Definition Rewrite- imgoingswimming

Environmental Friendliness of Electric Vehicles

Electric cars have always come in and out of popularity since their creation. In 1900 they were popular as they were 28% of all cars created at that time says the American Census from 1905. As we have become more concerned over our environmental impact on our earth we have tried to find what we can do to save our planet. This has been by reducing plastic usage, recycling, and trying to cut down on using non reusable resources. The newest and most promising way to help save the environment is by bringing back these electric cars. With current technology these cars have advanced to now become better in many ways than traditional gas or diesel powered vehicles. The downsides is that these electric cars still find ways to run on gas, diesel, and even coal. While many believe that these electric cars are going to save the earth we tend not to focus on the dirty side of clean energy. 

We have come to the conclusion that electric cars are going to save us even though this isn’t exactly correct yet. Coultura is an organization that’s target is to have a gasoline free America and has documents all of the states and countries playing to go electric with their vehicles. According to Coultura, nine of the fifty states in the US and even some countries around the globe are making plans to phase out gas powered cars. Some have even passed legislation to ban the selling of new gasoline powered cars by certain dates. New Jersey is an example of this as legislation has been made to ban the selling of new gas powered cars by 2040. Most countries are just making plans on the matter, while Ireland has started to propose legislation to do this by 2030. Norway is ahead of this as they plan on banning new electric cars by 2025 as already 60% of their vehicles are already electric. Iceland’s plan is to do this by 2030, but also plans to eliminate half of its gas stations by 2025. This overall is a fantastic push by these countries and many other to in order to try to help the environment and usage of fossil fuels. The only downside of patting ourselves on the back for these large leaps is that we don’t see the way in which electricity is produced. 

In the United States we tend to believe that our electricity comes from clean sources, but most of it does not. The percentages of electricity usage in the United States can be found documents by the US Energy Administration. According the the US Energy Administration, In the United States the total electricity produced is only made up of 17% renewable resources such as hydroelectric, biomass, geothermal, wind, and solar. The rest is 20% nuclear, 23% coal, and 38% natural gases. Less than 1% of the energy was produced with petroleum. Cars than run on almost a quarter coal does not seem like the future, but they would be if this were to change.

Our Usage of coal has thankfully decreased since about 2008 when our usage of coal was at its highest. The amount of electricity produced with coal in 2008 went from 1,986 billion kilowatt hours to 996 billion kilowatt hours in 2019. The usage of renewable energy has been growing sing the early 1950s, and the different kinds and effectiveness of renewable energy has also grew. Solar and wind power have skyrocketed in popularity since the early 2000s. This has been good results from the United States but still not enough to call electric cars clean energy, rather it is dirty energy.

China is one of the worst examples of how these cars will run on dirty energy. While China has not made any plans yet Hong Kong specifically has plans to get rid of gasoline and diesel powered vehicles by 2030 or 2040 says Coltura. According to the US Energy Administration, while an electric car in the United States would run on 23% coal, a car in China would run on 58% coal. China electricity also runs on 20% petroleum and other liquids, 8% natural gas, 8% hydroelectricity, 2% nuclear, and 5% other renewable resources. This means that electric cars actually run on 78% coal and fuel in China. This means that electric cars are actually more inefficient in China than almost anywhere else in the world apart from India whose coal usage is 74% of there electricity production. China is the largest energy consumer and producer in the world and has the fastest growing population. This means that China is creating a large amount of pollution through their energy which many believe to be clean. These extremely large countries are using large amount of coal so what are the downsides towards the environment?

Coal has been a source of energy since the late 1880s and still to this day has been an extremely large source of the worlds energy. Coal has extreme downsides that can not be overlooked especially because it is being used so much to produce energy. According to the US Energy Administration coal causes many sources of pollution such as emitting sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, carbon dioxide, and even mercury and heavy metals. What some of these chemicals do is sulfur dioxide causes acid rain and nitrogen oxides cause smog and lung illnesses. This means that coal isn’t just bad for the environment but also bad for our health. This is why coal is the most dangerous of all of the ways to produce electricity and also the most concerning because many countries still continue to use it despite the environmental and health effects. If the amount of coal used can be cut down and almost eliminated as we see from exemplary countries such as Norway. Norway’s energy sources are 97% renewable resources in 2011, and in 2019, 93.4% of all of its energy comes from just hydroelectric alone. In Norway 60% of all cars are electric and they run on some of the cleanest energy that can be found.

Resources

“Gasoline Phaseouts Around The World – Coltura – Moving beyond Gasoline.” Colturahttp://www.coltura.org/world-gasoline-phaseouts#:~:text=New%20Jersey%3A%20In%20October%202020,sales%20being%20electric%20by%202040.

“Hydroelectric Battery of the North – Nordic Energy Research.” Hydroelectric Battery of the North –http://www.nordicenergy.org/figure/two-thirds-renewable/hydroelectric-battery-of-the-north/.

Steuart, William M., and Thomas Commerford Martin. Census of Manufactures: 1905. Electrical Machinery, Apparatus, and Supplies. Govt. Print. Off., 1907.

“U.S. Energy Information Administration – EIA – Independent Statistics and Analysis.” Coal and the Environment – U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/coal-and-the-environment.php.

“U.S. Energy Information Administration – EIA – Independent Statistics and Analysis.” Electricity in the U.S. – U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

“U.S. Energy Information Administration – EIA – Independent Statistics and Analysis.” International – U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)http://www.eia.gov/international/analysis/country/CHN.

This entry was posted in Definition Rewrite, imgoingswimming, Portfolio ImGoingSwimming. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Definition Rewrite- imgoingswimming

  1. davidbdale says:

    Good to see your Definition Argument here, Swimming.
    TECHNICAL NOTE.
    References in the world of long urls is pretty messy. I altered the Reference Note for the second article from the EIA to eliminate the 3-line url. I copied the link to my clipboard and linked it to the short title “Electricity in the US.” You can do the same without having to build new shortened bit.ly or 3.ly links.

    Like

  2. davidbdale says:

    Couple things about your Introduction.
    —First, it contains lots of good information and a couple of surprises for most readers. That 28% of America’s cars were electric in the early 1900s is remarkable. Don’t waste that. That electric cars “find a way to run on coal” will seem completely unbelievable to most of your readers. Don’t waste that.
    —Second, it doesn’t establish a clear Thesis for your 1000-word argument. Your title is neutral. It might promise that Electric Cars are indeed Friendly. But it might also suggest you’re out to myth-bust. After reading your entire paragraph, I still don’t know, and that’s a problem.

    Your paper here will probably be nuanced. YES the cars are friendly on emissions, but NO they’re not slam-dunk better unless the electricity they burn is also friendly. If that’s your message, be sure your readers know it or they’ll quit reading a paper that doesn’t have a position to promote.

    Do you want help on how to make the best rhetorical use of those surprising details? I’m itching to rewrite the intro for you, but that’s not always the best instructional technique. You should have a chance to show what you can do.

    Like

  3. davidbdale says:

    Your second paragraph, like your first, contains lots of useful information, Swimming, and I get the overall sense of the point you’re making, but the “gains” you herald are all in the “planning” stage. Readers get the wrong impression that you’re impressed with the “intentions” exhibited. You could make clearer that TWO things are wrong with our current situation. 1) We’re giving ourselves credit for making promises, and 2) We’re focusing solely on eliminating gasoline, while we should be concentrating on how to deliver all that NEW demand for electricity.

    That would cast your data into a new light, the real light I think you intend.

    Like

  4. davidbdale says:

    In paragraph 3, it’s good to instruct readers that they have a misconception about America’s energy sources. I think you have the emphasis backwards. Instead of leading with the statistic about how much electricity is sustainable, lump together all the sources that are NOT. Be sure to identify “natural gas” as a fossil fuel just like petroleum and coal. Remind readers that the goal of the electric car is two-fold. Reduce exhaust-pipe emissions AND reduce our use of fossil fuels. So far, they accomplish just one of those goals.

    Like

  5. davidbdale says:

    Paragraph 4 does contain good news, but the reduction in the use of coal has been accomplished almost completely by a corresponding increase in the use of natural gas. We’re only trading one fossil fuel for another. And the catastrophic damages caused by fracking are just as disturbing as coal soot and smokestack emissions and black lung disease.

    Like

  6. davidbdale says:

    Your fifth paragraph is a good place to boldly pronounce your other major claim: that your electric car is either clean or filthy depending on WHERE you drive.

    Like

  7. davidbdale says:

    Your Conclusion is actually two paragraphs, one about coal, and the other about PLACES IN THE WORLD WHERE YOUR ELECTRIC CAR IS ACTUALLY DELIVERING ON ITS PROMISE.

    The coal paragraph needs to be positioned earlier in your essay, about where your reader starts to think, “Why is this author so insistent on reminding me my car might run on coal?” Remember your job as the server in the fine dining restaurant. Pay attention to your tables. Visit often, anticipate their needs, notice when they need wine or water or another bread basket. Timing is everything in the effective delivery of information.

    Overall I’m delighted with your massing of evidence for a first draft, Swimming. You’ve produced a good example of how to get started on a 1000-word argument. Remember though, grades are assigned to your work AS IF IT WERE ALREADY IN YOUR PORTFOLIO, a much higher standard than grading a first draft. Don’t rest on this good work. Get in there and make substantial improvements to earn a Regrade.

    And keep the conversation going. I’m very liberal with my time and feedback for students who respond, and I quickly learn to ignore those who prefer to be left alone.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s