Welcome to the moron zone...
The whole idea is to use other, non-carbon intensive sources of electricity to provide all power in the future, and electric cars charged with power produce no emissions. So electric cars charged from getothermal(of which millions of Americans now use), hydroelectric, solar(which is rapidly growing with techology like roll-to-print nanosolar and others), wind and nuclear have very low carbon intensity.
In the case of nuclear the most promising development is a return to molten salt reactors that are meltdown resistant( the fuel is already contained in MOLTEN salt that expands as it cools naturally limiting the fission process), have almost complete burn up, can burn LWR waste of which there's hundreds of thousands of tins worldwide, run at near normal pressure(meaning no explosive release of gases in case of a reactor accident and produce much less waste that' has a much shorter half-life.
Oh, and would you look at this, radiation at low levels isn't the risk factor it's been claimed all those years, amazing:
Evidence for formation of DNA repair centers and dose-response nonlinearity in human cells
Single time or single dose measurements are snapshots and might not capture the complexity of the IR response of DNA damage-sensing proteins. Here, we present a methodology and a mathematical kinetic model that can characterize the DNA damage response simultaneously across both time and dose levels. Our results provide a more accurate model of RIF dose response, and underscore fundamental concerns about static image data ****ysis in the dynamic environment of the living cell. We observe that as the number of DSB increases in a cell, the number of RIF does not increase proportionally and the kinetics of RIF formation/disappearance is altered; RIF appear faster but remain longer in the cells as dose levels increase. These nonlinear processes cast considerable doubts on the general assumption that risk to IR is proportional to dose and could be interpreted as the consequence of DNA repair centers in human cells.
Impact of Results for Regulating Risk of IR on Human Populations. The current literature has assumed the linear-no-threshold hypothesis (LNT), which implies that any amounts of IR are harmful. LNT is used to set dose limits for radiation occupational workers or the general public. The LNT is based mainly on data from the Japanese atomic bomb survivors and secondarily on arguments involving the dose-response of surrogate endpoints. Gene mutations are thought to be the initiating events of cancer and they can occur via misrejoining of two DNA DSBs or via point mutation. Physical laws lead us to believe DSB frequencies are proportional to dose. Therefore, it is well accepted that point mutations are linear with dose because it requires only one DSB, whereas DSB misrejoinings are dependent to the dose squared (39). In the dose range of radiation cancer epidemiology, the quadratic term is almost always negligible, especially at low dose rates, as the first lesion is probably repaired before the second mutation occurs (40). However, the amount of DSB clustering at 1 Gy suggests a much higher quadratic term for DSB misrejoining than expected. Therefore, extrapolating risk linearly from high dose as done with the LNT could lead to overestimation of cancer risk at low doses.
Oh, and hey, it's starting to look like too little radiation can be a health risk:
“Initial results from June 2010 show … the growth of ‘radiation starved’ cells are (sic) inhibited
compared to cells grown in the presence of background radiation levels,” the researchers
One ton of thorium will provide 1 Gw/y of electricity and the worldwide supply is enough to last centuries. A LFTR(Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactor) can be much smaller and safer than traditional nuclear power plants and provide far more energy, while producing much less waste and fission by-products like Xenon(which is used as an advanced rocket fuel), Iodine-131 and Bismuth-213 which are used in nuclear medicine.
So in combination there's no need to use coal anymore, meaning that it comes down to the efficiency of the vehicles themselves.
Electric cars may require more resources to produce the large battery packs that power the vehicle, but there's almost no loss of energy in the running of the vehicle.
Enhanced nickel-iron batteries: Stanford scientists develop ultrafast nickel-iron battery
Graduate student Hailiang Wang, lead author of the study, said the team managed to increase the charging and discharging rate by nearly 1,000 times.
And EDLCs(Electric Double Layer Capacitors): Electric double-layer capacitor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ultracapacitors are used in some concept prototype vehicles, in order to keep batteries within resistive heating limits and extend battery life. The ultrabattery combines a supercapacitor and a battery in one unit, creating an electric vehicle battery that lasts longer, costs less and is more powerful than current plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs).
There are now effective ways to quickly charge and use regenerative braking, meaning very little loss of power from friction.
On the other hand you have "traditional" internal combustion vehicles that have many power robbing moving part, like valves, pistons, cam and drive shafts, most of the energy content of the fuel is simply blown out the tail pipe.
And if you look at the main source of Canadian crude oil that powers many vehicles it's hard to conceive of a less efficient source of energy.
- Large amounts of power are used to mine the millions of tons of tar sands daily to send to the primary processing plants.
- Massive amounts of water and natural gas are used to separate the bitumen from the waste.
- Upgrading uses further power to remove many of the impurities and create sythetic crude, some of the electricity used coming from COAL power generation.
- The sythetic crude is then sent to refineries where even more energy and more greenhouse gases are produced to turn it into consumer products.
- The fuel is then burned in IC vehicles.
Now here's a tough one for yah, if you charged your electric car with electricity created by hydro, nuclear, solar, wind, or natural gas power production would it be more of a "Global Warming Potential" than a car burning gasoline produced from tar sands "oil".
It's a rhetorical question...
We now return you to THE MORON ZONE...