Mischievous headline, designed to attract eco-sceptics. EV’s are already environmentally beneficial in Western Europe, and lightweight ones like the Twizy would work well - once they can be made as cheaply as mass production allows - in the developing world where they can be recharged entirely from static solar panels. It’s helpful to be reminded that every technology switch has costs as well as benefits, but in the long run, electricity will be the motive force for personal and road transport as it already is for most other forms. How long a run that is is difficult to say in a free market economy.
The Guardian are debating this ‘research’ today;
I wonder if this will prompt the government to pay for solar panels on my house to charge it off grid?
Difficult to read into this report. Here in Essex, Tilbury Power Station built in the late 50’s early sixties has been converted to run on compacted wood fibre waste pellets, improving the carbon position of the electricity we use here… I also have solar panels and the knowledge that the Twizy costs £1 for about 46 miles (on my run). My Abarth could only do 6 miles for £1 (not including tax and insurance). What does 3.5hrs charge time drawing the 8.5amp current to charge the battery generate in terms of specific polution, when compared to energy/pollution to create petroleum from crude oil? I always feel that these reports tend to suggest that we stay as we are because we are happy with the pollution levels because the benefit for change is only 14% so dishonour everyones efforts in trying to make a difference. My students love my Twizy and all want to try it - change is coming. My reduction in my use of petroleum means I am making a double contribution in saving energy.
Just came across this very interesting post that basically highlights how rubbish the original article is. http://llewblog.squarespace.com/electric-cars/2012/10/11/the-truth-will-out.html