# Are you actually helping the environment if green technology costs a lot more? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 18, 2014, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-actually-helping-the-environment-if-green-technology-costs-a-lot-more/707604 "2014-12-18T20:20:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2014, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-actually-helping-the-environment-if-green-technology-costs-a-lot-more/707604/21 "2014-12-19T05:42:59Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > This question was raised during the construction of BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) in the early 1970’s. Having an electric commuter train was supposed to reduce pollution, compared to all the cars and buses that commuters would otherwise be taking. But an argument was raised that this just removed the pollution to the vicinity of the electric generation plants. But the generating plant is a single source for the pollution, so it is much easier to install & maintain pollution control measures on that stationary plant than it would be to apply them to all the various (often ill-maintained) vehicles traveling about on the roads. And it is cost-effective to apply even expensive pollution controls to the generating plant, since (almost) all the pollution is produced here. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2014, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-actually-helping-the-environment-if-green-technology-costs-a-lot-more/707604/22 "2014-12-19T05:48:24Z")
> [@Habeed](#): > > However, what about the $9000 that is paid to the workers who built the battery? Those workers will drive home to their houses in trucks and run the A/C at home, they will consume lots of consumer goods bought with their salaries that use lots of energy, and so on. If you choose to burn gasoline, the gasoline is cheaper because fewer workers are involved in producing it, and those workers (in theory) are doing other tasks for the economy that producing batteries. What happens if you don’t spend your nine thousand dollars on an electric car? You’d just spend it on something else and it would end up in different workers’ pockets. Or you’d put in in a bank and it would end up in their employees’ pockets. ---
**Author:** ![am77494](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d2c977/32.png) [@am77494](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/am77494)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2014, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-actually-helping-the-environment-if-green-technology-costs-a-lot-more/707604/23 "2014-12-19T14:18:56Z")
> [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > Or in other words, if existing law were enforced, the issue would go away by itself (i.e., all employees would be paying taxes, etc.). The same can be said about coal fired power plants. Whether it is particulates, sulfur or wastewater - the existing laws are very stringent. The only thing not regulated is CO2 - which is not defined as a pollutant. ---
**Author:** ![iljitsch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/77aa72/32.png) [@iljitsch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iljitsch)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2014, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-actually-helping-the-environment-if-green-technology-costs-a-lot-more/707604/24 "2014-12-19T17:04:35Z")
If that ever happens, I can’t wait to read the conspiracy theories about how soft drinks are “polluted”. ---
**Author:** ![am77494](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d2c977/32.png) [@am77494](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/am77494)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2014, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-actually-helping-the-environment-if-green-technology-costs-a-lot-more/707604/25 "2014-12-19T18:50:38Z")
> [@iljitsch](#): > > If that ever happens, I can’t wait to read the conspiracy theories about how soft drinks are “polluted”. Do not understand what you mean by that. Nitrous oxide emitted from a power plant is a pollutant - that does not make Nitrous oxide used by the dentist polluted. Sulfur dioxide emitted by a power plant is a pollutant - that does not make sulfur dioxide used for preserving dried fruits or sulfur dioxide used in wine polluted. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2014, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-actually-helping-the-environment-if-green-technology-costs-a-lot-more/707604/26 "2014-12-19T19:21:36Z")
He said it was something there would be conspiracy theories about. He didn’t say it would be at all logical. In fact, “conspiracy theory” rather implies just the opposite. ---
**Author:** ![sbunny8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@sbunny8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sbunny8)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2014, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-actually-helping-the-environment-if-green-technology-costs-a-lot-more/707604/27 "2014-12-19T19:38:14Z")
> [@Habeed](#): > > Suppose you have the choice between burning up an electric vehicle pack in your car, which will wear out after supplying 1000 gallons worth of gasoline-equivalent energy to your car, or burning the gasoline directly. I think you’re being a little pessimistic about this figure. I came up with 1,200 gallons. But the bigger problem is that you’re overlooking the fact that electric motors are about 4 times more efficient than gasoline engines are. So that 1,200 gallons worth of **electricity would push your car 4 times farther** than 1,200 gallons of actual gasoline would. If you paid $10,000 for the battery plus another $6,000 for the electricity needed to charge the battery at 15 cents per kWh, yes that would be more money than buying 1,200 gallons of real gasoline, which would cost only $3,600 at $3 per gallon. But the $16,000 of electricity would push your car 120,000 miles and the 1,200 gallons of gasoline would only push your car 32,400 miles. If you want to go 120,000 miles, you need about 4,400 gallons of gasoline, for $13,200 at $3 per gallon. Also, if you’re going to include the cost of the battery pack wearing out then it’s only fair we should also add in the cost of oil changes and repairs of the gasoline engine too. That could easily add up to $20,000 over the course of 120,000 miles. So, to travel 120,000 miles, you could buy $13,200 worth of gasoline and pay $20,000 for repairs to the ICE, or you could buy $6,000 worth of electricity and pay $10,000 when the battery pack wears out. Seems to me the EV costs less money, not more. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2014, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-actually-helping-the-environment-if-green-technology-costs-a-lot-more/707604/28 "2014-12-19T20:35:26Z")
> [@am77494](#): > > Do not understand what you mean by that. Nitrous oxide emitted from a power plant is a pollutant - that does not make Nitrous oxide used by the dentist polluted. Sulfur dioxide emitted by a power plant is a pollutant - that does not make sulfur dioxide used for preserving dried fruits or sulfur dioxide used in wine polluted. Just like they say: ‘_a weed is a flower growing where it’s not wanted_.’ ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2014, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-actually-helping-the-environment-if-green-technology-costs-a-lot-more/707604/29 "2014-12-19T21:33:51Z")
> [@am77494](#): > > The same can be said about coal fired power plants. Whether it is particulates, sulfur or wastewater - the existing laws are very stringent. Not nearly stringent enough–they still cause [24,000 early deaths per year](http://www.lung.org/press-room/press-releases/statement-of-charles-d.html) due to asthma and other respiratory problems. Also, you’re just counting the plants–the mining must be considered as well. There are limits to this approach, obviously. How should we consider the tourism impact from the landscape devastation caused by coal mining? Probably impossible to calculate. But we can certainly count things like health costs. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2014, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-actually-helping-the-environment-if-green-technology-costs-a-lot-more/707604/30 "2014-12-20T14:34:19Z")
Batteries and electric motors are costly to make, but internal combustion engines don’t grow on trees either. Often in these sorts of discussions, the costs of the prevailing technology are treated as zero, which is silly. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-actually-helping-the-environment-if-green-technology-costs-a-lot-more/707604.md?page=1)