Subaru says Stella "clean" but Drive.com says it's a "dirty" EV #environment

Who do we believe?

My confusion is all about the Subaru Stella EV. Apparently Subaru (in a press release) says: Based on power supplied from a coal-fired power station, STELLA produces an estimated 12.5 kilograms (kg) of Carbondioxide (CO2) per 100 kilometres of travel, compared to 20.24 kg of CO2 for a typical 2.0 litre small car.

So it's cleaner, no risk.

But Fairfax via its Drive.com site says the opposite (seemingly): Recent research has shown that electric cars don’t necessarily reduce the carbon footprint. Subaru recently said its electric Stella would account for 20 per cent more carbon dioxide emissions if recharged from a coal-fired power station.

Did Subaru say that? I didn't see that. But wait...

If we pull that apart a bit... Subaru compared the Stella, a small - in fact quite small, if heavy at 1,000kg - car, with a much larger "typical" 2.0l car. I assume they mean larger, because Subaru's 2.0l cars are "typically" Imprezas and the like... so it's not apples vs apples, is it? If we compared tiny Stella with a micro car with a 660cc engine we'd probably see around 10kg of CO2 per 100km, which is indeed somewhat less than the Stella and backs Drive.com up. You'd probably pick the petrol car over the EV for environmental reasons.

I do wonder though if Drive.com actually thought it through. It's not actually what Subaru said, although it's what we can derive from their statement. They are being a bit narky here, to use the Aussie idiom. Indeed Drive.com had a go at Subaru when it earlier reviewed the Stella, here: One thing the Stella not completely free of, though, is guilt. Despite no greenhouse emissions coming from its electric engine, Subaru says using Australia's coal-fired electricity would produce about 125g of carbon dioxide for each kilometre travelled in the Stella - almost 20g more than a Toyota Prius hybrid car that uses a 1.6-litre petrol engine alongside its electric motor.

Interestingly I think they meant 1.5-litre rather than 1.6, but they are the experts so let's go with that. So we can assume (so many assumptions!) Drive.com is actually comparing the Stella with the "1.6l", 1325kg Prius, which opens up a can of worms indeed.

All of these things are worked out by average use, of course, but nothing is ever really average, and it's not just about use. We need to look at the manufacturing footprint, too. If you are heavy-footed in your somewhat porky Prius, what happens to your carbon footprint? It goes up, obviously, and probably more so than an EV (better check that). And what of the extra complexity of the petrol/electric hybrid, with 2 power sources, a petrol tank and batteries? Which of these 2 cars (the Stella EV vs the Prius "1.6") is less resource-hungry - and has the lesser overall carbon footprint - to make and maintain? I'm guessing (so much guesswork!) the Subaru EV wins hands down if we look at it that way; but there's no denying, either, that a 660cc petrol Stella will beat both by a wide margin.

Of course none of this really stacks up, if it's not what you need in a car. You may drive short distances and the Stella EV will be ideal. Or you may travel long distances at a steady speed and can make the most of a hybrid's advantages. Indeed the Stella may be a perfect fit for me but too small for you. It all depends.

Solving the trouble we are in - carbon, cars and warming #environment

My answer is simple, yet contradictory: "It's never simple, and there's no one answer".

I do get annoyed (ever so slightly) at people who say there's just one, best way (usually their way) to deal with "problems". For example, let's assume that we are facing a global warming catastrophe and there's something we can do about it (like reduce carbon emissions). This is based on an assumption, but a reasonable one given the evidence to hand. So what to do?

• Some people say we should just consume less, but that means that our economy (predicated on sustained rather than 'sustainable' growth, of all things) will decline, shedding jobs (at least in the short to medium term, after which things may balance out). If it means your job, would you do it? (Or will the financial meltdown do it for us - at least for a while?)
  
• Others may say that fossil fuels are the problem, so we should swap over to hydrogen power and fuel cells. It's a super-clean fuel that just expels water as exhaust. Fine, but where does the hydrogen come from? Oh, we use electricity to crack water into hydrogen and oxygen. And where does that electricity come from? And what energy is used to compress the hydrogen into a usable volume, and where does that energy come from? And what energy is also used to make the light-weight but super-strong fuel tanks that hydrogen needs in order to be transported - and stored - where we need it, safely? Do we build more power stations to generate the energy required? Hmmm. And when we have done all that, are we actually ahead?
  
• Others say that we should swap to electric vehicles, but they also - obviously - need electricity. So we end up having to devise a sustainable method of generating that electricity, too. And by making electric cars we increase the load on our power stations, so we are making more of those (and potentially burning more coal, for example). At least we are not adding the 'create hydrogen' step as well, and by using mostly existing infrastructure (and by time-shifting peak loads) we avoid some of the massive new investment we'd need for say hydrogen fuel tanks, pipelines and tankers. But we are (as a consequence of 'replacing the fleet') building more vehicles, not less, and they don't just materialise out of nothingness. It takes energy (and other resources) to make and transport these electric vehicles to the end users, just as it does for petrol-powered cars. And to make a difference we need to get the volume up, quickly. Although electric cars are simpler (a good thing) they need batteries - and thus we have another calculation to make in dealing with an explosion in battery sales, storage, distribution and disposal. It's better, but when you look at the emissions you still have does it actually add up?
  
• Perhaps solar cells are the answer? It looks like a good idea on the surface, if only to replace household power, but they too have to be made, distributed, installed, maintained and replaced. If we all went out today and bought solar panels we'd drive the price up in the short term, which would induce new players into the market and eventually lower prices. But we'd also employ people to install the panels, and they would drive around in vehicles... which when added to the carbon emissions generated during manufacture this won't be lowering the carbon foot print at all - at least not for a while. Indeed, until solar panel efficiency levels rise, which we'd expect, it may be that the extra millions of individual investments in wiring, control units and panels actually cause an overall increase in carbon emissions... until at least we have reached some sort of balancing point. And then again, how long will these panels last? Will we be repeating the effort in 10 or 20 years time, or after the next major hail storm?
  
• Or we could focus on cutting back emissions in many other ways, including changing our diet to reduce meat consumption. That too will impact someone, somewhere.
  
• We could reduce our travel, perhaps cutting back on tourism, but that too will reduce the incomes of many people in many lands.
• We could plant lots of trees, but that's not necessarily creating natural habitat, and it may rob us of farm land, too.
• Or we could look to a technologically left-field answer like artificially reducing the planet's absorption of sunlight with an umbrella of scattered particles. But who knows where that may lead.
  

So it's not an easy question, nor does it have one simple, straightforward answer (at least not if you pull the options apart and think about the consequences, anyway). It probably means that we do a bit of everything, slowly, carefully, but in a directed, meaningful way. But do we have the time? For myself, I'm doing less driving, more walking and cycling. I use household electricity carefully, prudently, and stay as true to my general principles as I can. I'm not rushing out to buy a medium or large-sized (and complex) hybrid, or even an electric car - I'll stick with small, economical 4-cylinder cars thanks. It may mean that the car industry rationalises, consolidates and declines, but that may be one of the things we need to accept. And I'll hang back on solar panels (or wind turbines) until we see greater efficiency levels and more transparency in actual costs of manufacture, installation and distribution. But if the figures start to stack up, I'll be there.

Where was I?

Last time I checked I was looking at Le Tour de France on TV, and now I'm watching the Olympics from China. And I'm wondering where I - or perhaps we - all went...? Have we tuned out of our own lives and into vicariousness? Are we all simply living our lives through the lives and achievements of others? Well yes and no, of course. We do this all of the time - we work and play and grow as individuals, yet we fall into a collective stupor over "big events". Not everyone, nor all of us all of the time. But generally most of us fall at some time for the spectacular, the bright and colourful bells and whistles that surround our lives - be it sport, art, music, literature, organised religion, online computer games or new year's eve fireworks. We shrug off our own selves and look at another person's life, even to the extent of investing emotion into their success, or not. 

Which is all perfectly normal, but it does beg the old question, are we being used? Indeed it raises a few questions in my mind. Is this simply what the Romans called 'bread and circuses'? Are we left mildly amused and fairly satisfied by all of this "entertainment", or does it actually ring hollow? Is it all a nice diversion from harsh realities like the credit crunch, global warming, war and drought, or something more sinister and manipulative? Not that I'm suggesting there's a conspiracy, it just seems convenient sometimes that our economic system supports these massive "events" yet fails to look after the homeless, the impoverished, the starving or the oppressed.

Just my happy little thought for the day.

The sort of populism that sells the wrong message

We have a global crisis or 2 on our hands: (1) soaring fuel cost driven by demand and a supply that has peaked; (2) a food price crisis arising from (1) and (3) global warming, probably caused by human activity. Now I'm all for allowing market forces to play out - but there are people being hurt here. We don't need online 'journalists' attempting to sell over-powered, overly-large sedans, especially by playing the 'nationalism' card. It's OK, people of Australia, you are still Australian, or an American for that matter, if you down-size to a smaller, more efficient car. It's OK, it can still be 'sporty'.

Indeed it's OK to ride a bike or catch public transport, or walk. There's a place for over-powered 'sporty' cars, there are enthusiasts aplenty who will pay the bucks required. But it's not somehow quintessentially Australian to drive a fat, fuel guzzling sedan.

What this article demonstrates is the inherent bias in the established media, that lags reality by about a decade: Biffing through a sunburned summer landscape in a big, boofy Australian muscle car is to feel like a native son; a bloke's bloke. The jaundiced might view HSV's Clubsport R8 as quintessentially 'Strayan as seafood at Christmas, inviting a mate along on your honeymoon, or claiming a catch off an Indian batsman's pad. A bit retrograde. A boganmobile. It's not well written, indeed the article is a contradiction in and of itself. But if I were to have a stab at deciphering it, what the writer is really doing here is 'having a go' at what some may call the 'cafe-latte' or 'chardonnay' set and aligning with what they see as a 'populist' view. In that sense the article asserts that it's better to be a 'bogan' and drive a fuel guzzler than to be elitist and down-size. Read the whole article if you want, but it's a tedious repetition of that old line - bigger is better. Oh is it, really?

At last, the voice of reason - from a journo?

Instead of just accepting what’s in the car company press release, a journo who thinks?

Over and over again the car companies talk about clean, green hydrogen-fueled cars being “the next big thing” but never explain where all of this hydrogen comes from, or when the distribution infrastructure will arrive, and how it will be safely transported in usable (highly compressed) volumes through our communities… instead they trumpet how close it all is to being real but don’t explain how it will be made real. But at least one journo has put 2 and 2 together, at last, from Jerry Flint at thecarconnection.com:

"Here’s the point: all of these developments, except for the ethanol, involve the engines, but they don’t change the distribution system. They don’t require new fuels or new ways of getting these fuels to the corner stations or from the corner station to the car. They don’t tear up the system or require new ways of distribution. They will be costly, probably thousands of dollars a car, but it will be the same car. Now think of what this mean for hydrogen. Hydrogen has promise. It burns, you can run a car on it, it emits no pollutants nor any earth-warming gases, like CO2. The waste product is water. That’s all wonderful. No pollution, no earth-warming gas, and kiss $80 oil goodbye. The problems are many. Where does the hydrogen come from? Whether it is burned as a fuel in fuel tanks, or used to prime fuel cells (which create electric current to run the car), hydrogen is hard to get. It’s plentiful, after all, in all that H2O, but breaking it free is difficult and costly."

And don’t forget that this is just the fuel… we have to spend energy to make and distribute the cars themselves, too, no matter whether they are “clean and green” or not.

It's simple

It's simple - build on the rock and not upon the sand. Erosion wasn't just invented yesterday, despite scare-pieces like this one. If you build on a sand spit, a beachfront or on a cliff edge and are surprised when erosion occurs then I'm afraid you have not thought things through very well. Now you could blame the people who sold you the land. Or you could blame the local government body that allowed you to build on the land you bought. Or you could just blame yourself for making a bad decision.

Given the rising tide of global warming this is just going to happen more and more. If you are in a low-lying area close to cliffs or beaches, take a hint: move now. We may as a community decide to resume land or shore-up some subsidence for a while but eventually it will just get too expensive and you'll be hung out to dry. So cut your losses and quit before it's too late!