AP: Germany wants 1 million COAL-POWERED cars by 2020

Also, since coal power plants are 33% efficient, plus taking into consideration the loss in power transmission and in charging and then discharging a battery, the efficiency falls below that of simply burning gasoline. Thus, good intentions once again meet the Law of Unintended Consequences, a corallary to the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. You can't after all, amend or repeal the laws of science. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and going to all electric cars without changing the energy mix (my suggestion would be going with more nuclear power), will lead to a bigger, not a smaller, environmental impact. 

--

AP: Germany wants 1 million COAL-POWERED cars by 2020

Well, that isn't exactly what the headline says. The actual headline reads: Germany wants 1 million electric cars by 2020. Then again, it's pretty much the same thing. More on that later, but first a few snippets:

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and top executives of the country's main carmakers and energy companies are meeting in Berlin to launch a new initiative to develop electric vehicles.

The so-called "national platform for electric mobility" being started Monday comes after Merkelpledged to have one million electric vehicles on the road within the next decade.

Why so many cars? This is why: 

Merkel says there needs to be greater independence from natural resources. She is pushing sustainable technologies that will help limit the effects of climate change.

First of all, independence from 'natural resources' would include wind and solar since they are both 'natural resources,' no? But that's neither here nor there. The bigger picture is the environmental disaster that will come if they indeed succeed in pushing the technology. What the AP, in its typical intellectual incuriosity for all things green, does not mention is where that electricity will come from to fill up all those batteries. A cursory search on the internet reveals that - surprise - Germany is as dependent on cheap coal to generate electricity as we are. Here's is their energy mix in the electric sector:

Let's just say for arguments sake that the goal is to reduce gasoline consumption by some 120 milloion gallons per day (which is a drop in the well by the way). Converting enough cars to electric may in fact save 120 million gallons of fuel per day, but that will come at the cost of using a whole lot of coal. Let's do a bit of math. Gasoline weighs 8 lb per gallon and has an energy content of 47 MJ/kg. Coal is at 30 MJ/kg. To get the same amount of electrical energy as that in 120 million gallons of gasoline, it would take about 1,840 million pounds of coal assuming a power plant efficiency of 33%! That is nearly 1 million tons of coal! Extra! That is, beyond what the Germans are using now!

Also, since coal power plants are 33% efficient, plus taking into consideration the loss in power transmission and in charging and then discharging a battery, the efficiency falls below that of simply burning gasoline. Thus, good intentions once again meet the Law of Unintended Consequences, a corallary to the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. You can't after all, amend or repeal the laws of science. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and going to all electric cars without changing the energy mix (my suggestion would be going with more nuclear power), will lead to a bigger, not a smaller, environmental impact. 

And let's not forget where lithium comes from for lithium-ion batteries: Bolivia. A 3rd world country run by a dictator (Evo Morales) that has about a third of known lithium deposits. Mining those deposits is the dirtiest mining operation that I know of. So instead of being dependent on foreign oil, Ger many will be dependent on foreign lithium.So in totality, switching from gasoline-powered vehicles to battery-powered or partly battery powered vehicles will switch dependence from one set of bad guys to another, and without nuclear will simply make the pollution problem far worse, not better. 

Of course, since 'climate change' was brought up by Merkel, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that her initiative will have no effect (man is responsible for 3% of atmospheric CO2 emissions, natural processes 97%) on a problem that doesn't exist (no global warming since 1995).