Electric Car Debate Cont. Extra Credit
Jan 20th, 2011 by kcoghill
Read the following articles regarding the electric car debate, which contrast the views presented in “Who Killed the Electric Car,” and respond. Consider the logic of the arguements presented and the credibility of the sources. Does this change your opinion? Why or why not? Which direction do you think we should go in with respect to this issue and why?
http://ludens.cl/philo/electric.html
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12826
After reading these two articles about the other side of the debate for Electric zero-emission vehicles, my opinion on the matter, that they are an important part of the future of our nations clean energy programs and that they should be encouraged, has not changed. The only view point of mine that has changed as a result of the information from these two articles is in my view of the accessibility of them. Before reading these articles, I never fully understood what the monetary cost of owning/operating one of these vehicles was. Now however, I can that the price of not only buying the car but also maintaining it could be enough to make it literally impossible.
That being said, there is a solution to this. If the government were to implement a system of tax breaks in order to alleviate the high costs of these vehicles than they would be much more accessible for people who might not be as wealthy. Not only would this help with the cost on the consumer, but it would also help to reduce emissions within our country. An additional form of help that the government can provide would be subsidizing the batteries used in the cars, as those are also large parts of what make the cars so expensive in terms of cost of operation.
My original stance of electric cars, after watching the Who Killed the Electric Car video was definitely for the cars and the exploration of developing a way to market and sell them to a broad class of consumers. I, however, before watching this bias documentary knew very little about electric cars other than they were “good” for the environment. I didn’t even realize how expensive hybrid cars were, until I questioned why more people didn’t have them. My initial opinions on electric cars stemmed from one bias documentary; however, after viewing these two articles I realize there are valid arguments to both sides of the issues. By being provided with both sides of the issue, granted in an extremely bias style, I’m able to see the issue with a larger lens. Even after everything that the con-electric car side had to say, I still think electric cars are a promising technology for the future. The articles primarily states that the economic cost of an electric car simply isn’t realistic for the average American consumer, and while I don’t know exactly what goes into manufacturing this design car of the economic perspective of selling an item like this, I have faith that this car will eventually morph into a product that the average American consumer can purchase. Many, many products in America went from being luxury and expensive to a common purpose for each person. Even our nation’s first car, Ford, came up with an innovative way to market their product reasonably to a broad class. Additionally, the two arguments stated that it takes energy to manufacture these cars. Energy which does not necessarily need to be from a nonrenewable resource, however. With advances constantly being made with respect to renewable green sources, I feel as though a company manufacturing a green car would be open and kind of forced into running their industry in an environmental way. After reading these two articles, I’m giving a bigger view of the issue and can more confidently say I think electric cars are a great alternative to work towards perfecting in the future.
Even though the first article made some very concerning points I remain steadfast in my belief that we need to continue the use of the electric car. It seems the main issue surrounding the electric car controversy is money. To me though, the bottom line is that we need to make a change in order to save our environment. We have a strong middle-class based economy and we have enough people that could comfortable afford an electric car regardless of the 30% higher operational cost, that it would be worth it. This article has proven to me that the electric car is not a complete solution, but it has not changed my opinion in that the electric car will make at least some of a difference and I am not willing to let go of this difference regardless of how small. We are not in the position to veto solutions, anything that helps our environment is important. Of course the final goal is to find an energy source and car that operates sustainably, cheap, and 100% environmentally friendly, but until we find that solution we have to settle. It just doesn’t make sense to ignore the electric car and continue on the path we are on when we know that our path is ending in a black hole. The electric car doesn’t cause any detectable pollution, but article 1 argues it is made with pollution and when disposed of causes pollution. These two facts cause concern but from what I know we don’t have much of a choice. The gasoline vehicle causes pollution for the duration of it’s life AND causes pollution in its assembly and disposal. The electric vehicle only causes pollution in its forward and afterward, during it is environmentally safe. Finally, the credibility of this article is questionable. The author writes, “their advantage might rest in better overall frequency….will end up being just slightly more efficient….maybe 35% overall efficiency..” Might? Slightly? Maybe? I need numbers and I need facts. This is a person’s opinion, there is no proof behind it and therefore cannot be considered a reliable argument. Furthermore the second article suggests that reducing the U.S. dependence on oil is necessary for our long-term success. Electric vehicles would unarguably deal with that issue. The pros of the electric vehicle just seem to continuously outweigh the cons. For now what we can do is encourage the use of the electric car over the use of the gasoline fueled cars while also encouraging a reduction in emissions overall.
While watching “Who Killed the Electric Car?”, I clearly saw that the documentary was biased, however I still generally agreed with it and the points it made. However, after reading these two articles and more fully understanding another view point, I see many flaws in the documentary. It would have been much better at educating viewers on the realities of electric cars if it had spent more-or any- time on the other view point.
I found that the first article was more persuasive than the second. However, the first was much less credible since it is on a blog and therefore is not necessarily factually correct. The second, put out by the US Department of Energy is much more reliable.
The first article tried to debunk myths about electric cars. Firstly, the car is not any cheaper in the long term because the operational costs are extremely high. The replacement battery cost alone is more expensive that a small gasoline car. Another point I agreed with is that contrary to the mistaken beliefs of many people, the electric car does pollute, it just doesn’t do it in plain sight. All the electricity has to be manufactured at some plant, instead of power coming from the engine. The authors end point was that instead of searching for an alternative car, we should just drive our cars less, at lower speeds, and in smaller cars.
The second article points out that plug-in hybrid cars are vastly more expensive by more than $18,000. Although it is often claimed that the high initial price of the car is outweighed by lower fuel costs, this would not happen for at least several decades by which point the consumer would likely have a new car. Also, it is not feasible for large groups of people to switch over to plug-in hybrids because there is not enough availability of plug-in spots. Furthermore, these recharging stations produce more emissions than regular hybrids do.
After watching “Who Killed the Electric Car?” and reading these articles, I still think that the USA should continue investing money into renewable fuel and technologies. However, I don’t think that these technologies will be feasible in the near future, and instead of just continuing to increase our rate of energy consumption and waiting for a quick-fix, consumers should first work on reducing energy consumption. Simple things like taking public transport, turning thermostats down and lights off would help with this. After this, I don’t think that my opinion has changed much, but I do think that I am much more informed about other sides of the argument about electric cars and renewable technologies.
By reading these two articles, my opinion on electric cars did not change, however, I was shocked by the hidden truth that was not described in the film “Who Killed the Electric Car.” After reading the first article, I was surprised to learn that the operational cost of maintaining an electric or hybrid is just as expensive or even more than a typical gasoline fueled car. The author made the point that it is not the electricity fees that will increase, but rather the mandatory battery replacements that will cost the most. Quickly after the author bashed the costs of owning an electric car, they provided the most important aspect of an electric car, which is that they do not pollute the environment. Although it seemed like the author was praising the electric car for not polluting the environment, he instead attacked the usage of electricity and how retaining it causes huge environmental issues. I agreed with the author up until this point. No matter what non-renewable energy source we use, there will always be ecological disadvantages. Eventually, however, using these alternative energy sources will some day be worth it.
Comparing both articles, I thought the first one was not a reliable source. The author did not cite any of their statistics or information, and seemed to be presenting their own personal opinions. I found the second article to be more credible because the author cited each of their sources and was published on a news site where the information more reliable.
After reading both articles and watching the documentary “Who Killed the Electric Car” I am still pro electric car. Even though maintaining an electric car is very expensive, the benefits to our future conquer all. If we have the technology to stop the excess amounts of pollution we emit just by driving around town, our whole economy should learn about the benefits of both electric and hybrid vehicles.
The underlying fact of these two articles are that electric cars are actually more expensive to maintain than gasoline and diesel vehicles. As this is no surprise, I still believe that the government and oil companies did their fair share to kill the electric car. But in the end the thing that matters the most is the cost to the consumer. No average person making around 50k a year wants to spend any more money on their vehicle than the absolutely have to. It’s that electric cars could catch on with a little support from the government perhaps the government adding extra incentives to owning these vehicles and if the batteries in these were drastically improved. It does not matter at all if you save money on gasoline and then have to replace a battery time and time again, you loose money while having the false pretense that you are saving money. Personally I believe in buying an electric vehicle if you want to save the environment, not save your money. Before i start beating a dead horse i will state the most important fact once more, electric cars will catch on if and only if they are more affordable and practical to an average consumer than conventional vehicles.
Before watching “Who Killed the Electric Car” and reading these two articles, I think I represented the majority of the United States population who gave in to the marketing tactics that presented electric cars as the “greener” option. While the movie was biased, it still did further my knowledge of the cars, though one has to watch the movie knowing that there is another side to the issue. I feel that the second article was the most effective. It addressed both the pro and con sides, as well as speaking to the reader in a way that isn’t overly scientific. The article agreed that there are benefits to the car; however, like in the economic aspect, it will take decades to see these benefits. I enjoyed the piece about the issue of charging times, and the possibility that “the additional load could be difficult to meet unless new capacity is added.” I had never thought of this issue before, yet it is a significant issue that would have to be explored further. By presenting the information without being one-sided, I think the article proved its point-there is still much we need to research before talking a strong stance on the issue.
The first article, one the other hand, was lengthy and verbose. The author was clearly very one-sided and presented information as if there were no other options. He accused the that the “manufacturers try to hide from the clients is the huge operational cost by batter replacement.” Also, in the introduction, he called people that believe the marketing “ignorant.” By calling someone out, the article came across as not credible. I think with less rambling and opinionated interjections, the article could have been shortened to an article that a reader could appreciate.
I believe there is no clear, right direction we should take in regards to this issue. Each option has both pros and cons and it’s up to the educated consumer to weigh their options.
The author of “The truth about Electric Cars” is clearly biased; he/she claims that gasoline-powered cars are economically best in the long term and continues to highlight the positives of gas while beating the positives of alternative cars. Throughout the article, the author never addresses any negative effects of gasoline: dependence on foreign oil, pollution (greenhouse gases), offshore drilling etc.
Credibility of the article is questionable because it is so blatantly biased. He/she does address the benefits of hybrid braking systems. This philosophy needs to be realized as other technologies are explored and tested. The author acknowledges that the energy saving braking system is noteworthy, however, a hybrid car is less efficient than a gas car while on the freeway.
My opinion on hybrid cars remains the same-pro. Every consumer searches for a car that complies with his/her needs. For example: a hybrid car is appealing to me because I rarely spend time on the freeway, mostly driving in the city. To a commuter, however, the small size and reduced seating of an electric car might be more suiting.
In conclusion, hybrid, electric, and other non-gasoline powered cars should be thoroughly explored as oil reserves quickly diminish.
After reading the articles provided, my viewpoint stands. I believe in the effectiveness and benefits of the electric car.
Source A, “The Truth about Electric Cars,” is an extremely credulous resource. The use of colloquial language not only discredits the information, but shows an immaturity in the voice of the writer. Words such as “stupid”, and phrases such as “I would prefer something that stinks less!” should make the reader question the credibility of the author. Although many of his points come off as good arguments, the unprofessional nature of the writing and composition makes me question the truth in the statements and assertions of the writer.
After this assertion, I decided to leave the unprofessional article behind and move on to the more credible source, Article B, The National-Academies.
Unlike Article A, Article B does not so much question the innovation and structure of the electrical car, but more so the short-term economic disadvantages of the electric vehicle.
This argument is valid. The article states that “In the first generation of production, the PHEV-10 battery pack is estimated to cost about $3,300, and the PHEV-40 battery pack about $14,000.” The consumer interest in such expensive vehicles, and the production cost for vehicle whose success is questioned, does play into the con argument for electric cars. Price will always be a factor.
But, what I believe this article does not dwell upon to the necessary extent is the longer term value for the environment, and the innovation which will occur to decrease the costs of electric vehicles.
From our nation’s economic prospect, electric vehicles are the more sustainable option. The report examined in Article B came to a conclusion that “a portfolio approach toward reducing U.S. dependence on oil is necessary for long-term success,” yet suggested the reduction of oil needed to run a conventional vehicle.
Our nation’s economy can not rely on the resources of other nations to be sustainable. Electric cars are the answer to increasing the economic and resource sustainability of the United States.
While I believe in the validity and thoughts provided in Article B, my opinion still stand that electric cars are the answer for 21st century transportation in the United States. While a price may be payed initially by the consumer, the long term outlook proves sustainable and environmentally sound for the United States.
I realized after reading the first article “The Truth about Electric Cars,” that the author and I have very similar views. First, I agree with the myth that electric cars don’t pollute. I believe this is because pollution is not coming directly from the tailpipe, but it could be coming out from somewhere else. Before a large amount of power generated in the United States wasn’t from renewable forms, most plug in electric cars were very much responsible for released carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I also agree with the myth that electric cars have lower operational costs that gasoline powered vehicles. This is primarily because most electric cars are not very versatile. The points brought up in the first article make some sense, but the source does not seem too credible. The language used on the home page of this web site seems to be written by an unprofessional writer of the issue.
Like the first article, the second article was logical and sensible. One distinct difference between the two articles is that the second article didn’t provide much evidence that the electric car will be fuel efficient. It mainly focused on how electric cars have greater production costs that translate into greater retail prices. This is important to discuss because many people will not even attempt to buy an electric car. The electric car presents an increased price compared to the “polished” gasoline powered car. The article has no overriding effect on my opinion, but it does support my opinion concerning continued scientific research to develop electric cars. This second article is definitely more reliable than the first article. The article consists of analytical statistics followed by a list of contributing individuals from many different research universities, government agencies, and public and privately owned companies.
I would personally choose the second article for any information regarding the electric car. It provides the reader with specific points, which were supported with scientific and analytical evidence. The first article was probably written by an environmentalist that had their own personal ideas regarding the electric car. The information provided in the first article is biased opinion that shouldn’t be used to evaluate the pro’s and con’s of the electric car.
After reading the articles, my opinion on the electric car has not changed. Although the articles talk about the expenses of the vehicles and both didn’t mention that there are alternative ways to power an electic car besides non renewable resources such as solar and wind power, I still think that the electric car would ultimatley help reduce emissions and reduce pollutants put into the air. Some people would be willing to spend the money in order to reduce their own carbon foot print. The price of the cars would be able to come down if the electric car gains the support of the governemnt and consumers. That way money could be put towards finding a better car battery and finding other renewable resources to create energy for the vehicle. Owning an electric car would also be able to save a ton of money on gas. I do think that some changes have to happen in order for the electric car to become and “ideal vehicle,” and people need to be more informed in order for consumers to buy into the idea. But these articles didn’t change my position on the electric car. The electric car will help make the world a greener and cleaner.
After reading the two articles I came to a conclusion that there is many factors to think about when making the electric car. Every idea has pros and cons. Both articles stress about the cost which makes sense. But as a person you have to really think about why you are pro electric car. I’m pro for it because it’s environmental friendly; but I do take money into account. Electric cars will reduce emissions such as carbon dioxide. But it’s true to say the costs of plug-in hybrid electric cars are high due to their lithium-ion batteries. But in the long run electric cars are run by renewable resources which also can be cheap. The damages of nonrewenable resources and transportation of nonrewenable resources can become very expensive. Rewenable resources cause less pollution and emission, so damages aren’t as expensive. Also rewenable resources are avaliable so transportation costs are lower. As you can see the electric car has negative and postive effect to it. The effect of electric cars needs to be looked at in a enviromental, societal, and economical way. These factors all work together to keep the world in check. Overall after reading both articles I think it all just depends on your reason of supporting the electric car. I’m still pro electric car because in the future it willl help the world out.
After reading the first article “The Truth About Electric Cars,” (Article A) I realized that the author shares some of the same views as I do, and which are presented differently in the film “Who Killed the Electric Car.” The first point provided by Article A that I agree with is the myth that electric cars don’t pollute. This is one of the aspects of electric cars that I feel most strongly about, this is because if pollution is not coming directly from the tailpipe that doesn’t mean it isn’t coming out from somewhere else. Before a good portion of power generated in the United States is not from renewable forms most plug in electric cars are responsible for released carbon dioxide. The second point from Article A that I agree with is the myth about electric cars having lower operational costs that gasoline powered vehicles. This point makes sense because most electric cars are not very versatile, although a larger payment is needed to operate most gasoline cars, actually operating them is easier and the cars as a whole are more functional and versatile. Although the points brought up in Article 1 make a lot of sense the source does not seem too credible. By looking at the home page some of the language used and the random topics written about make this web site seem to be written by a random writer that may have some knowledge in random fields.
As Article 1 the second article was logical and made a lot of sense. One of the differences between the articles is the second article did not provide much on how the electric car will be saving fuel, but focused on how electric cars have greater production costs which transfer to greater retail prices. This is an important topic to discuss when debating a new technology, this is because most people will not buy an electric car, which is less functional and less developed but presents a greater price than the “polished” gasoline powered car, because it is financially wrong. This article does not change my opinion but it does support my view of continuing scientific research to develop electric cars and make them more and more “up to par” with normal gasoline power vehicles. This second article that was brought to us by the United States Department of Energy is defiantly more reliable that Article A. The article consists of concrete facts and statistics followed by a supporting list of contributing individuals from many different research universities, government agencies along with public and privately owned companies.
If I had to choose using the information from either article I would defiantly choose the one brought to us by the United States Department of Energy. I would choose this article because it presented many good points, which in turn were supported with concrete scientific and statistical evidence. On the other hand Article 1 seemed to be written by an environmentalist that has personal ideas regarding electric car and wants to get them out there. Based on the way Article 1 was presented I would decide not to use the information provided.
These two articles changed my opinions about the electric car in a few ways, however I still believe the electric car is a bright idea for our future. The first article was bias, and the person was very very negative towards electric cars, and electricity in general. It made me question electric cars since they pretty much turned every reason for electric cars down. I dont know how reliable the sources are but I feel like he/she knows a little bit of whats going on.
When they brought up the battery point, “the battery replacement cost for a tiny electric car is about the same as the gasoline cost for a big conventional car. It is hard for an electric car to go 80 km before the battery is empty” This struck me, and was the place where my idea about the electric car changed a tad. Also, the conveniency of an electric car is apparently not great because charging the battery can be a hassle, including “upgrading an electrical system to charge the battery at your house which costs more than $1000″.
Basically after reading the first article, it got me scared that electric cars were not the right choice. That author needs to balance out their ideas instead of just being negative.
After reading article 2 with MUCH more reliable sources, I was able to take in a breathe of fresh air. “plug-in hybrid electric vehicles will have little impact on U.S. oil consumption before 2030, especially if fuel economy for conventional vehicles and hybrids continues to increase past 2020.” This is a huge reason why I still believe that electric cars are for our future because we need to conserve our non renewable sources clearly, and this will help conserve oil unlike gasoline fueled cars. Also electric cars will significantly lower carbon dioxide emissions which is a huge plus. I feel that there are more pros to electric cars than cons. The cost is a huge issue for electric cars, but everything including gas costs a ton of money these days. In the future we should use more renewable resources for our cars such as solar energy. The electric car will reduce emissions, and also there is clearly much less pollution emitted due to electrical powered cars.Pollution is going to be an even bigger issue in years to come because the more we emit into the air the more dangerous it is. In conclusion, I am pro electric car.
As the average consumer who does not know much about electric cars, it is easy to be pulled along with the common assumption that because a car is using electricity rather than gas, it is more environmentally friendly. Before entering AP Environmental, I was one of the few who viewed all “green” items through rose-colored glasses, and was of the opinion that anything was better than fossil fuels. But unfortunately, this is not always the case.
Reading the two presented articles, I quickly realized that my previous ideas concerning the electric car were based on vaguely worded marketing ploys that the car companies cleverly constructed to make their product appear ecological. For example, I thought that because electric car owners don’t need to fill up on gas, they would save money in the long run. I was shocked to find out that an electric car is about $18,000 more expensive than an equivalent conventional vehicle.
When I read the sections about pollution in each article, I was a bit taken aback by the intensity of the author of the first article, who seemed to be completely against electricity, whether it can from renewable resources or not. There was definitely a strong bias that I could not completely agree with. Before reading the second article, I had never heard of a PHEV-40, although the vehicle consumers 55% less gasoline than hybrids. If it is so efficient, shouldn’t we have heard more about it by now?
Honestly, I highly preferred the second article to the first. The first article was long-winded and preachy, both of which irked me immensely. In the future, if the author wants to keep his audience interested and reading, he or she should be more concise and even-minded. I would have liked to see both sides of the argument because I felt as if a belief was being forced onto me. Furthermore, the author listed no sources of any kind, which causes me to question his or her reliability and credibility. I felt more confident in the legitimacy of the second article, which overflowed with seemingly credible sources.
Moving into the future, I hope we can learn to harness a combination of renewable resources to fuel our cars. However, before any vehicles of this sort go onto the market, the public should be fully informed about the details of them.
Though both articles raised issues about electric cars, such as the lifetime of their batteries, the toxicity of the batteries, and the almost equivalent electricity costs compared to oil for regular vehicles, I still feel electric cars are a better option. We need to lessen our dependency on fossil fuels, even if that means spending equal money to do so. The first article brings up the fact that the electricity needed to charge the cars still comes from fossil fuels, even if we don’t buy the oil. Overtime, however, electrical costs can be altered once renewable sources are effectively managed and produced. As our technology continues to develop and improve, I think we will be more successful in our attempts to reduce our use of fossil fuels. The fact that electric cars have zero pollutants is a huge improvement, even if electrical costs are still high. If electrical cars are too big of a transition for some people, they can start out with hybrids, especially if the commute is minimal and a big car is not needed for business. One of the main problems with this issue is that many people want to see changes, but are not willing to actually do what it takes to make the changes happen. If car companies can do a better job selling the product and what it offers, the electrical car will be a lot more successful.
My stance has been altered slightly, nevertheless, I am still pro electric car. These two articles emphasize that it takes non-renewable recourses to create electricity. Yet, if we use solar or wind power to create this electricity, we will be able to have an optimal self sufficient system. I believe that the pros of the electric car still out way the negatives presented here. The battery life and the advancement of technology will allow the electric car to prosper and have a longer life. Price is a necessity for these new cars and it is worth the money. These articles are very short minded as well. When looking in the long run, owning plug in vehicles will reduce not only emissions, but all of the gas money one needs to spend. As time goes by and we are given the proper support from consumers and the government, the prices of these cars will decrease and we will have better car batteries. It would also be possible to find new ways of getting clean electricity. Electric cars eliminate all pollutants coming from the car. This is a major step in the first place. Lastly, the first article shown is not represented by anyone and does not seem like a truly credible source. He does not have any verifications and the spelling/grammar is not very professional. The second source seems more valid, however, there main issues presented are the costs of the electric car.
After reading the two articles, my stance on electric cars has not changed. Both articles made the cost of the electric car the main detractor in their argument, while ignoring the fact that many might feel that pollution is more of a problem than cost of a car. Some spenders would be willing to pay extra money if it allowed them to drive without polluting. Also, they failed to mention that if energy is produced from renewable resources such as sun or solar power, the electricity used to fuel the cars can be completely emissions free. Battery technology should continue to be worked on and improved, so the range of the cars and life of the batteries can be lengthened. While the electric car is not the right option for everyone, such as those who need to tow a lot of weight or those who drive long distances, it is the best option to reduce emissions in the foreseeable future.