'zero emissions' electric cars - what exactly is the point?

It's a marketing gimmick. It will quickly part fools from there money.

The "huge amounts of pollution" are still less for an electric car compared to a standard internal combustion driven car. This is mainly because a large power plant can generate energy more efficiently than a comparably tiny engine. Not to mention that only about half of our electricity is generated by coal--any electric car that is powered by nuclear, hydro, wind, etc. will be totally carbon neutral.

That is but one point that you are missing. In addition to their overall better carbon efficiency, you have to remember that the pollution from conventional cars is generated right in the middle of the cities, where people live and breathe. Nasty stuff like NOx, CO, particulate matter, and VOC's are all emitted at street level by your average tailpipe. Using electric cars, from which the pollutants are generated in centralized plants that can be located far away from cities, is a huge public health advantage in this respect. Not to mention the aesthetic benefit of clearer urban air.

Furthermore, electric cars have the huge added benefit of helping us get off of foreign oil, and all of the nasty drama that this dependence carries with it. Energy independence has many economic and security benefits, and it would clearly be impossible to achieve energy independence as long as we rely so heavily on oil. The USA (or Canada, or UK, or probably anywhere else that you might happen to live) simply does not produce enough oil, nor could they ever even if the remaining untapped fractions of their reserves get fully utilized.

No one is saying that electric cars are perfect or even that they will always be the best option. Fuel cells or biodiesel may be better in the long run, but the former requires massive and enormously expensive infrastructure modifications while the latter is still unproven on large scales (and in many cases biofuels end up being dirtier than gasoline). Electric cars have their drawbacks as well. With any possible solution you should keep the drawbacks in mind, but you shouldn't lose sight of the benefits either.

It depends upon what point is trying to be made. "Zero emission Vehicle" can be a technical specification, an accurate description, a misleading casual reference, or a political statement. It is most important to understand the context and sometimes the source.

If a shipping and receiving company needs forklifts for inside its closed refrigerators they may specify "zero emissions vehicles" to use inside the mostly air tight spaces. In this instance lack of local emissions is the point. The description is intended to be very narrow and accurate. They are looking for vehicles and those vehicles must produce no emissions. Various laws also specify "zero emission vehicles."

-- CARB has specified the hydrogen powered honda FCX Clarity as a "zero emission vehicle." It produces no local emissions although the production of hydrogen may come from many sources some of which produce far more emissions than ICE vehicles.

By definition and connotation "emissions" have a source.1 In English usage by associating the word "emissions" with the word "vehicle" the customary inference is that we are discussing the emissions of the vehicle.

-- We are not discussing emissions of a component manufacturer like the tires or the plastics in the vehicle.

-- We are not discussing the exhaust gases of workers who may have worked on the vehicle.

-- We are not discussing emissions of gasoline refineries or even "emissions" of gasoline evaporating.

-- We are rather narrowly discussing the operation of the vehicle. When it comes to an electric vehicle "zero emissions" refers to the operation of the vehicle. In this way we may directly contrast the vehicle emissions of a petrochemical vehicle. We refer only to the operating emissions of the vehicle. Not the refinery or the power plant.

There may be some who would like to promote hydrogen and electric vehicles as pure as the first snow. The world is ever full of scams and marketing techniques. When it comes to the wider view of a transportation system many more factors must be taken into consideration than just a vehicle. At this point we may have no perfect solutions and an appropriate analysis may be subject to a comparison of alternatives. If we start with a vehicle that is not zero emissions a goal of reduced emissions is already compromised. When we start with a zero emissions vehicle (narrow dictionary definition) we can be inspired to build using our best manufacturing and reduced pollution power supplies.

The objection some may have to the term "zero emission vehicle" is an implication that it is somehow "better." "Better is a subjective term what is "better" for one person may not be best for another. The quality of "zero emission vehicle" is only one of many possible criteria.

There may also be some who would attempt to slander any attempt at a cleaner environment. For those people motivation may not be a matter of definitions or "truth" but self interest and profit incentives. We know that both Exxon-Mobil and Koch Industries have put a great deal of money into changing public opinion. For sources like these calling an EV a non zero emission vehicle is more or less like the "pot calling the kettle black."

What is more important than total time spent charging an EV is the amount of our attention it requires, about 6 seconds vs 10 minutes for the petrol car.

You are correct, there is no truly "zero" emission car. Just like a hybrid vehicle, an enormous amount of energy goes into producing them, and most electricity is still produced by dirty methods (coal, oil) rather than clean (vegetable diesel, solar, wind, hydro, biomass) However, an electric car still can be charged for only a few dollars worth of electricity, which was produced using less fuel than a gasoline only car would use to go the same distance.

I think electric and hybrids can be better in general for heavy traffic where the car will spend more time stopped (and thus not using any energy) but on the open road, a combustion engine is more efficient.

on an identical time as a electric powered motor vehicle does require skill that (in all probability) isn't generated in a thoroughly pollutants-loose way, it is nevertheless extra effective to apply it than a gas engine. electrical energy is going to be generated no count what, and electric powered skill plant life are held to strict policies as to their emissions. additionally, further and extra electrical energy is being generated via image voltaic, wind, water, and nuclear skill, whose emissions are some distance much less volatile or non-existence while in comparison with those of coal-or oil-fired plant life (i understand that some don't sense nuclear plant life are risk-free, yet for my section, i'd lots want to stay close to one than close to maximum concerns that are powered via fossil fuels). All in all, an electric powered motor vehicle is larger for the atmosphere while all the climate are taken under consideration.

Making enough electricity with coal to recharge a battery would give out more pollutants than a gasoline engine. There is alwas nuclear, wind and solar though. And we are not there yet. We already have power outages because the power companies can't keep up. And that's without a lot of electric cars being plugged in. Could you imagine what it would do to the electric grid if every car was electric. Here in Vermont people are trying to shut down Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant ( because they say its unsafe. But no one is willing to have the eye sore of a wind farm in their back yard. In order to use solar the mountains here would have to be lined with panels and I am sure it would be the same uproar of not in my back yard view. I agree with you on building less polluting cars. Which could be done by just getting better mileage. Or do like they did in the 70s for better mileage slow the sped limit down to 55 mph. There are easier ways to help lower pollution from cars without making expensive laws or following stupid state ideas like California.

The cars ARE zero emissions.

Our production of electricity is not zero emissions.

How long does it take to charge your cell phone?

Is that a hugh pain in the asss? Do you think it's pointless? would you rather fuel your phone with gasoline, so it would be loud and emitt noxious fumes? I personally, would rather have a zero emissions, quiet phone and just plug it in.

It's the same for cars and you would see that if you actually owned an electric one.

I agree with you, they are not zero emissions. They are be charged with electriciy most likely by a coal fired power plant. We are getting more wind energy, but we have a long way to go. One good thing is that most people will be charging their viehicles @ night when power plants are not at their peak

You are correct . The electricity comes from a power plant . Some environmentalist are

fighting windmills because it blocks the scenery . Maybe they expect bicycle generators

to charge up the car.

No you are not missing the point! You are absolutely right and obviously not taken in by the nonsense being spouted!