6 Responses

1. You can’t prove something that’s not true. I suggest you change your paper topic if at all possible. Otherwise you might as well try to prove that unicorns are real.

   Hybrids are better for the environment than gas cars, and EVs better than hybrids. See the link below.

2. Another want of those: If you’re not burning gas, you’re burning dirty coal positions just so you can get a smaller slower car. It’s a very weak argument. As someone who works in the electric industry, those baseline coal generators run at 100% burn whether we are consuming or not. The grid is at a very low threshold during the late night and early morning periods when these kinds of cars would make that system more efficient.

   Seeing that you want to group up Hybrids and EV’s into one group, the only commonalty is the battery bank. If these are smashed in a wreck, it might be more challenging on first responders. You might be able to talk about how more batteries will likely not be recycled properly. A really hard to grasp concept would be a gas-car culture who are not use to maintaining batteries will likely abuse and ruin many getting use to them, so more initial energy getting use to maintaining batteries that are touchy about extreme heat and cold, not to mention overcharging.

3. bttr go to some websites like fastcustomessays.com and request some help from there. I am not recommending anything like this but just adding my experience. It is always recommeded to write ur own paper but sometimes we have to use this type of help due to the need of the time. Hope this will work for you too. Have a wonderful, prosperous Year 2010

4. Well some articles say that when you use algae as fuel for electric vehicles, they turn out to be worse for the environment. Here’s an example: http://www.ecoseed.org/en/general-green-news/greentech-news/greentech-a-science-news/5984-Algae-biofuels-leave-significant-carbon-footprint

   Although basically, hybrid and electric vehicles aim to reduce emissions in the atmosphere. Read more about hybrid vehicles, battery electric vehicles, and fuel cell vehicles here: http://www.ecoseed.org/en/general-reference/green-reference/green-transportation

5. In answering any question it is best to try and determine what the questioner is really asking. At first blush your question seems to say,

   “I have already made up my mind, don’t bother me with the facts.”

   One would have to wonder at the wisdom of asking about problems with alternative fuel vehicles in an alternative fuel vehicle section of YA. Logic would suggest that a more receptive audience might be in some other “cars” or even environmental section. It is like asking what is wrong or dangerous about motorcycles or jet ski’s in a motorcycle or water sports section. (research helps) It is a bit perverse.

   But perversity can have its own purpose. It is like a wrestler practicing with someone several times higher in weight class or a body builder lifting very heavy weights or an ant trying to lift a weight they cannot possibly move. You have to admire the effort and it may improve (narrow) your focus. In college I enjoyed taking a perverse perspective when given the opportunity to select a topic in impromptu persuasive speeches. By shocking the audience many other errors are forgiven and concentration is shifted away from my perverse ideas. Then anything might become acceptable.

   Another reason for perversity is simply to shake up a group thinking. Accepted thinking is the bane of fresh ideas. Just as acceptance of the internal combustion engine currently has a kind of group thinking associated with it that locks out fresh ideas so eventually will thinking about the electric car. And among special groups this may already begin to exist.

   But the problem with most environmental downsides of electric vehicles is that they are easily defeated with logic. Some will point to charging, transmission, and production losses in electricity to suggest that the entire system is not so efficient as the 85 to 90% efficient electric car. But as soon as the chain of efficiency for oil production is examined this argument collapses. Then again electrical production can be examined directly and coal can be compared to nuclear energy. Unfortunately the long tailpipe comparison is again too easily defeated by comparing the electrical usage and pollution produced by refineries, let alone oil exploration, production, and even protection by armies using oil. And still you have an unfavorable comparison of the ICE vehicle to the electric. I wouldn’t want to mislead you with weak sources.

   No, to get at the down side of electrical vehicles you need a different perspective than the environment. Either you can take one of these weak arguments and keep screaming it out in an effort to drown out all other arguments. This has been effective in the past and there are many cites that use this style of argument but you can’t really quote them as credible sources.

   Or you might switch to a political/economic perspective. You could say that that oil companies are “too big to fail” (this worked with the banks) and that we need pollution to promote our economy. This might not play well with environmentalists but they are a marginal group anyway aren’t they? Capitalists will accept you as one of their own.

   Those who promote nuclear energy are good with actuarial tables (the ones that tell how many people will die in a certain group) You could also take their perspective and promote non environmental vehicles by showing that so many people would have died anyway from natural causes so a few more to promote the economy would not make much of a difference anyway. These are really your better arguments. Good luck.

6. You can’t start an investigation to prove or disprove something.
   Only oil industry shills look for defects, right from the beginning.

   Anyhow, Hybrids MAY (or may not) pollute more if their manufacture pollutes, and their parts are short lasting (which requires frequent spare parts chaging), that pollute in their manufacture.