Town Square

Post a New Topic

To all those driving Teslas, Priuses, Leafs, Fiskers, etc.

Original post made by Chris Zaharias on Jul 7, 2013

I finally got around to reading this IEEE article that suggests Teslas, Leafs, Fusions, Priuses et al may actually emit *more CO2*, cause more environmental damage that good old-fashioned gas-burning vehicles. Given that ~60% of Tesla's are driven in Santa Clara & San Mateo counties, for example, I think it's especially important that our community consider this report:

Web Link

I highly encourage people to read this article, both those of your who believe electric vehicles to be 'green', and those of you who do not. IMHO, the article makes a good case for both sides being way off base, and goes far towards proving that the real solution electric vehicles try - but fail - to solve will be best dealt with by finding, tracking and forcing the 20% of vehicles that emit 80% of emissions due to incomplete combustion to be removed from the roads permanently, or repaired.

Closing paragraph from the article:

"Upon closer consideration, moving from petroleum-fueled vehicles to electric cars begins to look more and more like shifting from one brand of cigarettes to another. We wouldn't expect doctors to endorse such a thing. Should environmentally minded people really revere electric cars? Perhaps we should look beyond the shiny gadgets now being offered and revisit some less sexy but potent options—smog reduction, bike lanes, energy taxes, and land-use changes to start. Let's not be seduced by high-tech illusions."

Comments (50)

Posted by parent, a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 7, 2013 at 7:25 am

You are wrong. This article does not apply in California, where there are fewer high-pollution coal-burning power plants. Obama's recent call to clean up the coal power plants in the midwest will reduce their air pollution, whether or not they use electric cars.


Posted by Chris Zaharias, a resident of Crescent Park
on Jul 7, 2013 at 7:45 am

Let us please put down the political banners, geez. The author says that when you take into account the far-flung, global aspects of vehicle and electricity production, that supposedly green vehicles are not, and that focusing on reducing emissions reductions from gas-powered cars alone is what *can* make a difference.

That you treat California as a hermetically-sealed laboratory for eco-engineering is echoed in the author's statement:

"Do electric cars simply move pollution from upper-middle-class communities in Beverly Hills and Virginia Beach to poor communities in the backwaters of West Virginia and the nation's industrial exurbs? Are electric cars a sleight of hand that allows peace of mind for those who are already comfortable at the expense of intensifying asthma, heart problems, and radiation risks among the poor and politically disconnected?"


Posted by Its an opinion piece, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 7, 2013 at 10:50 am

Chris, Having read this article do you intend to go 100% bike, since that appears to be his conclusion? btw, most Prius are gas powered, so I am not sure why you lump them in with Leafs and Teslas.


Posted by common sense, a resident of Midtown
on Jul 7, 2013 at 10:52 am

The massive subsidy for the electric vehicles goes to the rich, with little or no benefit to greenhouse gases when taking into account how these cars are produced.

These subsidies would be more effective if put into public transportation.

Our City Council & City Staff has spent money installing electric charging stations, and giving developers high density bonuses for installing electric charging stations. How chic! they want to play on regional boards, so they want to establish their bonafides by using taxpayer money, and instead they are being accomplishing nothing and being foolish. All for show.


Posted by Its an opinion piece, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 7, 2013 at 11:03 am

"These subsidies would be more effective if put into public transportation."

Why? So we can have more empty buses traversing Palo Alto?


Posted by neighbor, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 7, 2013 at 12:37 pm


@Chris
Yeah, but they're still status symbols in Palo Alto, all that counts (maybe with exception of Prius, which has become too common)
I am all for research and advancements in transportation options, but a thorough look is necessary to ensure it isn't a shell game.


Posted by CrescentParkAnon, a resident of Crescent Park
on Jul 7, 2013 at 4:38 pm

Since you did not mention the reasoning behind the article I'm assuming it goes something like "power plants and CO2 sunk into the manufacture of Hybrids/Pluggables add up to more CO2 when summed up according to the author?

Is that about right.

Imagine then if the power plants were all nuclear, and there was no C02?

We had better get our heads out of our "nether regions" and be serious about power generation. We had also better start looking at some of the proposed benign solutions to global warming like reversing desertification and seriously changing what we are doing to the planet.


Posted by MAY, might, maybe, a resident of Palo Verde
on Jul 7, 2013 at 5:49 pm

Chris: they "MAY" cause... Wow, way to commit there, buddy.

How much bay area electricity comes from coal?

Yeah.

How many miles on your bike in June? Caltrain? Bus? Walk?

Your car?


Posted by An Engineer, a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 8, 2013 at 12:25 pm

"This article does not apply in California, where there are fewer high-pollution coal-burning power plants."

Wrong. See below.

"How much bay area electricity comes from coal?"

About 45%, which is the national average. There is no way to tell where any particular quantum of energy you receive from the grid originates. It all mixes together. Proximity to a given power plant does not matter.


Posted by Its an opinion piece, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 8, 2013 at 12:47 pm

Where do you get 45%? thanks.

" "How much bay area electricity comes from coal?" "

"About 45%, which is the national average. There is no way to tell where any particular quantum of energy you receive from the grid originates. It all mixes together. Proximity to a given power plant does not matter."


Posted by seven tenths of ONE percent, a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 8, 2013 at 12:57 pm

"45%"

What is this gal smoking? Coal?

"California had 10 coal-fired generating stations in 2005, with 439 MW of capacity, representing 0.7% of the state's total electric generating capacity; California ranks 44th out of the 50 states in terms of coal-fired electric generating capacity"

Love to see her sources for the bogus 45% figure! Or is she hiding behind the "its fungible" smoke/coal/screen fallacy?


Posted by Trannie Transmission, a resident of Triple El
on Jul 8, 2013 at 1:31 pm

Transmission loss accounts for 7% of electrical power generated. Shipping power from coal plants in Kentucky would lose much more than the 7%, maybe double or triple. Nevada generates 28% of their electrical from coal. Thinking that California imports substantial coal produced electricity needs equally substantial reference to make that even a valid argument, let alone fact.

Multiple sources peg CA electricity imports around a quarter to a third (the pro-nuke sites tend to claim higher imports.) Note the 2nd chart on this page Web Link or a nuke viewpoint Web Link

No way the math works, not even close to 45%. Probably closer to 4.5% than 45%. Therefore, given that massively erroneous claim, take all related claims from those posters with a healthy grain of salt, including the IEEE link.


Posted by Cal Zachary, a resident of Crescent Park
on Jul 8, 2013 at 1:57 pm

I can not understand why some have such an axe to grind against those that conserve. Having a fuel efficient car is good, but others need to search far and wide for conspiracy theories to 'prove' it's wrong to be efficient. Of course, in this forum, we have that group of conspiracy theorists posting a questionable opinion piece, while another just makes up her own 'facts'.

What drives such malevolent behavior?


Posted by An Engineer, a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 8, 2013 at 3:53 pm

"No way the math works..."

Of course not. You're doing it all wrong.

It's a freshman textbook problem in electrical engineering: Calculate what fraction of the power consumed by a given load in a multi-load, multi-source network originates from a designated source. The student eventually realizes it cannot be done. The electrical energy on the grid is a perfectly homogenized mix of all its sources.

Like, how would you extract the color of your house from that hue known as "The Color of Palo Alto"? Sure, it's in there, but... .

Although California's electrical energy import may numerically correspond to the its net consumption minus its generation, that import/homebrew distinction says nothing about how the energy powering your toaster at any moment was generated. It's whatever stew happens to be on the grid at the instant.

"Shipping power from coal plants in Kentucky would lose much more than the 7%, maybe double or triple."

This "analysis" rests on a water flow analogy that does not apply. There is nothing physical flowing from the generator to your toaster. In fact, the electrons in AC-energized transmission lines travel less than the width of a hair during their 60 shakes-per-second odyssey.

Electrical energy is an abstraction. The generators only establish an electrical potential (voltage) on the grid; your toaster taps onto it to warm those Pop-Tarts. That's all any knowledgeable person can say.


Posted by A Scientist, a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 8, 2013 at 4:03 pm

What a complete and utter crock.

"Electrical energy is an abstraction"

It's magic! No energy ever lost in transmission! Nothing to see here!


Web Link


Frequently Asked Questions: How much electricity is lost in transmission and distribution in the United States? According to EIA data, national, annual electricity transmission and distribution losses average about 7% of the electricity that is transmitted in the United States. Web Link

@TrannieTransmission is absolutely correct. There is NO WAY that 45% of California's energy is generated from coal. Not even close. @engineer then spouts nonsense.


Posted by IEEE'er, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jul 8, 2013 at 4:24 pm

Not all engineers belong to IEEE and receive their publications. Aside from the coal issue, their is the toxic issue of battery disposal. Those batteries are huge, poisonous, and the materials in them--rare earths, among others-- are in very limited supply. if everyone drove an electric car, we would soon run out of rare earths.


Posted by An Engineer, a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 8, 2013 at 4:41 pm

"It's magic! No energy ever lost in transmission! Nothing to see here!"

What I said was that the energy delivered to a particular load from a given source cannot be quantified in a complex network. The Grid is such a network.

See for yourself. Solve the freshman problem I posed. Show your work, and no credit for magic.

(Hint: represent each transmission line segment as an equivalent load impedance.)


Posted by Its an opinion piece, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 8, 2013 at 4:50 pm

An Engineer

And where does your 45% number come from?

Where are all these Coal generation plants located?


Posted by she NOT an engy neer, a resident of Evergreen Park
on Jul 8, 2013 at 5:16 pm

@engineer will NEVER defend the 45% figure. Her posts are all smoke, deflection and obfuscation. Just another of these strange folks who have some weird 'ax to grind' about our good neighbors who attempt to conserve.

"if everyone drove an electric car" then we would have 6.974 billion electric cars, the population of earth in 2011. Not a slippery slope fallacy, but close. And better than @engineer's dallying around posting simple word problems to avoid admitting the number is hopelessly in error.

Bet he NEVER answers: where's 'the 45% number of CA electricity from coal' from?


Posted by ts an opinion piece, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 8, 2013 at 5:27 pm

Another problem is I dont think An engineer understands the geography of the grid either, but I thought I would give the person a chance. So I'll ask that question as well. An engineer do you know the geography of the grid you are tied into? Do you understand that transmission lines both have capacity and loss. There is very little coal in the grid that you get your energy from. You do get that there is not one nationwide grid, right?


Posted by Craig Laughton, a resident of College Terrace
on Jul 8, 2013 at 6:04 pm

>There is very little coal in the grid that you get your energy from.

The vast majority of Palo Alto electrical power comes from non-renewable resources. Large hydro, contracted by PA, which displaces coal onto other people, is not a renewable.

'An engineer' has it right. Displacement of vibrating electrons is not a serious argument, when it comes to renewables/CO2 issues. There is no energy free lunch. For example, if Nevada had outbid PA on large hydro, and PA had to buy coal, how would that make us look? Answer: It doesn't matter...vibrating electrons are fungible.


Posted by Its an opinion piece, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 8, 2013 at 6:27 pm

There is very little power generation from coal on the western grid, Craig. No where near 45%


Posted by Its an opinion piece, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 8, 2013 at 6:45 pm

ok I found the figure. 18.8% of the power supplied by the grid california is on is coal based. Also the zone we are in is even lower. Electric supplies the zone first and surpluses are supplied to other zones in the grid. Transfers to other zones are limited by the transmission lines that connect them.


Posted by Greenie Meadowlark, a resident of Greenmeadow
on Jul 9, 2013 at 10:11 am

link on the 18% figure?

This EIA chart shows it to be next-to-nothing for CA generation, so it must be imports, and nlocal states are also low; click the electricity tab Web Link

"In 2011, California ranked third in the Nation in conventional hydroelectric generation, first in net electricity generation from other renewable energy resources, and first as a producer of electricity from geothermal energy."


Posted by Greenie Meadowlark, a resident of Greenmeadow
on Jul 9, 2013 at 10:31 am

EIA, CA net electrical power generated by source, in GWh, Mar 2013

Nuke 1
Hydro 1.8
Renewable, other 3
Gas 8

Coal - less than 1/10 of 1 GWh (actually less, hard to read bar chart when that small)

engy is right, Engineer has disappeared, will start posting under another made up title.


Posted by Its an opinion piece,, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 9, 2013 at 10:40 am

The 18.8% number comes from the report that the WECC, the grid we are part of, puts out. The grid is larger than California. I bet your number is more in line with what California generates via CAISO.

You can find the make up of the generation for the grid here

Web Link

This will document my claim that coal electric generation is more of an east coast thing

Web Link

So my only point is that the 45% number is incorrect even if you consider the entirety of the WECC. I did not want to even explain how California's coal number is even lower than 18.8% as I believe that would require more information than I am willing to type. ;-) But I hinted at it when I pointed out the grid is broken up into zones. It is easy to supply power within a zone. Between zones has limitations and thats why I claim there is a limit to how much power CA can purchase from other zones within the grid that might or might not use dirtier sources like coal to produce their power.




Posted by Greenie Meadowlark, a resident of Greenmeadow
on Jul 9, 2013 at 11:02 am

Opinion: thanks - good stuff.

Between you, engy and others, poster engineer's stupid claim of 45% has been thoroughly debunked.


Posted by Craig Laughton, a resident of College Terrace
on Jul 9, 2013 at 4:20 pm

The basic numbers for California are listed in this link:

Web Link

The vast majority of CA's electrical power production comes from non-renewable sources, including about 7-8% coal (directly). If nuclear is given up, then even more coal or natural gas will be needed, neither of which is carbon-free. If large hydro is given up, in order to provide for wild streams, and eliminate prior environmental damage, then even more coal will be needed (displacement). Any way it is considered, there is no way that enough renewable energy is available to fuel electric cars, either now, or going forward...unless we are talking about shutting down the economy for the relatively less rich.


Posted by An Engineer, a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 9, 2013 at 4:36 pm

"poster engineer's stupid claim of 45% has been thoroughly debunked."

Sorry, but no amount of "debunking" can change the facts. Take my challenge, sketch out a multi-load, multi-source network, write its node or mesh equations, solve them, and try to compute how much power each load gets from each generator. Be sure to square the circle and debunk the Pythagorean theorem while you're at it.

Anyway, how can you debunk if you can't even get my gender right?


Posted by Greenie Meadowlark, a resident of Greenmeadow
on Jul 9, 2013 at 4:38 pm

Thanks for the link. If by "(directly)" you mean both 'domestic' and imported from out of state, yes, 8%.

...a far cry from Engineers fabrication/fantasy/fairytale/lie of 45%

Palo Alto, according to the same site was ZERO % from coal, as was all of PG&E - ZERO percent, for those nearby Palo Alto Web Link Web Link


Posted by Greenie Meadowlark, a resident of Greenmeadow
on Jul 9, 2013 at 4:52 pm

(self claimed) Engineer: I did not debunk your silly claim.

The world, however, did say you're claim is loony...

.....including PG&E, The City of Palo Alto, the state of California, the California Energy Co mission, the US Energy Information Agency and all the others linked to above, and more.

Sorry, you lose. Want to open a new thread with math problems? You go, girl!


Posted by Its an opinion piece, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 9, 2013 at 5:00 pm

An engineer, prove your 45% claim, please.


Posted by An Engineer, a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 9, 2013 at 5:25 pm

"An engineer, prove your 45% claim, please."

Look it up yourself, or use whatever figure you like. There's a variety of them on the eia.gov website. The fact is there will be coal-colored juice flowing out of your wall sockets until the last coal plant on the grid is shut down.

The Palo Alto Power Content Label Web Link is a nifty feel-good thing, no more. It only fools the technologically unsophisticated.

The PAPCL lists who Palo Alto Utilities pays money to. But, unless PAU has its own private transmission lines from those payees to its Colorado Ave switchyard (and we all know it doesn't), with no connection to the external grid, the Power Content Label is total fiction regarding the power going into your house. Because that power is delivered over the grid, the power you actually get is a uniform mixture of what is put on the whole grid, coal, nuclear, and all.


Posted by It's an opinion piece, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 9, 2013 at 5:38 pm

So basically you can't. Ok. Thanks


Posted by Greenie Meadowlark, a resident of Greenmeadow
on Jul 9, 2013 at 6:28 pm

"the power you actually get is (not) a uniform mixture of what is put on the whole grid"

Yup.

That is: 8% coal for all of CA, and for PG&E & PA: 0%

I echo Opinion: thanks for playing, girlfriend, and please play again (when you have actual facts.)


Posted by Chris Zaharias, a resident of Crescent Park
on Jul 10, 2013 at 5:35 am

Putting aside the acerbic, irrational attacks put forth by some, I think this has been a great thread - I certainly learned a lot.

A good friend bought a Model S recently. He doesn't give a hoot about the emissions aspect of the vehicle - he just likes trying new cars and particularly enjoys that the car - in theory - will require little/no maintenance, and is super quick.

At least he's honest about his reasons for owning the car. I know many people who actually think they're 'doing their part' by paying $80-100K for an electric car, all while quietly accepting the tax break our state offers. Or, folks who have a Prius, a 4000ft2 house, a massive suburban, and vote for politicians who are against domestic energy production = wtf?


Posted by It's an opinion piece, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 10, 2013 at 7:46 am

I dont know about anyone being quiet about taking the credit or getting the HOV lane sticker.

Teslas are fun luxury cars, I dont own one, but I've driven my friends. I'd consider the "Palo Alto Pinto" when my car needs replacing. As for ecological, think of it this way its a lot easier to improve the environment at the energy supplier than at the car owner. Thats why they keep mucking with the gas formula. If you come up with a gas formula that burns cleaner then all of a sudden all the cars on the road pollute less. Same for electric cars, if you clean up the pollution at the energy provider, then the pollution is less. So is it easier to clean up petroleum pollution or electric producing? I think electric is easier personally, but I am by no means an expert. I also think electric energy producing is cleaner in the Western US than gas. However owners deserving a good citizen badge is not apparent, but I dont think a bad citizen badge is fair either. Cars are transportation, buy what works for you. Personally I go for good MPG, safe to drive, low maintenance and a Tesla fits that criteria, if I decide I can deal with the range issues, I might buy one. If low pollution is the goal though, I ride a bike, or walk.


Posted by It's an opinion piece, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 10, 2013 at 9:46 am

I suppose if you want to give these folks a pat on the back, for me it would be about using less imported energy.


Posted by It's an opinion piece, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 10, 2013 at 10:14 am

"Do electric cars simply move pollution from upper-middle-class communities in Beverly Hills and Virginia Beach to poor communities in the backwaters of West Virginia and the nation's industrial exurbs? Are electric cars a sleight of hand that allows peace of mind for those who are already comfortable at the expense of intensifying asthma, heart problems, and radiation risks among the poor and politically disconnected?"

btw, considering how and where oil is refined, I bet a producing electricity from nat gas is much cleaner and much nicer to live near.


Posted by California Girls, a resident of Midtown
on Jul 10, 2013 at 11:58 am

Sounds like Chris and the supposed "engineer" prefer we drag foreign oil halfway across the planet, complete it's absolutely filthy refining (just ask Chris' neighbors in Richmond; Chris - you do live in Richmond, next to one of the five refineries up there, don't you?) in Texas or elsewhere, ship our American dollars back to Arabs, just to fill up cars in California.

Opposed to having a high mileage Prius, or an electric car that runs off California hydro, wind, sun and Californian natural gas.

Tell me what the argument is all about, again? Sending money to the poor Arabs? Or using California sunshine?


Posted by An Engineer, a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 10, 2013 at 2:36 pm

"Sounds like Chris and the supposed "engineer" prefer we drag foreign oil halfway across the planet, complete it's absolutely filthy refining..."

Only that drivers of "clean" electric cars keep their noses out of the ionosphere. Electrics are fun to drive, and showily expensive to buy, but they have very long tailpipes that exhaust into dam-ruined rivers, bird-killing windmills, century-poisoning nuclear reactors, land-killing solar farms, and coal fired power plants filling the Four Corners air with smog and CO2. No green cred here.

"Opposed to having a high mileage Prius, or an electric car that runs off California hydro, wind, sun and Californian natural gas."

Hybrids are true green and elegant engineering achievements. They recycle energy that's otherwise lost irretrievably in the brakes. Only way to go. I drive one myself.


Posted by Barbara Ann, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Jul 10, 2013 at 2:52 pm

Sounds like Engineers own nose is out of joint, or feeling a little inferior with his Prius - "keep their noses out of the ionosphere."

Nice to see another engineer come out against nuclear. But she can't give up the coal in California thing (four corners?) and at least has backed off the 45% notion.

Hey Cal Girls, seen any of those beach boys around?


Posted by An Engineer, a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 10, 2013 at 4:35 pm

Hey, Babsie, why not proofread your thinking and your prose? Like:

1) I never said my hybrid was a Prius. There are others, you know. Or maybe you don't know. I'll concede that much.
2) I didn't come out against nuclear any more than I came out against hydro, wind, solar, or coal. All energy sources compromise the world; how anybody chooses to trash the environment is a matter of personal taste. What's your fave?
3) The 45% is on the eia website, as I indicated before. You just need to know how to read the data.
4) Try to be consistent about my gender. I don't care what you choose--maybe you find it easier to slander an imputed female--but do be consistent. Slow down. Try the decaf. Proofread.


Posted by It's an opinion piece, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 10, 2013 at 5:03 pm

"but they have very long tailpipes"

You get that oil refineries are extremely dirty, right? Dirtier than the electric generators you are complaining about even.

So I will give you that four corners is pretty dirty. Since it is located on the Navajo Indian Reservation, that limits the governments ability to regulate it; however, the EPA is still working on cleaning it up. That said, four corners is way outside our zone, so I would not worry too much about it increasing its power output to cover the needs of Palo Alto Tesla drivers. Power between here and there is not as free flowing as you seem to be asserting.

and I already proved the 45% number is untrue ;-)


Posted by Barbara Ann, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Jul 10, 2013 at 5:14 pm

Engineer:

Prius owns the market, selling more than the rest compbined. If you bought a lesser car, good for you.

Let's compare your statements: "century-poisoning nuclear reactors" vs. "I didn't come out against nuclear"

I can see why posters above liked taking you to task for your odd statements. Repeat: they proved your 45% statement was erroneous. You have failed to prove otherwise.

Proofread? No need, the other posters have highlighted many of your errors; you've yet to substantiate your claims like the 45%, why should anyone take the rest of your claims seriously.

re: gender - the posters above referred to you as feminine (at least biologically, obviously). If not, please clarify. You obviously have issues. Just re-read your post from 30 mins ago.


Posted by An Engineer, a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 11, 2013 at 9:47 am

"You have failed to prove otherwise."

The proof is here for those capable of understanding it. It is widely known in my profession.

What I have definitely proved is that the legend of Palo Alto hi-tech sophistication is a myth, at least in this forum.


Posted by It's an opinion piece, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 11, 2013 at 10:24 am

An Engineer,

Hand waving is not proof.


Posted by observations, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 11, 2013 at 11:03 am

Give it up. The "greenie" post settled it.

Engineer claims (without any facts or data) that he is smarter than ".....PG&E, The City of Palo Alto, the state of California, the California Energy Co mission, the US Energy Information Agency and all the others linked to above, and more" who substantiate the 8% figure (which is higher than i would have guessed, given the lack of coal plants in CA.)

They say 8%. Engineer shouts and "handwaves" (nice assessment!) about 45%, a figure that doesn't even pass the smell test.

Chris lost interest in his thread, having achieved his goal of finding a troll and a couple diehards not willing to let him/her/it have the last word. Barbara Ann is offended that Engineer roasted her because some other poster got under his/her/it's skin, so he takes it out on her. What a guy. Typical in an anonymous forum.

Shut 'er down. Close this forum. It's done.


Posted by observations, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 11, 2013 at 11:05 am

Oh, last thought: points for the two posters with classic summertime song references!


Posted by nyt ucs, a resident of Stanford
on Aug 13, 2013 at 10:04 am

zahraias:

"The California part of the story is upbeat: a hypothetical Los Angeles Leaf would be accountable for the release of an admirably low level of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, about the same as a gasoline car getting 79 miles per gallon. But the Denver car would cause as large a load of greenhouse gases to enter the atmosphere as some versions of the gasoline-powered Mazda 3, a compact sedan rated at 33 m.p.g. in combined city and highway driving by the Environmental Protection Agency. In simple terms, the effect of electric vehicles on the amount of greenhouse gases released into the environment can span a wide range, varying with the source of the electricity that charges them. California's clean power makes the Leaf a hero; the regional mix of coal-dependent utilities serving Denver diminish the car's benefits as a global-warming fighter."

Web Link

Web Link

best news: as the grid gets cleaner, the cars get cleaner. We are building a 'bank' that pays off now and in the future.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Scottís Seafood Mountain View to close, reopen as new concept
By Elena Kadvany | 13 comments | 3,976 views

Who Says Kids Donít Eat Vegetables?
By Laura Stec | 9 comments | 2,062 views

Richard Linklater's Masterpiece "Boyhood"
By Anita Felicelli | 5 comments | 1,366 views

How Bad Policy Happens
By Douglas Moran | 21 comments | 1,350 views

The life of Zarf
By Sally Torbey | 8 comments | 1,003 views