12 thoughts on “New Nissan Ad: What if Everything ran on Gas?”
Hilarious.
But electric cars only make sense when the electricity is produced by renewable energy sources and not by thermal fossil fuel burning power plants (efficiency <40%). Else the emissions are just transferred from the car to the plant. That's where I see a real problem. 2009 more than 2/3 of the electricity in the US were still produced by coal (45%) and gas (23%), only around 11% by renewables (7% hydro + 4% others) [Source: Wikipedia]. With increasing demand due to electric cars the supply has to become tackled with priority.
The Nissan LEAF consumes about 0.3 kWh electricity per mile. If you drive an avarge 15,000 miles per annum the Nissan consumes 4,500 kWh in a year. The average US citizen is consuming already 10,896 kWh per year [Source: EIA].
I’m not against electric cars as an alternative to the gas guzzlers. I only want to say that alternative energy sources for producing electricity have to be developed more quickly and in addition to the existing sources then.
The last couple minutes of this sound exactly like where my interest is.
I don’t see the personally vehicle playing as important a role in growing metropolitan environments, simply due to the extra spatial footprint (think not only roads, but car parks and fuelling stations as cities grow). Transit orientated design needs to play a dominant roll in growing cities.
But most importantly, a point you made is one I tend to harp on about; meeting these challenges isn’t against progress and development, but enriches them. Need fuels innovation and we’re at an exciting point for revolutionising our technology and developing amazing new cities.
I often hear that the embodied energy in a car (the energy consumed to build it) would be equivalent to driving this car for 100,000 miles. Do you have any figures to that? And how does it look for battery driven cars (lithium etc.)?
in general there is a lot of energy embodied in a car – your figure is probably close.
I’m driving my 2000 chevy lumina into the ground, because I figure it’s not really saving any carbon to go to a new electric car too soon. (besides my choices keep getting better)
my wife and daughter won’t let me drive the Prius, anyway.
This was great. Particularly the overall message, what if we used fossil fuels for everything, coal, natural gas, oil would have been just as pretty. That is before adding in the parts of the mountaintop mining, pipeline leaks, well blowouts, water well contamination. This was only looking at the smog of use, not the blight of extraction. If people could see the overall impact of each kw of watt use, renewables would look much better. Of course if Palin was in the ad she would have like the smell of the emissions. I am really enjoying my Prius.
Hilarious.
But electric cars only make sense when the electricity is produced by renewable energy sources and not by thermal fossil fuel burning power plants (efficiency <40%). Else the emissions are just transferred from the car to the plant. That's where I see a real problem. 2009 more than 2/3 of the electricity in the US were still produced by coal (45%) and gas (23%), only around 11% by renewables (7% hydro + 4% others) [Source: Wikipedia]. With increasing demand due to electric cars the supply has to become tackled with priority.
The Nissan LEAF consumes about 0.3 kWh electricity per mile. If you drive an avarge 15,000 miles per annum the Nissan consumes 4,500 kWh in a year. The average US citizen is consuming already 10,896 kWh per year [Source: EIA].
I’m not against electric cars as an alternative to the gas guzzlers. I only want to say that alternative energy sources for producing electricity have to be developed more quickly and in addition to the existing sources then.
see here
The last couple minutes of this sound exactly like where my interest is.
I don’t see the personally vehicle playing as important a role in growing metropolitan environments, simply due to the extra spatial footprint (think not only roads, but car parks and fuelling stations as cities grow). Transit orientated design needs to play a dominant roll in growing cities.
But most importantly, a point you made is one I tend to harp on about; meeting these challenges isn’t against progress and development, but enriches them. Need fuels innovation and we’re at an exciting point for revolutionising our technology and developing amazing new cities.
Great presentation!
> Else the emissions are just transferred from the car to the plant.
Even if you charge your EV from a coal plant, it’s better than an ICE car. This fun video explains it:
* EVs don’t save on CO2! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfTiRNzbSko#t=6m08s
Good show, Peter.
I often hear that the embodied energy in a car (the energy consumed to build it) would be equivalent to driving this car for 100,000 miles. Do you have any figures to that? And how does it look for battery driven cars (lithium etc.)?
Thanks,
Charlie
in general there is a lot of energy embodied in a car – your figure is probably close.
I’m driving my 2000 chevy lumina into the ground, because I figure it’s not really saving any carbon to go to a new electric car too soon. (besides my choices keep getting better)
my wife and daughter won’t let me drive the Prius, anyway.
Women…
This was great. Particularly the overall message, what if we used fossil fuels for everything, coal, natural gas, oil would have been just as pretty. That is before adding in the parts of the mountaintop mining, pipeline leaks, well blowouts, water well contamination. This was only looking at the smog of use, not the blight of extraction. If people could see the overall impact of each kw of watt use, renewables would look much better. Of course if Palin was in the ad she would have like the smell of the emissions. I am really enjoying my Prius.
Is that a Chevy Volt at 0:44?
sharp eyes – I believe it is.
It would have been a perfect advertisement if they had not derided the Chevy Volt. Nissan sullied it a bit for me.
Great work Greenman.
Thanks