sudsmaster
Well-known member
I would occasionally see an EV1 on local SF Bay Area freeways in the 90's. But they were pretty rare.
Environmentally speaking, electric cars are not all that great. That's because fossil fuel in large part must still be burned to generate the electricity to power the car. True, it can be done in a stationary plant with modern pollution controls, but there is energy loss in generation and transmission of the electricity to the car. A consumer might wind up saving a bit because various local, state, and federal gasoline taxes are not tacked onto the electric bill to power the car, but on the other hand there is tiered residential electricity rating that charges over twice as much per kWH consumed when consumption rises above a certain base level. For a while I think there was a rate break for people with electric cars, but i'm not sure that this break is still in place, or how much it actually saved.
Ideally one would have a solar generating installation at home which would be used to charge batteries (or feed back into the grid), for later recharging of the batteries in an electric car. But then there is still the issue of limited range due to the problems of storing enough juice in the car's batteries.
Anyway, I think the above reasons are why the Greens didn't jump on the electric car bandwagon back in the 90's. It wasn't due to cold feet or lack of committment - it was because at the time, the electric car didn't make enough environmental sense to rally around.
With regard to the battery disposal issue - that's a real one. I understand that these days many if not most of our old car batteries are sent to Asia or Mexico for dismantling and recycling of the lead content. It's a nasty business and of course it's cheaper when done in places with low wages, no unions, and few if any health/environmental regulations. But I also recall a little baylet in this area that was filled with old batteries that were dumped there. At least that mess is gone now.
Environmentally speaking, electric cars are not all that great. That's because fossil fuel in large part must still be burned to generate the electricity to power the car. True, it can be done in a stationary plant with modern pollution controls, but there is energy loss in generation and transmission of the electricity to the car. A consumer might wind up saving a bit because various local, state, and federal gasoline taxes are not tacked onto the electric bill to power the car, but on the other hand there is tiered residential electricity rating that charges over twice as much per kWH consumed when consumption rises above a certain base level. For a while I think there was a rate break for people with electric cars, but i'm not sure that this break is still in place, or how much it actually saved.
Ideally one would have a solar generating installation at home which would be used to charge batteries (or feed back into the grid), for later recharging of the batteries in an electric car. But then there is still the issue of limited range due to the problems of storing enough juice in the car's batteries.
Anyway, I think the above reasons are why the Greens didn't jump on the electric car bandwagon back in the 90's. It wasn't due to cold feet or lack of committment - it was because at the time, the electric car didn't make enough environmental sense to rally around.
With regard to the battery disposal issue - that's a real one. I understand that these days many if not most of our old car batteries are sent to Asia or Mexico for dismantling and recycling of the lead content. It's a nasty business and of course it's cheaper when done in places with low wages, no unions, and few if any health/environmental regulations. But I also recall a little baylet in this area that was filled with old batteries that were dumped there. At least that mess is gone now.
