I ordered a prius April 21st and eagerly anticipate it's arrival. It's name will be "The Lorax" after the Dr. Suess character (read the story if you never have, it is really great). <br><br>I am wondering if anyone has ever figured out the amount of pollution created by electric vehicles by the electricity needed to recharge them. That doesn't exactly make them completely clean. Also, I live in northern CA and electicity has become a precious commodity. If CA will give out special privilages to electric vehicles and not hybrids I think they should take these factors into consideration.<br><br>Glad to join you all, and having almost as much trouble waiting for my Prius as I had waiting for the birth of my children,<br><br>Ann

Hi Ann,<br>I didn't think the wait for a Prius had reached 9 months yet! :-) Or did you order the 2002 model? :-) In any case, glad you found the Prius club (hopefully the group also), I'll give you something to do while you wait. Or will it give you somethine to obsess over while you wait, I'm never quite sure.<br><br>Anyway, there have been some EV vs. SULEV comparisons presented on this club and the Prius group (formerly eGroup). If you have too much time on your hands, you could scan or search back through the messages. Opinions vary (often depending on the political goals of the presenter), but to summarize where I think they were heading:<br><br> EVs are much cleaner in CA and the Pacific NW because electricity comes mostly from hydro and burning natural gas.<br><br> EVs are slightly dirtier in the Northeast due to the burning of coal to make electricity.<br><br> EVs are slightly cleaner or about the same in the rest of the country.<br><br>Also, there's plenty of electricity available at night in CA which is when most EVs would be recharged. But for those who's commute exceeds half their EV range, recharging at work would hit the grid during prime air conditioner time.<br><br>That's what I've concluded so far, but I could have easily gotten it wrong since there's still more heat than light from the postings on this subject.<br><br>Robert Snyder<br>NJ-PIKACHU

"EVs are much cleaner in CA and the Pacific NW because electricity comes mostly from hydro and burning natural gas."<br><br>Right, and don't forget about 1/6th of CA's electricity is from nuclear. That's another reason the CA power is cleaner.

theloosethread<br>&gt; Right, and don't forget about 1/6th of CA's electricity is from nuclear. That's another <br>&gt; reason the CA power is cleaner. <br><br>I'm not sure if your reply above implies ironic humor or not? My apologies if I misunderstood your point.<br><br>However, just in case you support nuclear power: IMHO, there's nothing "clean" about nuclear power. When you factor-in the full lifecycle impacts and costs of uranium mining and its waste pollution, uranium ore processing waste, worker-related health issues related to toxics and radiation releases during mining, processing, and accidents, plant de-comissioning, all levels of waste disposal, impacts on individual and property rights, insurance-related costs, national security issues, and so on. <br><br>Nuclear power is _much_ dirtier, expensive, complex and dangerous compared to alternatives such as natural gas, solar PV, wind, hydro and so forth. <br><br>Given the above, it's hardly worth considering nuclear power since even small improvements in our nation's energy efficiency makes nuclear's small contribution moot. Nuclear power is so 20th century; it's time to move on!<br><br>However, if you _were_ implying ironic humor, carry on! ;-)<br><br>- Peter

No, I wasn't being ironic or anything. You raise issues that resonable people can argue and I am not stating a position on any of those issues.<br><br>The thread was talking about the impact to air pollution of purely electric cars to HEVs. For California it is a fact that the AIR pollution of electric only cars is lower because 1/6th of the state's power is from nuclear which generates no air emissions at the time of power production.<br><br>As for the issues you raise:<br>A) I don't know.<br>B) Every energy source has secondary pollution. Natural gas produces CO2. Solar and wind produce visual pollution (every seen a windmill farm?). Hydroelectric produces... er... backed up water... er... changed river ecology ... pollution thingys. (known in the industry as BUWCREPT pollution)<br>C) Since no energy source is purely black or white but grades of subjective grey, when I hear someone dismiss a source as clearly bad, I assume that the person may be somewhat biased against that source :)<br><br>Here, in California, all new plant construction uses natural gas (i'm pretty sure). The cost of natural gas is skyrocketing so this is raising some concern. The cost of nuclear is (i think) around $0.03 per Kwh, so it is being looked at again. Support for nuclear is growing, so it may turn out to be that nuclear was not 20th centry but a very 21st century energy source.<br><br><a href=http://www.safetytips.com/newscenter/breakingnews/2001/04/25/nuclear.html target=new>http://www.safetytips.com/newscenter/breakingnews/2001/04/25/nuclear.\ html</a><br><br><br><br><br>&gt;&gt; Right, and don't forget about 1/6th of CA's electricity is from nuclear. That's another reason the CA power is cleaner. <br><br>&gt;I'm not sure if your reply above implies ironic humor or not? My apologies if I misunderstood your point

By the middle of the 21st century, guaranteed that the world will be running on nuclear power ..

And don't leave out Mr. Fusion.<br><br>Where do you think all that hydrogen for fuel cells will come from? (back in the future, I mean)<br><br>"I want TWO carburetors,<br><br>and a twin exhaust...<br><br>A NUCLEAH reactor,<br><br>Don't care what it costs"<br><br>Jeff