Berlin Announces Plans for World's Largest Community Electric Car Infrastructure

I think this is a fantastic idea! As someone famous once said " the best is the enemy of the good". Yes, in the short term, this might contribute a few extra kgs of CO2 but a 100% electric society is far easier to green than one which gets its energy from different sources.

electric cars have a window of opportunity to exist before global economies collapse... I think they can intrinsically change how people view transportation in favor of sustainability... most of the electric car owners' viewpoints of ev groups I know of become much greener after having/building their green car - many putting up their own pv and wind systems. (ps how many ev owners do you personally know?) ... get the cars out NOW!!!!!

While I can see what Greenpeace are saying, they should be taking the long view on EVs.

Link EV sales with increases in renewable capacity - an EV consuming 150Wh/km driving 10,000 miles will consume about what a 3kWp solar installation generates in Europe in a year. The electric Loremo is expected to consume 60Wh/km so a 1.5kWp installation should comfortably cover it. Offer low interest green financing and a feed in tariff and near zero carbon personal transport will be affordable to a large number of people.

Across Europe we should be making big investments in grid improvements and supporting V2G technology. This will result in the inevitable growth in EVs supporting strong growth in renewables capacity, all the way up to 100%.

If what I have been reading the last three (3) months on EV's is correct, then Greenpeace needs to reevaluate what they are syaing and protesting about.

I was under the impression that if cars are charged during off-peak hours there really not much more carbon expended into the atmosphere.

Will someone please enlighten me?

I feel protest like these do far more harm than good because persons like myself are now confused.

And even though we would like to help, I WILL NOT SUPPORT A CAUSE THAT CANNOT GET ITS FACTS STRAIGHT.

That is why there is such a division on Global Warming. There are 32,000 people who put their names and reputation on the line with the Oregon Treaty and I have yet to see such a treaty on the other side of the argument.

R.J. says: "That is why there is such a division on Global Warming. There are 32,000 people who put their names and reputation on the line with the Oregon Treaty and I have yet to see such a treaty on the other side of the argument."

There is such a division because Exxon is still funding astroturf groups which dispute global warming and because the Bush administration has put ideology above facts and science and interfered with findings of government scientists across the board, but especially with regard to global warming.

If you are still confused on the matter of man-made global warming, it is the fault or either oil companies' and conservative media's decades-long propaganda. There is no division among those with the facts. Perhaps among the details, such as how fast and what the effects will be, but not the general idea that our planet is warming because of human activity.

Tell me, how many climate scientists have signed the Oregon Treaty? How many paleoclimatologists? The "Oregon Treaty" is a stunt to muddy the waters and deceive people . I wouldn't be surprised to find that it's creation leads back to Exxon.

Power production and power utilization are two very separate matters. Both need to be clean but one cannot blame a party for what it is not responsible for.

If the problem is the generation of electricity Greenpeace needs to target coal production without interfering with electric cars which are the only green solution for private transportation.

It would be different if electrical production could never be clean. The message here is that electric cars are one more incentive to produce clean electricity.

Furthermore the idea that electric cars emit more greenhouse gases when electricity comes from coal power plants it a myth. Electric engines are 2 to 3 times more energy efficient than the best internal combustion engines and do produce less greenhouse gases regardless of the source of energy.

Also electric cars being zero emission remove all other air-pollutions in cities, including cancer-causing particles, an other huge benefit in the right direction an in my opinion is enough to justify electric cars.

Finally the massive adoption of electric cars might help the smart grid reducing the need for additional power lines, reducing power losses, and enabling decentralized green power productions.

I therefore believe than Greenpeace energy would be better spent promoting electric cars.

"I was under the impression that if cars are charged during off-peak hours there really not much more carbon expended into the atmosphere."

@ R.J.

The carbon expended is not likely different. it's the price of electricity that changes. It would be cheaper to charge at off peak hours when the cost of electricity is less, when it is less in demand.

EV's biggest impact would be in urban environments where it would compete for funding with better alternatives such as buses and rails. Lets not forget that congestion is an even bigger problem for the future. As for EV efficiency has anyone figured out the efficiency of the fuel source itself? It takes gas to haul gas, but far less to move electricity. But batteries energy vs weight is far worse than liquid fuel as it doesn't reduce in weight when used or use outside oxygen.

Why is it the Europeans are always a step ahead of the rest. I hope others will follow suit.

Wolfgang Kruell
www.anonymity.at.tc

Greenpeace needs to put pressure on the governments to make electricity generation greener........they shouldn't protest against electric cars which are a step forwards.

Blocking EV's because of non green electricity generation is just plain idiotic and myopic. Cant believe Greenpeace would be so lame, one step at a time, this kind of irrationality only hinders the cause.

Greenpeace is way out of line here and I'm glad other commenters agree. How did Greenpeace get this so wrong?

"...electric cars which are the only green solution for private transportation." - Jean Vincent

Bicycles anyone?

I've started another thread on this issue here
http://tinyurl.com/55lggm . It seems to me that what is going on here is a debate between the potential future impact of EVs and the likely current impact. If EVs are ever to help us significantly reduce emissions, they are going to have to be powered by clean energy.

Greenpeace is right to be keeping everyone's eye on the ball -- what they are protesting is not EVs in general, but a partnership between and automakers and one of the world's largest electricity producers whose operations in many EU countries are still dominated by coal power. http://tinyurl.com/67762p The partnership between Toyota and EDF in the UK has similar problems.

These are among the world's largest energy utilities. Its a good sign that they want to be involved, but while the electricity is carbon based, the gains are imaginary. One thing to bear in mind when talking about gains "in the long run" is that current estimates give us about 7 years to turn this thing around. I really suggest reading this: (( http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Global%20warming/Phil%20Trans%20free/Anderson%20and%20Bows.pdf )) or at least their conclusions if you are in a rush.

R.J., your impression that, "if cars are charged during off-peak hours there really not much more carbon expended into the atmosphere," is, unfortunately, a common misconception. At night, only the coal plants are running. During the day, it's a mix. This NREL report linked from my name very carefully examined emissions for charging at different times, in different regions in the US, considering which power plants would be turned up or down or on or off as a result. The conclusion is that CO2 emissions are worse for charging at night--mostly coal fired--vs. other times, when there's more of a mix, including natural gas.

Night-time electricity is cheap, but it's not low emissions.

It would be silly to imagine GreenPeace should not protest against the prospect of EV's being powered by coal. The extraction of coal is a very serious assault to the environment and who's detriment must not be overlooked. If we must use coal power to get the EV project up and running we must tie the hands of the people responsible for this endeavor so that they don't get us hooked to coal like we are hooked to oil, or hooked any worse than we already are!