Environmental Management and Policy

Why, according to the author, are electric cars not a popular option among the people?

A. The recharging points are not easily available everywhere. B. Effective marketing of the eco-friendly cars has been lacking. C. Lack of appreciation among the people for the need of unpolluted air.

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the question.

As the price of gasoline spiked to record highs in 2007 and 2008, interest in alternatives to fossil fuels and electric transportation in particular, also spiked. It raised, however, many questions about the true environmental impact of electric cars.
The electric car is being upheld as an ethical, green, nifty and cheap alternative to the carbon dioxide-emitting automobiles clogging city roads around the world today. Though electric cars are not a popular choice, the industry's future plans are riding high on the hope that on improving certain factors, (which are currently deficient) such as, effective marketing, a growing public awareness of the need for clean air and the increase in demand, the prices would eventually be driven down.
However, battery powered vehicles may still fail to completely replace liquid fuel-fed–ones but with more electric and hybrid vehicles on the road, there is a greater scope for a makeover in the way environment is impacted by the automobiles. However, if the power to charge the battery-operated vehicle is to be sourced from grids using conventional coal–fired power plants, the electric car wouldn't really be all that green. These would actually cause an increase in demand on the power plant's energy production causing them to produce more power and thus, more pollution unless greener ways of energy production are used. But as of now, the bulk of the electricity used to charge the batteries of electric vehicles is generated by fossil fuel burning power stations and only 12% by clean methods. Also, the amount of energy used by coal fired power stations   to create the electricity to recharge electric vehicles makes them half as efficient as diesel cars. Recent studies indicate that carbon emissions may reduce only by an insignificant level even if there is a sudden surge in demand for electric cars.
Other factors making rechargeable cars less efficient include the amount of electricity lost in the journey between the coal fired power stations which generate it and the point where it recharges the car and the energy lost by the faulty first-generation batteries and motors. The researchers calculated that of the energy burned in a power station, only a quarter reaches an electric car after leakages and losses along the supply chain, giving the vehicle an energy efficiency score of 24%. This amounts to more than 75% energy loss much before the car is even put on ignition. A modern diesel engine, by contrast, achieves 45% efficiency. This suggests that if fossil fuels are to be burned, it is much more efficient to do it within the engine of a vehicle rather than at a power station and then try to send it via the National Grid, where a lot of energy is wasted and finally to store it in a battery which in itself might leak power.
Electric cars may still survive since the car's emissions would be far less polluting than those that run on fossil fuels. With very minor emissions of sulphur caused when the batteries charge and discharge, when compared to current emissions standards, electric cars are zero emissions. The gasoline engine by comparison does not fare as well. Gasoline and diesel fuel burned in internal combustion engines for transportation account of 54 percent of nitrites of oxygen, 89 percent of carbon monoxide and 28 percent of carbon dioxide pollution produced. Switching to electric vehicles drops those percentages to zero and only slightly increases sulphur emissions. So, even when the power plants hum dirty fuel, the amount of pollution is less than an oil burning car would create. And this picture is improving all the time, as clean energy sources are added to the grid.

Why, according to the author, is the efficiency of electric cars low even before they actually hit the road?

A. A lot of energy is lost during the transit of electricity from the grid to the recharge point. B. The manufacturing cost of electric cars is much higher than that of the other cars. C. The batteries and the motors of electric cars are still relatively new and waste a lot of power.

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the question.

As the price of gasoline spiked to record highs in 2007 and 2008, interest in alternatives to fossil fuels and electric transportation in particular, also spiked. It raised, however, many questions about the true environmental impact of electric cars.
The electric car is being upheld as an ethical, green, nifty and cheap alternative to the carbon dioxide-emitting automobiles clogging city roads around the world today. Though electric cars are not a popular choice, the industry's future plans are riding high on the hope that on improving certain factors, (which are currently deficient) such as, effective marketing, a growing public awareness of the need for clean air and the increase in demand, the prices would eventually be driven down.
However, battery powered vehicles may still fail to completely replace liquid fuel-fed–ones but with more electric and hybrid vehicles on the road, there is a greater scope for a makeover in the way environment is impacted by the automobiles. However, if the power to charge the battery-operated vehicle is to be sourced from grids using conventional coal–fired power plants, the electric car wouldn't really be all that green. These would actually cause an increase in demand on the power plant's energy production causing them to produce more power and thus, more pollution unless greener ways of energy production are used. But as of now, the bulk of the electricity used to charge the batteries of electric vehicles is generated by fossil fuel burning power stations and only 12% by clean methods. Also, the amount of energy used by coal fired power stations   to create the electricity to recharge electric vehicles makes them half as efficient as diesel cars. Recent studies indicate that carbon emissions may reduce only by an insignificant level even if there is a sudden surge in demand for electric cars.
Other factors making rechargeable cars less efficient include the amount of electricity lost in the journey between the coal fired power stations which generate it and the point where it recharges the car and the energy lost by the faulty first-generation batteries and motors. The researchers calculated that of the energy burned in a power station, only a quarter reaches an electric car after leakages and losses along the supply chain, giving the vehicle an energy efficiency score of 24%. This amounts to more than 75% energy loss much before the car is even put on ignition. A modern diesel engine, by contrast, achieves 45% efficiency. This suggests that if fossil fuels are to be burned, it is much more efficient to do it within the engine of a vehicle rather than at a power station and then try to send it via the National Grid, where a lot of energy is wasted and finally to store it in a battery which in itself might leak power.
Electric cars may still survive since the car's emissions would be far less polluting than those that run on fossil fuels. With very minor emissions of sulphur caused when the batteries charge and discharge, when compared to current emissions standards, electric cars are zero emissions. The gasoline engine by comparison does not fare as well. Gasoline and diesel fuel burned in internal combustion engines for transportation account of 54 percent of nitrites of oxygen, 89 percent of carbon monoxide and 28 percent of carbon dioxide pollution produced. Switching to electric vehicles drops those percentages to zero and only slightly increases sulphur emissions. So, even when the power plants hum dirty fuel, the amount of pollution is less than an oil burning car would create. And this picture is improving all the time, as clean energy sources are added to the grid.

Which of the following is/are the suggestion(s) that the author makes in order to popularise electric cars?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the question.

As the price of gasoline spiked to record highs in 2007 and 2008, interest in alternatives to fossil fuels and electric transportation in particular, also spiked. It raised, however, many questions about the true environmental impact of electric cars.
The electric car is being upheld as an ethical, green, nifty and cheap alternative to the carbon dioxide-emitting automobiles clogging city roads around the world today. Though electric cars are not a popular choice, the industry's future plans are riding high on the hope that on improving certain factors, (which are currently deficient) such as, effective marketing, a growing public awareness of the need for clean air and the increase in demand, the prices would eventually be driven down.
However, battery powered vehicles may still fail to completely replace liquid fuel-fed–ones but with more electric and hybrid vehicles on the road, there is a greater scope for a makeover in the way environment is impacted by the automobiles. However, if the power to charge the battery-operated vehicle is to be sourced from grids using conventional coal–fired power plants, the electric car wouldn't really be all that green. These would actually cause an increase in demand on the power plant's energy production causing them to produce more power and thus, more pollution unless greener ways of energy production are used. But as of now, the bulk of the electricity used to charge the batteries of electric vehicles is generated by fossil fuel burning power stations and only 12% by clean methods. Also, the amount of energy used by coal fired power stations   to create the electricity to recharge electric vehicles makes them half as efficient as diesel cars. Recent studies indicate that carbon emissions may reduce only by an insignificant level even if there is a sudden surge in demand for electric cars.
Other factors making rechargeable cars less efficient include the amount of electricity lost in the journey between the coal fired power stations which generate it and the point where it recharges the car and the energy lost by the faulty first-generation batteries and motors. The researchers calculated that of the energy burned in a power station, only a quarter reaches an electric car after leakages and losses along the supply chain, giving the vehicle an energy efficiency score of 24%. This amounts to more than 75% energy loss much before the car is even put on ignition. A modern diesel engine, by contrast, achieves 45% efficiency. This suggests that if fossil fuels are to be burned, it is much more efficient to do it within the engine of a vehicle rather than at a power station and then try to send it via the National Grid, where a lot of energy is wasted and finally to store it in a battery which in itself might leak power.
Electric cars may still survive since the car's emissions would be far less polluting than those that run on fossil fuels. With very minor emissions of sulphur caused when the batteries charge and discharge, when compared to current emissions standards, electric cars are zero emissions. The gasoline engine by comparison does not fare as well. Gasoline and diesel fuel burned in internal combustion engines for transportation account of 54 percent of nitrites of oxygen, 89 percent of carbon monoxide and 28 percent of carbon dioxide pollution produced. Switching to electric vehicles drops those percentages to zero and only slightly increases sulphur emissions. So, even when the power plants hum dirty fuel, the amount of pollution is less than an oil burning car would create. And this picture is improving all the time, as clean energy sources are added to the grid.

Directions: Choose the word/group of words which is most similar in meaning to the word printed in bold as used in the passage.

SURGE

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the question.

As the price of gasoline spiked to record highs in 2007 and 2008, interest in alternatives to fossil fuels and electric transportation in particular, also spiked. It raised, however, many questions about the true environmental impact of electric cars.
The electric car is being upheld as an ethical, green, nifty and cheap alternative to the carbon dioxide-emitting automobiles clogging city roads around the world today. Though electric cars are not a popular choice, the industry's future plans are riding high on the hope that on improving certain factors, (which are currently deficient) such as, effective marketing, a growing public awareness of the need for clean air and the increase in demand, the prices would eventually be driven down.
However, battery powered vehicles may still fail to completely replace liquid fuel-fed–ones but with more electric and hybrid vehicles on the road, there is a greater scope for a makeover in the way environment is impacted by the automobiles. However, if the power to charge the battery-operated vehicle is to be sourced from grids using conventional coal–fired power plants, the electric car wouldn't really be all that green. These would actually cause an increase in demand on the power plant's energy production causing them to produce more power and thus, more pollution unless greener ways of energy production are used. But as of now, the bulk of the electricity used to charge the batteries of electric vehicles is generated by fossil fuel burning power stations and only 12% by clean methods. Also, the amount of energy used by coal fired power stations   to create the electricity to recharge electric vehicles makes them half as efficient as diesel cars. Recent studies indicate that carbon emissions may reduce only by an insignificant level even if there is a sudden surge in demand for electric cars.
Other factors making rechargeable cars less efficient include the amount of electricity lost in the journey between the coal fired power stations which generate it and the point where it recharges the car and the energy lost by the faulty first-generation batteries and motors. The researchers calculated that of the energy burned in a power station, only a quarter reaches an electric car after leakages and losses along the supply chain, giving the vehicle an energy efficiency score of 24%. This amounts to more than 75% energy loss much before the car is even put on ignition. A modern diesel engine, by contrast, achieves 45% efficiency. This suggests that if fossil fuels are to be burned, it is much more efficient to do it within the engine of a vehicle rather than at a power station and then try to send it via the National Grid, where a lot of energy is wasted and finally to store it in a battery which in itself might leak power.
Electric cars may still survive since the car's emissions would be far less polluting than those that run on fossil fuels. With very minor emissions of sulphur caused when the batteries charge and discharge, when compared to current emissions standards, electric cars are zero emissions. The gasoline engine by comparison does not fare as well. Gasoline and diesel fuel burned in internal combustion engines for transportation account of 54 percent of nitrites of oxygen, 89 percent of carbon monoxide and 28 percent of carbon dioxide pollution produced. Switching to electric vehicles drops those percentages to zero and only slightly increases sulphur emissions. So, even when the power plants hum dirty fuel, the amount of pollution is less than an oil burning car would create. And this picture is improving all the time, as clean energy sources are added to the grid.

Why, according to the author, may the electric cars survive despite all their current deficiencies?

A. Electric cars will be subsidised and thus, would prove to be cost efficient to the buyers. B. An increasing number of grids are shifting to alternative forms of energy production. C. In the future, incentives would be provided to those driving electric cars. D. Pollution caused by the electric cars is far less as compared to the fossil fuel driven cars.

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the question.

As the price of gasoline spiked to record highs in 2007 and 2008, interest in alternatives to fossil fuels and electric transportation in particular, also spiked. It raised, however, many questions about the true environmental impact of electric cars.
The electric car is being upheld as an ethical, green, nifty and cheap alternative to the carbon dioxide-emitting automobiles clogging city roads around the world today. Though electric cars are not a popular choice, the industry's future plans are riding high on the hope that on improving certain factors, (which are currently deficient) such as, effective marketing, a growing public awareness of the need for clean air and the increase in demand, the prices would eventually be driven down.
However, battery powered vehicles may still fail to completely replace liquid fuel-fed–ones but with more electric and hybrid vehicles on the road, there is a greater scope for a makeover in the way environment is impacted by the automobiles. However, if the power to charge the battery-operated vehicle is to be sourced from grids using conventional coal–fired power plants, the electric car wouldn't really be all that green. These would actually cause an increase in demand on the power plant's energy production causing them to produce more power and thus, more pollution unless greener ways of energy production are used. But as of now, the bulk of the electricity used to charge the batteries of electric vehicles is generated by fossil fuel burning power stations and only 12% by clean methods. Also, the amount of energy used by coal fired power stations   to create the electricity to recharge electric vehicles makes them half as efficient as diesel cars. Recent studies indicate that carbon emissions may reduce only by an insignificant level even if there is a sudden surge in demand for electric cars.
Other factors making rechargeable cars less efficient include the amount of electricity lost in the journey between the coal fired power stations which generate it and the point where it recharges the car and the energy lost by the faulty first-generation batteries and motors. The researchers calculated that of the energy burned in a power station, only a quarter reaches an electric car after leakages and losses along the supply chain, giving the vehicle an energy efficiency score of 24%. This amounts to more than 75% energy loss much before the car is even put on ignition. A modern diesel engine, by contrast, achieves 45% efficiency. This suggests that if fossil fuels are to be burned, it is much more efficient to do it within the engine of a vehicle rather than at a power station and then try to send it via the National Grid, where a lot of energy is wasted and finally to store it in a battery which in itself might leak power.
Electric cars may still survive since the car's emissions would be far less polluting than those that run on fossil fuels. With very minor emissions of sulphur caused when the batteries charge and discharge, when compared to current emissions standards, electric cars are zero emissions. The gasoline engine by comparison does not fare as well. Gasoline and diesel fuel burned in internal combustion engines for transportation account of 54 percent of nitrites of oxygen, 89 percent of carbon monoxide and 28 percent of carbon dioxide pollution produced. Switching to electric vehicles drops those percentages to zero and only slightly increases sulphur emissions. So, even when the power plants hum dirty fuel, the amount of pollution is less than an oil burning car would create. And this picture is improving all the time, as clean energy sources are added to the grid.

Why does the author fear that the electric cars may eventually not be very eco-friendly?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the question.

As the price of gasoline spiked to record highs in 2007 and 2008, interest in alternatives to fossil fuels and electric transportation in particular, also spiked. It raised, however, many questions about the true environmental impact of electric cars.
The electric car is being upheld as an ethical, green, nifty and cheap alternative to the carbon dioxide-emitting automobiles clogging city roads around the world today. Though electric cars are not a popular choice, the industry's future plans are riding high on the hope that on improving certain factors, (which are currently deficient) such as, effective marketing, a growing public awareness of the need for clean air and the increase in demand, the prices would eventually be driven down.
However, battery powered vehicles may still fail to completely replace liquid fuel-fed–ones but with more electric and hybrid vehicles on the road, there is a greater scope for a makeover in the way environment is impacted by the automobiles. However, if the power to charge the battery-operated vehicle is to be sourced from grids using conventional coal–fired power plants, the electric car wouldn't really be all that green. These would actually cause an increase in demand on the power plant's energy production causing them to produce more power and thus, more pollution unless greener ways of energy production are used. But as of now, the bulk of the electricity used to charge the batteries of electric vehicles is generated by fossil fuel burning power stations and only 12% by clean methods. Also, the amount of energy used by coal fired power stations   to create the electricity to recharge electric vehicles makes them half as efficient as diesel cars. Recent studies indicate that carbon emissions may reduce only by an insignificant level even if there is a sudden surge in demand for electric cars.
Other factors making rechargeable cars less efficient include the amount of electricity lost in the journey between the coal fired power stations which generate it and the point where it recharges the car and the energy lost by the faulty first-generation batteries and motors. The researchers calculated that of the energy burned in a power station, only a quarter reaches an electric car after leakages and losses along the supply chain, giving the vehicle an energy efficiency score of 24%. This amounts to more than 75% energy loss much before the car is even put on ignition. A modern diesel engine, by contrast, achieves 45% efficiency. This suggests that if fossil fuels are to be burned, it is much more efficient to do it within the engine of a vehicle rather than at a power station and then try to send it via the National Grid, where a lot of energy is wasted and finally to store it in a battery which in itself might leak power.
Electric cars may still survive since the car's emissions would be far less polluting than those that run on fossil fuels. With very minor emissions of sulphur caused when the batteries charge and discharge, when compared to current emissions standards, electric cars are zero emissions. The gasoline engine by comparison does not fare as well. Gasoline and diesel fuel burned in internal combustion engines for transportation account of 54 percent of nitrites of oxygen, 89 percent of carbon monoxide and 28 percent of carbon dioxide pollution produced. Switching to electric vehicles drops those percentages to zero and only slightly increases sulphur emissions. So, even when the power plants hum dirty fuel, the amount of pollution is less than an oil burning car would create. And this picture is improving all the time, as clean energy sources are added to the grid.

Which of the following is/are suggested in the passage by which global warming can be reduced?

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

Our current approach to solving global warming will not work. It is flawed economically, because carbon taxes will cost a fortune and do little, and it is flawed politically because negotiations to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions will become ever more fraught and divisive. And even if you disagree on both counts, the current approach is also flawed technologically.
Many countries are now setting ambitious carbon cutting goals ahead of global negotiations. Let us imagine that the world ultimately agrees on an ambitious target. Say, we decide to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by three-quarters by the year 2100 while maintaining reasonable growth. Herein lies the technological problem to meet this goal, non-carbon based sources of energy would have to be astounding 2.5 times greater in 2100 than that was in the year 2000.
These figures were calculated by economists of a foreign university. Their research shows that confronting global warming effectively requires nothing short of a technological revolution. We are not taking this challenge seriously. If we continue on our current path, technological development will be nowhere near significant enough to make non-carbon based energy sources competitive with fossil fuels on price and effectiveness.
Sadly, during the international negotiations, the focus is on how much carbon to cut, rather than on how to do so. Little or no consideration will be given to whether the means of cutting emissions are sufficient to achieve the goals. Politicians will base their decisions on global warming models that simply assume that technological breakthroughs will happen by themselves. This faith is sadly and dangerously misplaced.
Economists examine the state of non-carbon based energy today - nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal and find that, taken together, alternative energy sources would get us less than halfway towards a path of stable carbon emissions by 2050, and only a tiny fraction of the way towards stabilization by 2100. We need many times more non-carbon based energy than which is currently produced.
Yet the needed technology will not be ready in terms of scalability or stability. In many cases, there is still a need for the most basic research and development. We are not even close to getting this revolution started.
Current technology is so inefficient that to take just one example, if we were serious about wind power, we would have to blanket most countries with wind turbines to generate enough energy for everybody, and we would still have the massive problem of storage. We don't know what to do when the wind does not blow.
Policy makers should abandon fraught carbon reduction negotiations and instead make agreements to invest in research and development to get this technology to the level where it needs to be.