Getting a Grip |
Don't Drink The Electric Car Kool Aidby Michael I. Niman |
|
|
Two incongruous stories dominated the environmental news beat this week. Story number one was about the long-awaited debut of the “affordable” 2011 Tesla Model S plug-in electric car. The California-made sedan promises to do zero to 60 with Porsche-like acceleration while carrying seven passengers 300 miles on a single 45 minute charge. This is the cake we can eat all day and never get fat: a bling ride that’s certified clean and “green.” Auto sans exhaust. Just what the doctor ordered: easy-to-swallow medicine for a feverish planet. Just plug it in, charge it up, and off you go saving the planet at 100 miles an hour. How cool is that?
Then there’s story number two: Earth Hour. That’s the let’s-shut-everything-off-for-an-hour-and-think-about-global-warming holiday. The premise of Earth Hour is that our insatiable habit of plugging in to the grid is cooking the planet with carbon emissions. Earth Hour is a symbolic electricity fast whose participants hope, by temporarily darkening their homes and cities, to demonstrate a mandate to confront global warming. Organizers termed the event a success. And for good measure, nature kicked in at the same time with an unusually heavy dose of fire and brimstone in the form of tornadoes, blizzards, more tornadoes, more blizzards—both in places where they really don’t belong—and finally a good biblical dose of flooding up through the center of the country.
Weird weather aside, it seems like an okay week for the environment. We got that nasty car thing solved while getting to keep our car culture, thanks to electric cars, and we’ve all banded together to swear off demon electricity, at least for an hour. All this with the obvious irony seeming to escape the last employed journalists.
I hate to rain on such a nice parade, but let me throw this idea out there: Electricity has to come from somewhere. I know it’s somewhat of an alien concept in a consumerist society—that things come from someplace, and garbage, in turn, goes someplace. Consumerists believe food comes from the supermarket, not from the hands of abused migrant farm workers, malnourished third world nations, or massive concentrated animal feedlot operations. Likewise, the toxic sludge from our sewage treatment plants and the mountains of solid waste we generate also go somewhere, to a place we’ll simply name “away.”
The Tesla folks claim you can cruise the Thruway in style spending just a fraction of what it would cost to hit the same lane in, say, your Honda Civic. More specifically, they claim it will cost about one cent per mile to fuel your Tesla. That’s about one fifth the cost of fueling a diesel Volkswagen or a gas hybrid Prius. Figure four bucks, Buffalo to New York. I just don’t believe that you can drive a ton and a half of car 400 miles for roughly what it costs to plug your computer in for the month. Man, this is looking good. Like crack.
As a society, we’ve developed a twinge of environmental consciousness. We don’t like to see or smell sewage, and we don’t like to breathe sooty, smoggy air. Actually, this isn’t environmental consciousness at all. It smells more like run-of-the-mill selfishness. Our sewage treatment plants clean up our local waters while shipping concentrated sewage sludge, euphemistically renamed “biosolids,” to be dumped in Texas. And our clean air isn’t a result of any personal sacrifice we’ve made. To the contrary, we consume more crap than ever, causing more pollution than has ever been produced in human history. Only we produce that pollution in places like China, India, and Vietnam. These factories are dirtier than ever—only we don’t have to see or breathe the filthy byproducts of our consumerist addictions. So we have clean air and clean water. Yay, Earth Day!
Let’s look at one of Tesla’s advertising lines through this smudged lens. Tesla giddily claims that “zero emissions equals zero guilt.” No exhaust pipe. No pollution. At least none at the back of the new car you’re sniffing.
This brings me to what I fear is the real game here. “Clean” electric cars are a shill for the nuclear power industry. There is no dirtier or more foolhardy source of energy than nuclear. The industry only exists because a compliant government has waived, and in essence passed on to us, the motherlode of all liability insurance costs. Nuclear wastes are the deadliest, and hence dirtiest, and most persistently toxic industrial byproducts ever created in human history. Our two-generation romance with this demon has left the responsibility of dealing with radioactive waste to our next 20,000 generations.
But how bad can nuclear power really be? Like the Tesla, there’s no exhaust pipe.
By Tesla’s own admission, when you accelerate their car, its batteries bleed enough power to illuminate 2,000 old-fashioned incandescent light bulbs. Put a fleet of these pigs on the highway with everyone pulling into the driveway and plugging in at night and the current electric grid is toast. Electricity is, by nature, an inefficient energy source, since the act of energy consumption is far removed from the act of production by a series of inefficient conversion and transmission processes. Put simply, when you burn coal or natural gas, our two main sources for electricity generation power, you have to convert that fuel into rotary movement in an electric turbine that has to reconvert that movement into electricity, which then has to be transmitted over electric lines with a per mile discharge loss. This diminished form of coal or gas then has to be transformed one more time into stored battery power, again with a power loss, then transformed yet again, into rotary energy in the Tesla’s motor. By the time the rubber hits the pavement, what you have, given the fact that almost half of all electricity in the US comes from coal, is a very inefficient coal-powered car.
Here’s where the nuclear industry comes in. We all know, despite the coal industry’s oxymoronic “clean coal” campaign, that coal is dirty. It’s dirty when you remove the tops of mountains to mine it, and it’s dirty when you burn it. Natural gas, our next biggest electric energy source, is getting scarcer and more expensive by the year. And both of these fossil fuels produce the greenhouse gasses that the Earth Hour crowd claims are cooking the planet and making weird weather.
So what else is there in the mix? Our next largest source for electric power is carbon-neutral nuclear energy. For a carbon-obsessed society that won’t give up consumption, doesn’t understand science, doesn’t care about history, and has an irrational trust of its government, nuclear is the obvious answer.
Sure, there’s wind, biomass, and solar energy. These energy sources, combined with conservation, can indeed power us into the foreseeable future. But the key here is combining these energy sources with energy-saving technologies—a category into which a car the equivalent of 2,000 incandescent light bulbs just won’t fit. Put simply, there isn’t enough acreage on earth to build all the windmills and solar collectors needed to power the hundreds of millions of electric cars some folks envision us driving.
Clues to the upcoming electric car-nuclear marriage come from Tesla’s own promotional materials, in which they tout the “environmental benefits” of their car. With California as their initial car market, Tesla cites that state’s electric grid as “having a generation mix [that] is already extremely clean.” Right below this statement, they have a pie chart showing almost 15 percent of the state’s supposedly “clean” electricity coming from nuclear power, with only one and a half percent coming from wind and two tenths of a percent coming from solar.
It gets worse. Half of California’s nuclear-generated electricity comes from the Diablo (Devil’s) Canyon power plant. Built adjacent to the active Hosgri earthquake fault line and directly above a second intersecting fault (yes, X marks the spot), the Diablo plant, which was recently forced off-line when jellyfish clogged its cooling intake pipes, essentially represents a nuclear roll of the dice. For Californians to drive Teslas, it involves putting more dice like these into play. It’s only a matter of time before a pair comes up snake eyes. This is the devil behind our newfound electric car euphoria.
Dr. Michael I. Niman is a professor of journalism and media studies at Buffalo State College. His previous Artvoice columns are available online at www.artvoice.com, archived at www.mediastudy.com, and available globally through syndication.
Reader Comments
Mike 02 Apr 2009, 09:20
"Dr. Michael I. Niman is a professor of journalism and media studies at
Buffalo State College." And apparently also an expert on all forms of electrical power generation.
John 02 Apr 2009, 11:00
I was trying to sift through this rant to see the point. What is it?
Nuclear waste is bad, electric cars aren't all their cracked up to be? I
agree that Earth Hour and the Tesla are complete farces, but I am dismayed
that you put biomass as a viable alternative, when it has the the most
damaging immediate side effects of any of the alt-energy sources. When
consumed on a large scale, bio-fuels will put massive pressure on land use
and speed up deforestation like you haven't seen. It's funny that you mention everything must come from somewhere, but you fail to make the connection to "alternative" energies. Hydro-electric dams are touted by environmentalists for their cleanliness, but throughout the third-world, they have pushed sizeable communities off ancestral lands, and reduced the self-sufficiency of their nations. The electricity generated by these ends up being used by a wealthy minority embracing western consumerist values in lit-up urban centers. If you add enough windmills, you will start to see a big impact on the global climate as wind patterns will be significantly altered. Over-consumption is a major problem, but this has been ongoing since people first started forming fixed settlements and cities thousands of years ago. You can pretend you aren't contributing to this by riding your bike with critical mass or dumpster diving for day-old bagels with the food not-bombs crowd, but you would still be just as dependent on the consumerist society to survive, even if it is on other people's waste. Except for the handful of peoples living in tribal societies on tropical islands, without the need for mass production because the local environment provides them with all they need, we will continue to have to balance human progress with environmental challenges. Nuclear power has its problems, as does any energy source, but the negative effects can be limited if controlled.
David 02 Apr 2009, 15:25
Well said, Michael. The Tesla has many drawbacks, not exactly the car I'd
want. The main thing going for it is that it is in production, not some
vaporware, it does exist. A Tesla just finished a rally of 240 miles on
one charge, and had 60 miles of power left. So we have the Tesla in 2009,
I don't know what we'll have in 2010 or 2011, but it might be an
improvement on the Tesla. There's a list of self powered electric vehicles at http://www.selfpoweredelectricvehicles.com/ Vehicles that need no nuclear or coal plant to run, cars, boats, and even planes. The 21st century is going to be interesting.
Eric K 02 Apr 2009, 15:48
I suppose all these things are steps forward that we'll look back on
someday as part of the path to progress, not the ultimate destination.
What would really change things is for someone to perfect a superconductor
- you would need a fraction of the power you currently need for things.
Don Barry 02 Apr 2009, 20:17
Qualitative analyses often work in the humanities but rarely in the physical sciences. A few specific units, manipulated with high school mathematics, would strengthen some of Niman's points.. and overturn others. Which ones? Since he didn't do the analysis, I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader.
Turin 03 Apr 2009, 11:53
You just can't please some people. Especially, where politics are
involved....
pumpkinseed 03 Apr 2009, 16:25
I really think some of you are missing the point to this article. I think
that Dr. Nimen is perfectly aware of the draw backs to alternative energies
and that overconsumption has been a problem 'since people first started
forming fixed settlements and cities thousands of years ago.' While riding in critical mass and practicing a 'freegan' lifestyle do require consumption to begin with, it is the the only way people can retain their values in a world so far gone. Try to imagine this planet if humans, or something equally destructive, hadn't evolved...impossible. Just do what you think is right.
Turin 03 Apr 2009, 16:48
I think that we're nature's nanobots. That, it is the "Gaian" (if you will) purpose of all intelligent species to bring this universe to a higher order. That, things are being driven to a higher degree than, simply, a bunch of fish turds produced by the mere chemical reactions of biological life. That, the evolution of intelligence is the next step, after dumb mechanic physical have reached their optimal patterns. So, go sit on a log, smoke the local flora and leave as little of an imprint on the environment, as you like. If you want to melt your brain back down until only your raw animal functions are left, then that's your problem. There's being ecologically destructive and there's being ecologically creative, without the waste. Humanity was meant to help develop a higher universe....
pumpkinseed 03 Apr 2009, 16:54
'Humanity was meant to help develop a higher universe....' ahaha...maybe you should stop drinking whatever kool-aid you were served.
Turin 03 Apr 2009, 17:09
Hahaha...maybe, you should "recycle" that Affirmative Action degree.
pumpkinseed 03 Apr 2009, 17:39
Trying to put everything into a hierarchy is incredibly superficial.
Turin 03 Apr 2009, 17:48
Trying to tear down everying hierarchical (I.e. order) is incredibly pagan.
Have You Coddled a Liberal Today? 03 Apr 2009, 18:57
I agree with Turin. By definition structure is the opposite of
superficiality. But that smell the roses attitude that goes with
environmentalism sure is superficial.
Turin 04 Apr 2009, 03:56
True, HYCALT. But, you can't expect much out of pretentious trash
...especially, these days. Glamorizing (I.e. patronizing) the lower
lifestyles is a pony show that the "college kids who came from working
class parents" shtick has been putting on for years, in order to justify
their hypocritical values. Good news is that, we've just about finally reached the point where that rusting 1950-60s syndicate can't be propped up, anymore. The brats have been a long, slow money drain on the economy and there's, really, nothing left. So, the shallow, anti-authoritarian hostility of these petite-bourgeoise just doesn't carry the kind of weight, with the rest, that it once did. Too bad ...so sad. :D
Art Lemasters 04 Apr 2009, 11:06
Amen to that.
Betty Barcode 04 Apr 2009, 13:36
The point that Dr. Niman misses is that depleting our favorite fossil fuels
(oil, gas) means that everything, not just cars, might well be nuclear or
coal-powered in the future, including your i-phone, laptop, MP3 player,
refrigerator, microwave, and lightbulbs--plus everything running our
favorite playground, the internet. How green is your server farm? Not
very. The only advantage of powering cars on electricity is that emissions are concentrated at a few sources, dramatically increasing our ability to trap and neutralize them. Unlike now, where emissions belch from a gazillion tailpipes. The disadvantage is that keeping a colossal fleet of cars on the road at any cost just promotes more unsustainable suburban sprawl, which in turn promotes more unsustainable automobile use. This is why the Obama administration is better off investing in mass transit rather than highways. Automobile ownership should not be mandatory to function as an adult in America. It wasn't a century ago and somehow goods and services were exchanged, kids got educated, food made it to tables. If we reduced the need for cars in the first place, we wouldn't so scary a coal vs. nuke problem. Having said that, there is nothing stopping you or Dr. Niman from selecting 100% wind power from your utility supplier right now, as we did in our household. I am under no illusions that the world's electricity demands can be met solely by wind, but because a technology cannot do everything does not mean it should do nothing.
Turin 04 Apr 2009, 15:43
Technology is NEVER going to be green enough to meet the needs of the
spoiled suburban dweller who is the earth's biggest consumer, or of the
spoiled liberal consumer, who is the earth's most insecure human being,
born out of his/her backward hostility to progress ...along with all of
her/his millions of other personal-inferiority complexes. It's one thing to get all skeptical regarding the amazingly low projected cost, to the consumer, of the Tesla automobile, on the basis of much higher carbon emissions, created earlier in the energy production process. The emissions from these fuels go into the environment, as an integral part of the process. But, it's another to try it with nuclear energy, as regards the waste, because the waste only goes into the environment as a result of unplanned accidents. Perfecting the technology would increasingly reduce those accidents. And, in line with our developing technologies, Why couldn't we find newer, more innovative places/ways to dispose of the accumulating waste? Let's say the moon. There's been talk of a NASA program for establishing a moon base in the near future. If we could actually produce anything there, then we might also be able to establish a regular traffic route, and, then, during lunar-bound return trips we could be sending our waste there. Perhaps, some of the nuclear energy production could even be carried out there - if some feasible form of large scale batteries could be developed for shipping such quantities of electricity back home. Or, even in smaller quanities. The possibility, and practicality, of creating an entire manufacturing colony on the moon seems close to being realized. So, let's get with the real program. Stop looking for (political) holes in every alternative, while shooting down the other good ideas, too. Technology can, definitely, be our damnation. But, it can, equally, be our savior.
User Loser 04 Apr 2009, 22:59
Turin there's a term. To little to late. I think I could up it with Day
late and a dollar short. I've a suspicion that if we came up with fusion
tomorrow it is going to be too late. Humanity is likely corkscrewing in and
there is nothing to be done except relax and enjoy the end of humanity. The
biggest problem we have is that the damage is already done. Some of the
worst damage was done thousands of years ago but because of the incredible
latencies in ecological systems won't show up for thousands of years. Good
luck with those dreams of technologies that with save the world when no one
really is going for the tech degrees or doing the basic research that will
be necessary. After 25 years of building no reactors it is doubtful we
could even build a reactor in the United States without a huge input of
foreign expertise. The United States is a has been nation with delusions of
grandeur built up watching too many Disney Specials. Goodnight Irene
Turin 05 Apr 2009, 02:05
You're preaching to the choir on most of that. And, yet, if someone were to propose a gaggle of programs to employ teachers, healthcare workers, and anything else that could redundantly employ/promote women and elevate them out of their supposedly oppressed state, then it would be as if every fault line and other environmental problem had been magically sent to the bottom of the pending list of problems facing humanity. ...Without resorting to any of those political solutions, there's another term that comes to mind: Try.
Woody 05 Apr 2009, 23:28
Now that's truth. At the center of every liberal is a dank dark pit of
inferiority and self centeredness. A shallow cowardly phony who can't
relate to others but is good at faking it. Cheers!
Caldwell 08 Apr 2009, 00:06
Liberals are all doom and gloom.
G.R.L. Cowan
21 Apr 2009, 12:45
The several lies that the author tells about nuclear energy are all meant
to protect his natural gas interest. In each case, he asserts some fault in
nuclear energy that in fact exists in the highly tax-paying natural gas
sector, and thus protects the natgas component of his government cheque.
Leave a Comment:
|
|
Issue Navigation> Issue Index > v8n14 (Week of Thursday, April 2, 2009) > Don't Drink The Electric Car Kool Aid This Week's Issue • Artvoice Daily • Events Calendar • Classifieds |







Subscribe