

I am interested in this topic because it was one of the few things that sparked my interest whilst I was in an electrical engineering class last semester. While on the topic of electric cars we started to crunch some numbers on the amount of air pollution given off by regular gas powered cars as opposed to all the other sources of air pollution in the world. We found out that pollutants given off directly from gas powered cars only make up a little over a third of the world's total pollutants. As we researched on we found that if we were to replace all gas automobiles with electric cars the percentage of pollution given directly from cars would decrease slightly but the amount of pollutants given off by major industries and factories would increase to a point where it wouldn't make much of a difference. This research question doesn't affect my values because obviously the world needs a solution to air pollution but I don't believe that answer can be found through the implementation of All-electric cars with today's power grid. I have no personal experience regarding air pollution other than the fact that I breathe it in everyday which I believe is reason enough to try and understand and write about it.


My first source comes from CBN and its major claim is that All-Electric cars aren't eco-friendly and explains with a few reasons. First off, the article tells us that most of the time the electricity used to power these E-cars comes from coal burning power plants, and how just that factor lead to 3.6 times more soot and smog deaths than that of gas cars. Secondly the author tells us how much of the world's electricity come from these power plants which estimates to 36%. The final argument in this article tells us that overall, taking into account both the emissions and the effects of building the batteries, the all-electric car accounts for 86% more deaths than cars that use regular gasoline. The reason CBN holds an interest in this topic could be the fact that they want to find a solution to the air pollution crisis. This would be the reasoning for adding in a solution in the article which is a cleaner grid that doesn't run on coal. I believe this is a credible article because it's on a news website which is meant to inform.


The main claim of this article is that all-electric cars are worse than gas cars environmentally. Although the claims are the same they are expressed in different ways. It starts off by telling us that in 38 states E-cars driven in that are better on the environment than regular gas cars but in the other 12 states 90% of the pollution spills over into the states that surround them. It ends by telling us that although it might be better directly in most states, the electric cars power has to be created somewhere, mostly coal powered power plants. I believe the author is just be trying to make this issue more known and doesn't have any unknown motives due to the fact that he acknowledges the opposing side of the argument but overall I believe his major stake in this is to give insight on the subject. Lastly I think this author is credible because he has written about a lot of other important topics for the Washington examiner.


The main point is that EVs (Electric vehicles) are more polluting than gas-powered vehicles. They back this claim up through the results of a study conducted by the Norwegian University of Science and technology. The most important finding of the study was that if all the factors along the life-cycle of an EV are taken into account (such as the toxic battery ingredients, and the type of grids used to power the cars) that the global warming potential is about double of those given off by gas powered cars. It also states that the use of coal and oil to make the electricity for these cars is very counterproductive. The end of the article talks about how EVs in Europe are 10%-24% cleaner because they use an electricity mix in their grid. What they mean by electricity mix is that they use both coal and oil based plants in addition to renewable resources such as solar or wind power. I believe this article was made mostly to persuade but mostly to inform the public about the issue at hand. I believe this is a credible source because they have a lot of other articles on subjects regarding technology and engineering.



This research question is very arguable because of the controversy surrounding the topic and the amount of research there is available to the public. My articles all had there major claims in common but they were explained in different ways. The different perspectives on this issue give me more avenues to research in order to better understand the subject. I don't think my research question needs revising because it's specific enough to have two different sides of the argument.
