That's disgusting. I hope people will not be misled to think that driving these cars avoids burning fossil fuels. In the US, around 90 percent of the electricity to charge these things comes from fossil fuels (mostly coal) and nuclear. I'm really unhappy that all of us are subsidizing these vehicles through federal tax credits, making them so that relatively wealthy people can get rid of their eco-guilt by deluding themselves.
That money would do everyone much more good if it were spent to make trains and buses viable options in places where people have been forced to rely on their own personal vehicles.
China's rail plans involve about 70,000 miles of track in the next ten years. If the US doesn't do at least that amount, there's going to be serious trouble when the price of oil starts going way up again. We should have been developing this decades ago, and the coming decade is when we're really going to feel deeper and deeper regret for all the things we didn't do.

Never mind how much safer light rail is to driving. Maybe I'm just paranoid but I'm kind of baffled why people wouldn't be pushing for more safe transit considering the death tolls of highway driving etc.

You can pull my (not yet purchased) EV out of my cold, dead hands. Keep in mind that electric companies are planning for increased plug load from EV. Please also consider that a utilities energy mix is different by region and provider. Here's Pacific Power's energy mix:

Coal – 74.6%
Hydro – 12.0%
Natural Gas – 11.3%
Biomass – .7%
Wind – 0.7%
Other – 0.7%

PGE has info here:

http://www.portlandgeneral.com/our_company…

It's misleading to quote a national average that's going to be heavily skewed by our neighbors to the East. If you really want to do something, start addressing your consumption habits in all phases of your daily life.

Though I agree the marketing is trash - keep in mind all car marketing (okay, all marketing) is garbage. EVs will have a positive impact on the environment. People aren't going to magically stop driving overnight (barring global scale disasters).

tl;dr: there's bigger energy efficiency issues to work on rather than tearing down electric vehicles.

Polar bears are selling out. I don't like them any more.

@ S.F. Reynolds: I agree - it's bullshit they've cynically cashed in on easy marketing dollars. I liked them better before they got famous. Stupid Coca-cola.

@ Fruit Cup:
"Keep in mind that electric companies are planning for increased plug load from EV."

Source? I've researched this quite in-depth, frankly, and I don't think the outlook is promising in terms of how much generating capacity they can bring online, where it's going to come from, and what the costs and benefits will be. The real solution has to be using drastically less energy. (And I have addressed my own consumption, but thank you for the suggestion.)

"It's misleading to quote a national average that's going to be heavily skewed by our neighbors to the East"

I don't understand what this means. You do realize that the Pacific Power figures you cite are worse than the national average in terms of fossil-fuel reliance? Anyway, it's important to look at the bigger, national picture as well as the regional one.

"EVs will have a positive impact on the environment."
No, but they likely have a somewhat less negative one than a conventional internal combustion engine. That's not saying much. There are other solutions that don't involve a lot of the problems with EVs (there are others). That doesn't mean it's a significant part of the solution. Even if we could get 10 or 20 million EVs on the road in the next several years, that would not even make a dent in getting us out of the mess we're in, and people are being lulled into a false sense of security that innovations like this are "the answer" and that consumer choices alone can "save the environment." The answer is drastically expanding public transportation and getting people to use it. No small task. We need to focus the vast majority of our efforts on that, rather than subsidizing people's purchases of somewhat more efficient personal vehicles (see also Cash for Clunkers).

Damn I wish I lived across the street from that guy with the Nissan Leaf I'd have a nice new white rug and a freezer full of meat. It looked like that grizley bear was goning to eat him.

Damn I can't find my MIT textbook on electric cars and energy systems. I will have to go with RMI and Plan B for reference.

If you can use EV's for storage then you can take your dirtiest plants out of service. Even in coal country the EV's will be charging off peak. Those coal plants still have to run off peak, this is called spinning reserves. So they are charging those cars when they were running anyway.

It is like cash for clunkers. The people who used to drive 45 MPG gas cars went and got 12 MPG biodiesel cars to save the world, causing an increase in food prices and starving the poor. The Clunker program let them crush those biohogs and go out and by inbreds and EV's that get 60 MPG.

Here's a couple links that might help. Rosy is pretty much spot on.

This is a press release from the NW planning council regarding power system effects of EV:

http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/releases/…

PowerPoint presentation from this year's City of Beaverton Living Greener environmental show (presented by EV Roadmap):

http://www.beavertonoregon.gov/departments…

Not making a value judgement on Pacific Power's energy mix. Simply putting it there as information.

If you read NW planning councils 6th power plan (http://www.nwcouncil.org/energy/powerplan/…), you'll find that 85% of planning for the next 20 years is related to increasing energy efficiency initiatives. The rest of our power will come from increasing use of natural gas (which you'll note is evident on the comparison between 2010 and 2015 PGE energy mix).

The important distinction is that EV is going to play a role. It's pure fantasy to think transportation needs and energy efficiency initiatives can be met by getting more people to ride the bus.