Going "Green"

Great article.
My Question is, where do electric car proponents think electricity comes from? The Wall? The Electric Socket?
If everyone quit driving gasoline powered autos today and switched to electric cars, electricity use would increase... correct? Today electricity is generated mostly from Coal and Natural Gas. About 70% actually. So I guess what I am trying to say is that although carbon emissions would be reduced from cars... it would be increased in electricity production.
I think everyone should focus on getting their "green jollies" by carrying in reusable grocery bags to fill their fridge with bottled water.
Sorry to steal your line but... "Give Me a Break"

John Stossel Relies on "Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity" to Knock Alternative Fuels.

It's rather ironic that Mr. Stossel wrote the book "Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel..." given that everything he reports on concerning ethanol is based on myths, lies and downright stupidity.

In particular, the stupidity is his lack of knowledge that corn is only one of many base materials that can be used to produce ethanol. So without even arguing points over whether corn is an efficient or economical raw material to use, let alone whether government subsidies for its use is justifiable, he is engaging in a dishonest presentation of the subject.

His argument should not be whether corn-based ethanol should be used to replace or make a dent in our domestic use of gasoline, the argument should be focused on ethanol produced from any raw material.

Mr. Stossel might as well present the case that milk is not a nutritious substance to feed children and argue the point by only including spider's milk in the investigation, while artfully ignoring cow's milk, goat's milk or human breast milk.

If, in any given geographic region, corn produced for ethanol is not economical or environmentally friendly then corn shouldn't be used, period – end of discussion. At that point, cattails, switchgrass, beet sugar, cane sugar, seaweed, garbage, discarded paper products, and wood chips can all be considered as raw materials. In fact, some of these items can be far more efficient than corn in terms of ultimate yield. Moreover, cattails, switchgrass, garbage and seaweed need no fertilizing help. If anything, efforts are usually required to eliminate or reduce their abundant availability.

The myths and lies of his position are those promulgated by Mr. Stossel in all the arguments that he and his guests make regarding government subsidies. Stossel deals with the issue of subsidies for (corn) ethanol as if only corn ethanol receives subsidies. Never does he acknowledge that the oil/gasoline industry has been and is a continuous beneficiary of huge government subsidies; far, far in excess of anything contemplated to help encourage the production and use of ethanol. He has never explained to his audience that the whole reason why the petroleum oil industry was able to grow into the monolith that it has is because of government intervention and assistance in support of it, to the detriment of alcohol and any other fuel alternatives.

Two days ago we published an analysis of a previous John Stossel video program that dealt with ethanol. That program includes an interview with Jerry Taylor, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. All of Mr. Taylor's comments, in addition to the information that he wrote in a report for the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, were myths, lies and downright stupidity compounded with gross insensitively for his lack of concern for the lives of American citizens and servicemen. This published story can be found on TheAutoChannel.com.

We believe that if John Stossel and Fox News or CNN or any general media outlet wants to debate the issue of the viability of alternative fuels and energy sources that they should do it with a fair balance of information. We say, “Put aside all the money you're getting from the oil and gasoline interests and take some interest in the peoples' best interest.

Re: JasonLevi
"although carbon emissions would be reduced from cars... it would be increased in electricity production."
Yes, it would increase the emissions produced from the power plants, but not by as much as the same, petrol powered vehicle, would make. Power plants produce much fewer emissions for the energy they produce than autos do.
It is also worth noting that the electrical grid, specifically where it goes to individual residences, could not handle the added load of an electric car, (or 2), in every driveway.

Bryce is a jackass and Stossel is part of the herd (what else is new ?). I don't care if gas has 800 times the energy density of batteries- here's the bleeping bottom line: the GM Volt car will go 40 miles on a charge. This is more than the daily commute range of about 75% of U.S. commuters. The Nissan Leaf will go 100 miles-and cost about $25,000 after $7500 fed. rebate. EV cars can be charged via PV solar panels- the Tesla Roadster can be charged using one 10'x10', that they will sell you with the car. Once the PV solar system is paid off, you're looking at FREE car power for the life of the system ( PV life before starting to degrade is about 30 years). Not only THAT- the solar can, of course, power your house/business. Not only THAT- cheaper fuel cells are coming for night solar power storage. Not only THAT- if we had a great PV Solar program like Germany- or better- and if the whole industrial world did too, PV solar, battery and fuel cell costs would drop like a rock (a boulder even) thru the bleeping floor. Whereas Germany has the solar impact energy falling on it equivalent to Alaska (per solar impact maps of the world) , two thirds to three quarters of the U.S. is "good to great" for solar. Li-ion batteries will go for about 125,000 miles avg. By the time they need replacing, in say 10 years or more, they will be significantly cheaper. Even charging them using grid power only, when you replace them you will have saved big money over the cost of gas for those years. If you charge mainly with free sun power, you make out like gangbusters - PERIOD ! I have two cars right now- I can't wait to buy a Nissan Leaf, of other pure EV, when they become available in my area. I could commute for three days before recharging-if I want to always charge will sun power, I just use my other car for commuting one day. Nissan started pre-orders for the Leaf on April 23- they are now sold out for the year-19,000 cars ordered. Imagine what their pre-sales would have been IF the car had been available nationally, and not in JUST 6 or so U.S. cities. My advice to Bryce & Stossel: go back to your stalls and bray with your fellow non-progressive, dumbed-down, "just say no" muleheads/ mooseheads (as in: Palin)- who are probably next going to call EV's "Obamacars"-or, option two, which I like better: stand in the road stretching ahead into the 21st century and get bleeping run over.

Re: Oneil why should we subsidize the purchase of your Nissan? Look at the true cost of the Leaf and the solar panels. There is no free power friend. Denmark is not Nirvana and the sound of wind turbines hurt my ears. But go ahead and live the illusion.

I just watched this program and I have to laugh inside a little bit. For generations, going back to colonial days, Americans have conserved energy, because energy has a cost to it. Just a few minutes ago, I turned off every unnecessary light that was on in the house, because lighting those lamps costs money. I'm just one actor in a free-market economy--a free market economy that has worked very well for literally centuries in efficient production and use of energy.
The lights were burning in my house unnecesarily, because the people who turned them on and left them on are not the people who pay the electric bill. I pay the bill. I turn off the lamps my wife and kids leave burning unnecessarily, because they don't pay the bill--I do.
It occurs to me that our average American famiy is an exact micro-representation of the country at large, perhaps the world at large. If you consume energy on someone else's dime, what incentive do you have to conserve? The solution proposed by all the leftie airheads like your guest tonight is to tax, tax, tax and tax some more. What does that get you: energy consumption on someone else's dime. That's not a real incentive to conserve. The free market has always provided an incentive to conserve, whether it be a big business or a small family in Minnesota.
Just as my kids consume energy without a thought in the world to what it costs, because Dad will just pay the bill when it comes due, there are people out there who just want to consume energy and have someone else pay for it via a subsidy paid for by someone else's money. It's so easy to spend someone else's money--isn't it?
Michael J. Dempsey
Eagan, Minnesota

Thank heaven someone is willing to deal with objective reality, and not feel-good wishful thinking. Those opposed don't seem to have read his books. I have. Stossel is correct and they are not.
Before you post, research what you are commenting on, or simply present your post as opinion.
Spouting vituperatives is simply churlish.

I agree with Mr Bryce on a number of points and in particular I agree with his look-at-the-physics approach. Problems with Mr Bryce's argument occur when he deviates from that sound path and descends into hyperbole ala "Electric cars are the next big thing, and they always will be." Mr Stossel's history of headlines don't add clarity either, as one can find the same kind comments centuries before the Wright Flyer:
“At first we will only skim the surface of the earth like young star lings, but soon, emboldened by practice and experience, we will spring into the air with the impetuousness of the eagle, diverting ourselves by watching the childish behavior of the little men or awling miserably around on the earth below us.''-Rousseau, 1750.
'Soon' per Rousseau turned out to be 153 years, but the Wright's did indeed eventually impetuously spring into the air. If we discard the rosy predictions and instead look at the physics and history, we might obtain a better gauge of the state of electric vehicles in 2010 than did Rousseau with flight in 1750.
Since the turn of the century when electric vehicles (EV's) were briefly popular in the US we observe two salient points:
1) The range of EVs has historically been limited by the energy density of the battery.
2) EVs have been 3-4X more efficient in energy used per mile traveled than petroleum burning heat engines. That's 'simple physics' as Mr Bryce says: electric motors are 90-98% efficient; the average internal combustion engine (ICE) is ~25% efficient. ICE efficiency will continue to improve, but thermodynamics tells us it is impossible to do better than ~40-45% difficult to even approach. Add in the fact that the electricity produced from our collage of electric power sources (hydro, nuclear, coal, natural gas) is inexpensive compared to petroleum (~10 cents per kilowatt-hour in the US) and it turns out that, on an energy per mile basis, petroleum vehicles cost 10-12 cents per mile at $3 per gallon, while the electricity consumed by EVs costs ~3 cents per mile.
Thus historically EVs intrinsically have both a large incentive (point 2) to use them for travel and a serious impediment (point 1). Since we have incentive, a deeper look the history of batteries causing the impediment is worth the time. A few years before that 1915 WaPo headline referenced by Mr Stossel reached print the state of the art in rechargeable, vehicle grade batteries was Edison's Nickel Iron battery. The energy density of Nickel Iron back was about 14 Watt-hours per pound of battery which is roughly 420 times less than the same pound of gasoline [1]. By the 1980's, the Nickel Metal Hydride battery, now commonly used in hybrids like the Prius, held about 36 Watt-hours per pound, or ~160 times less than gasoline. The development curve has accelerated quite a bit in recent years, and now the best 2010 Lithium Ion batteries suitable for vehicles hold about 90 Watt-hours per pound, 65 times less than gasoline (not 80 times less as Mr Bryce suggests) [2]. That's almost a seven fold improvement over Edison's best try, with most of the improvement coming in last couple of decades.
Now if we recall the goal is transportation, not just to store energy, then we see we want to look at more than the battery:
Starting point, petro to battery comparison:
* 65:1 energy density ratio, gasoline to Li-Ion rechargeable battery.
Then account for the electric drive train efficiency (3X better). Gives us:
* 22:1 'transportation' specific density ratio, distance traveled in EV versus petroleum car per pound of energy storage.
Now the average car gasoline tank is not large, say 15 gallons, because we don't need to travel 1500 miles non-stop on one 60 gallon fuel load. That is, gasoline is a bit overkill for our light vehicle needs. In the case of an EV when the petro car's fuel pump, radiator, exhaust, starter motor, and transmission largely disappear there is ample room for the energy 'tank' (battery) to grow, say, 5X heavier than a gasoline tank (and it does in the new EVs) which gives us
* 4:1 range ratio, petroleum vehicle to EV
Which is about where we are now: average petro car gets 400 miles to the tank, the EVs coming out this year (Nissan, Renault) travel 100 miles on a charge.
What improvement do we expect in the near term? Lithium Ion rechargeables 25% better than those in 2010 EVs are already available, though they're not automotive grade yet. More interestingly, the best non-rechargeable, or primary batteries such as the zinc-air technology that runs hearing aids and watches for years have double the energy density of Lithium Ion batteries. If the they could be made rechargeable, or fast recyclable, the range ratio falls to 2:1.
So the range impediment is falling away fast, and given the 4X cheaper miles in a EV based on $3/gallon gas, which is only going up, I believe we are now metaphorically much closer to the Wright's 1903 lift off than Rousseau's 1750 happy talk.

References:
[1] Edison Battery 14 W-h/lb. http://www.ieee.org/organizations/pes/public/2004/may/peshistory.html. Gasoline: 5860 W-h/lb
[2] 2010 Li Ion batteries, 91 W-h/lb, like those used in the Tesla Roadster EV. http://www.panasonic.com/industrial/batteries-oem/oem/lithium-ion.aspx
[3] Zinc-air batteries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc-air_battery

> There is enough biomass in the world to replace oil TODAY!! We need to get
> the word out. Mr. Stossel mentions corn and we all know corn is not the
> answer. Trees are the answer. Special hardy, fast growing trees like
> MegaFlora. MegaFlora will grow to 15'+ in the first year (from a 4" root),
> can be harvested in nine months from first planting and will regenerate from
> its stump immediately after being cut. Electricity and biobutanol (for
> vehicle fuel - much more effective than ethanol) are easily produced with
> known processes and, if we don't take the lead in biomass production,
> another country soon will. These trees will also help sequester enough
> carbon to make a profound, positive contribution in the fight against global
> warming. Ignorance is costing us all.

Watch the 700 Club, Pat Robertson, on Thursday, June 3rd, to learn more about MegaFlora.

John Stossel's “Going green isn't always quite that simple” misses the mark.
I used to enjoy John Stossel's segments on the TV news magazine 20/20 but increasingly, I find his opinion columns that appear in the Gainesville Times to lack balance, accuracy, and answers. Of course no one said that opinion columns should contain any of those elements, but it is unfortunate when a person who built a reputation on investigative journalism abandons the practice and coasts on celebrity.
The article “Going green isn't always quite that simple” that appeared in the May 31 Times prompted me to write. First, Mr. Stossel only quotes one source, Robert Bryce who has an obvious bias against “green”. By not investigating both sides of the issue, the article not only lacks balance but also looses credibility. Stossel and Bryce accurately point out that we consume vast quantities of fossil fuels; renewable sources like solar, wind, and biomass currently supply a small fraction of our energy needs; and electric vehicles have been in development since the early 1900's. While these facts are not in dispute, his implication is that development of alternatives to fossil fuels, use of more efficient appliances, and taking personal responsibility for using resources more wisely has so little impact that we shouldn't even bother.
According to the federal Energy Information Agency, renewable sources provided 353 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity in 2007. While that met only 8.5% of the United State's electricity demand, it's a big number. Today's ENERGY STAR refrigerators use 68% less electricity than a comparable model built 10 years ago. Compact fluorescent lamps use 78% less electricity than conventional incandescent lamps and last seven times longer. Using energy efficient technologies and making simple changes around the home can add up to big savings if we act.
As Bryce stated, gasoline is a very energy dense fuel. But that fact alone does not doom electric vehicles to obscurity. Nor are physics and engineering “conspiring” against their development. To the contrary, a modern gas-powered car wastes more than 80% of the energy content of a gallon of gasoline while propelling the car. Electric vehicles waste only about 10% of the energy in the battery. I drive a Toyota Prius that's been modified with a bigger battery and a way to plug it in. Driving around town using only electricity costs only $0.02/mile. On the highway, it still uses gas but by adding $1 of electricity, it gets 100 miles per gallon for about 100 miles. If I drive further, the mileage drops to about 50 mpg. By the end of the year, GM and Nissan will be selling plug-in cars in the US. More are on the way. Electric vehicles will not replace the conventional gas-powered vehicles anytime soon, if at all, but they offer an efficient alternative.
It is particularly poignant that Mr. Stossel's column ran on Memorial Day. As we pause to reflect on the contributions and sacrifice that the men and women of our military make to insure our freedom, we should also consider how maintaining our current dependence on foreign energy sources impacts national security. There is no single answer or simple solution to our energy situation but “going green” by using renewable forms of energy and reducing waste through more energy efficient products and practices can play an important role. They should not be dismissed as insignificant or impractical without a closer review of the facts.

Wow you are very sadly mislead. We have used hydrogen for over a century to power cars and we definitely have the technology to change our transportation system. NASA uses hydrogen as its choice of fuel and is much more efficient and effective than gas. By using solar and wind to get a majority of our energy, we don't need to rely of coal and all these dirty sources we depend upon. Right now the only thing holding it back is legislation and closeminded people who can't see this big picture. Going green qould bring competition to the market to lower prices and create jobs. Go to www.hydrogencarsnow.com and do some homework. You must be an oil stockholder? Another one who doesn't want to lose on stocks from the green movement that is inevitable if we want recovery in our natio. Please open your eyes.