it.

Yet all those who have managed to glimpse at the document agree that it makes interesting reading. It concludes that there is not much future in the much vaunted developed of all electric-powered cars. Instead, it suggests that the traditional combustion engine powered by petrol, diesel, ethanol or new biofuels still offers the most realistic prospect of developing cleaner vehicles. Carbon emissions and fuel consumption could be cut by 30-40 per cent simply by improving the performance and efficiency of traditional engines and limiting the top speed to about 170km/hr. Even that is well above the average top speed restriction in Europe, with the notable exception of Germany. New so-called “stop and start” mechanisms can produce further 10 per cent reductions that can rise to 25-30 per cent in cities. Enhancements in car electronics as well as the development of more energy efficient tyres, such as Michelin’s new “energy saver” technology, are also expected to help reduce consumption and pollution.

Overall, the Syrota report says that adapting and improving conventional engines could enhance their efficiency by an average of 50 per cent. It also argues that new-generation hybrid cars combining conventional engines with electric propulsion could provide an interesting future alternative.

By combining electric batteries with conventional fuel-driven engines, cars could run on clean electricity for short urban trips while switching over to fuel on motorways. This would resolve one of the biggest problems facing all electric cars – the need to install costly battery recharging infrastructures.The report warns that the overall cost of an all-electric car remains unviable at around double that of a conventional vehicle. Battery technology is still unsatisfactory, severely limiting performance both in terms of range and speed. The electricity supply for these batteries would continue to come from mostly fossil sources.

The misgivings over the future of the electric car may explain why the French government appears to have spiked the report. It probably considers it politically incorrect, especially when some of Mr Sarkozy’s big business chums such as Vincent Bolloré and Serge Dassault are developing either electric cars and lobbying hard. Renault too has struck a deal with Israel to jointly develop a mass-market electric vehicle. To paraphrase Al Gore’s documentary on climate change, Paris may feel it is not the best of times to publicise the inconvenient truth about electric cars.

From:- http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/37f1f624-c...nclick_check=1

[Western SMT]

While electric vehicles are known to be short ranged they do have a market and if buying an electric vehicle you are buying a few years worth of fuel at the same time. You do have to charge them and the electricity supply for these batteries would continue to come from mostly fossil sources or have we found another use for shredded tyres.

[G-CPTN]

Perhaps 'we' should be investigating using decaying organic matter in a sort of 'compost heap' to produce heat (and thereby energy) - as well as reducing the quantity of material for landfill (leaving plant compost for agricultural use).
I know that 'burning' garbage has been tried (and rejected as producing harmful dioxins), and maybe what I am suggesting might require too much space (and energy to 'turn' the heap) - and maybe someone somewhere is already doing it?

[G-CPTN]

Our local authority collects green garden material to be made into agricultural compost.
My son's local authority collects green garden material and food-waste (combined - including cooked leftovers) - though exactly what process they use I don't know).

[Western SMT]

When biodegradable material such as food waste is sent to landfill it rots without air to form methane which is an extremely potent greenhouse gas, more potent than carbon dioxide.
It also forms leachate which is a liquid effluent that needs to be treated. If leachate enters water courses it is highly poisonous to aquatic life.

To get round this, food waste is composted by a process called In-Vessel Composting (IVC).
Food waste is shredded, mixed with garden waste and placed in large sheds (vessels).
The waste is then composted in the vessel for seven days during which air is pumped through it to keep the composting process aerated. Temperature probes ensure that there is sufficient heat to kill any dangerous bacteria. 60oC must be achieved for two consecutive days. The waste is then transferred to a seperate vessel and composted for a further 7 days where it must again reach 60oC for two continuous days. The waste is then transferred to the matuartion pad for a further 6-10 weeks in windrows (heaps). It is then screened for use as a compost product.
No chemicals are added to the process, and the heat is produced entirely by the composting process itself.

[G-CPTN]

Will we see old landfill sites being opened-up and recycled?

[Western SMT]

A lot of old landfills have been closed in accordance with regulations.
If done properly, they are capped, secured and monitored. Opening them up and digging around could result in dispersion of hazardous materials and more pollution to the surrounding area.

In the early 80's there was a big dump about 1/2 mile away, going down to dump stuff resulted in bringing back more than I took down. Searching through a house clearance, lifting discarded planks of wood, factory rejects in fact anything useful was fair game.
We were doing them a favour by reducing the amount of stuff at the dump but they didn't see it that way. Regulations came into effect and it was fenced off, gates erected and they employed the wee jobs-worth man.

[Western SMT]

Documentary – ‘Who killed the electric car’

Watched part of this last night on channel ‘More 4’

The film depicts a community of drivers in California clearly in love with their EV1 cars, yet GM refused to renew the leases or let consumers buy the vehicles outright. As leases expired, there was a gradual round up, with the EV1s bound for a crushing facility in the desert.

Video of one in action
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsdUfAEIEos

Other comments
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister...le_1197832.php

http://ev1-club.power.net/