You could probably put this is the “See I told you so” category. It turns out that you need some form of energy to move something from where it is to somewhere else. The efficiency of how you use that energy is a big player in the whole equation. That is why you put heavy boxes on wheels to move them around instead of just pushing them.

The same is true for vehicles. If you look at the entire energy consumption of a vehicle, gasoline cars are probably better for the environment then their electric equivalents. You have to consider where the energy comes from to power the vehicle. If you charge an car from electricity generated from a coal power plant, you are just emitting more gases before you use the electrons in the battery. You also should take into account the efficiency of the power grid to get it to your ride. If heat is generated anywhere in the process, then that is lost energy.

A gasoline powered vehicle bypasses the loss of heat in transmission lines, and doesn’t have a huge battery that takes a lot of energy to make. You should also consider what it takes to dispose of the battery too. At the end of life for both types of car, electric and gas powered, you have a lot more dangerous materials to worry about with the battery powered car.

Here is an article of actual studies done considering both types of cars:

A study by the IFO think tank in Munich found that electric vehicles in Germany emit 11 percent to 28 percent more carbon dioxide than their diesel counterparts. The study considered the production of batteries as well as the German electricity mix in making this determination. Germany spent thousands of euros on electric car subsidies per vehicle to put a million electric vehicles on the road, but those subsidies have done nothing to reach the country’s greenhouse gas emission targets. This is just the latest example of government programs expecting one outcome and getting quite another, instead. To some it is ironic; to others it is funny. At IER, we believe it to be sad, as it is a waste of time and money that could be better put to use solving real problems.

The whole article is a good read, and throws a wet blanket on all of those that look down their noses at the rest of us that burn wood, and eat meat. It doesn’t talk about the wood or meat, but I wanted to throw it in.

The same issues have to be dealt with when talking about solar and wind technologies. They don’t provide power all the time, so you need a back up, like diesel generators, or coal fire. Then if you want to try and store excess energy that may be generated you are back into the world of environmentally bad batteries.  And they just aren’t efficient enough yet to be really useful.

And then, when solar panels are no longer useful, or when wind turbines go bad, you have to deal with them.  I am not saying that all of the renewable energy stuff is bad. It just isn’t as clean as we are being told. It is more of a feel good thing than an actual help.

The entire argument about energy sources is really pretty simple. It isn’t magical like the hippies with crystals would say. You could prove it to yourself pretty easy too. Take your 5 year old’s two favorite stuffed animals and dip one in gasoline. Place both outside in a well ventilated and sunny area. Put a match to the one dipped in gas, and just let the other sit in the sunlight. One of them will clearly produce more energy. Until we find a source (like nuclear) that produces a large amount of energy very efficiently, we won’t get away from fossil fuels.

Safety Note: The stuffed critter dipped in gas will catch fire if you put a match to it. Don’t actually do it unless you want to start a fire and make your 5 year old cry.