Recently, as excitement for alternative vehicles like electrics has grown, so has criticism saying that electric vehicles won’t be any better because they just shift the burden of pollution from the car to the power plant. What’s worse, some say, is that this shift could overburden an already ailing power system and cause more coal plants to be built.
But the above graph put together by Technology Review (reg recd) shows that just comparing plug-ins with each other using different power sources, in almost every case is the result better than standard hybrids, and all cases are better than conventional gasoline-burning engines.
Similarly, an Oak Ridge National Laboratory study shows that even if newer plug-ins will require energy from the grid, they will most likely be charging at night, when there is little demand for electricity and the extra use from plug-ins might actually be helpful to spread out peaks and dips in production and usage.
The most important thing to remember, however, is that because plug-ins do shift the burden from each individual car to the power grid, the overall system becomes easier to regulate and easier to influence as more sustainable power generation technologies become available. Every time a new wind generator goes up and a coal plant goes offline, your plug-in will become just that much cleaner. On the other hand, gasoline engines will just grow more inefficient and polluting with time.
Hits: 7738
Comments (32)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by wesley bruce, April 23, 2008
Nice table it needs biofuel hybrids added when algae oil and cellulosic ethanol gets going big time in the next few months.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Albert, April 23, 2008
Aloha Kakou,
Date: June 7 2008
We are holding an event at Kalapaki beach, Kauai. located near Nawiliwili harbor, And I would like to have you be a part of this on going vent.. It's a cultural event to share ideas of ways to educate the public about waste and ways of going green. come and share knowledge and island style craft's, Hula and music, ono food and drinks on the beach of Kalapaki. we would like to invite you and the whole community of Kauai to be apart of this special and on going event.. sponsors and donations are appreciated for prizes, here's a list of some of the companies that are interested in holding the event with me.
Marriot resort Kauai, Anheuser-Busch, Jamaba juice, True Blue, Nukumoi, Tamba, Blaze entertainment,
Featured event for the day an amateur surf contest and canoe regada
Mahalo,VSHE ceo Alberto Genovia
Date: June 7 2008
We are holding an event at Kalapaki beach, Kauai. located near Nawiliwili harbor, And I would like to have you be a part of this on going vent.. It's a cultural event to share ideas of ways to educate the public about waste and ways of going green. come and share knowledge and island style craft's, Hula and music, ono food and drinks on the beach of Kalapaki. we would like to invite you and the whole community of Kauai to be apart of this special and on going event.. sponsors and donations are appreciated for prizes, here's a list of some of the companies that are interested in holding the event with me.
Marriot resort Kauai, Anheuser-Busch, Jamaba juice, True Blue, Nukumoi, Tamba, Blaze entertainment,
Featured event for the day an amateur surf contest and canoe regada
Mahalo,VSHE ceo Alberto Genovia
-
- +0
-
-
written by Rob, April 23, 2008
Why does each PHEV have a base of 150 for the gasoline? Don't most of them use no gas for the first XX miles?
-
- +0
-
-
written by aaron, April 23, 2008
The plug-ins are only better in half of the situations presented in the graph; however, Mr. Jones said that in "almost every case" the plug-ins are superior.
It's a minor gripe, but an important one given the article does not accurately reflect the findings presented in the graph.
It's a minor gripe, but an important one given the article does not accurately reflect the findings presented in the graph.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Ailsa Ek, April 23, 2008
Why does everybody forget hydro power?
Oh, and the plug-ins are better than the conventional vehicle in all of the cases.
Oh, and the plug-ins are better than the conventional vehicle in all of the cases.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Robert Pritchett, April 23, 2008
The graph really ought to add all-electrics to the comparison, if it is including nuclear...
-
- +0
-
-
written by mcpuddin, April 23, 2008
Re: hydro power: I don't think hydro power has much room for expansion especially since it is so detrimental to the environment -- especially if you dam it up.
Re: Nuclear power: yah most of the electricity comes from nuclear (or will at least). Unfortunately nuclear power consumes (as well as most power plants) consume lots of fresh water when there is fear about our reserve of fresh water on the planet.
Electric cars are amazing, it takes the environmental burden off of the individual and more on the infrastructure. Imagine, according to the graph, if everyone shifted to an electric car by 2010, the carbon emissions would not only be reduced but has the potential to be reduced further as -- hopefully -- the electric grid completely transfers to solar and wind. If everyone is purchasing a hybrid, which is the current trend, then by 2015 everyone would be stuck with it and could not possibly improve it for lower co2 emissions.
Putting the burden on the grid not only is better for the environment but also has more potential than any gas or hybrid alternative.
Re: Nuclear power: yah most of the electricity comes from nuclear (or will at least). Unfortunately nuclear power consumes (as well as most power plants) consume lots of fresh water when there is fear about our reserve of fresh water on the planet.
Electric cars are amazing, it takes the environmental burden off of the individual and more on the infrastructure. Imagine, according to the graph, if everyone shifted to an electric car by 2010, the carbon emissions would not only be reduced but has the potential to be reduced further as -- hopefully -- the electric grid completely transfers to solar and wind. If everyone is purchasing a hybrid, which is the current trend, then by 2015 everyone would be stuck with it and could not possibly improve it for lower co2 emissions.
Putting the burden on the grid not only is better for the environment but also has more potential than any gas or hybrid alternative.
-
- +0
-
-
written by sodapop, April 23, 2008
Are they including the coal burned to create electricity for the plug in?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Roy, April 23, 2008
sodapop: if they weren't, what carbon would they be talking about, exactly?
-
- +0
-
-
written by sodapop, April 23, 2008
It doesn't fit. Ethanol fossil fuel blends pollute more than fossil fuels alone. Ethanol is a supply and demand solution not a green solution. Additionally, ethanol production in practice destroys rain forests and blanches the soil - creating deserts.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Michael, April 23, 2008
I have a hard time believing that the process of digging uranium ore out of the the ground, and processing it, combined with the huge carbon impact of building a nuke power plant, and the endless guarding of the nuke waste causes a tiny bit carbon more than solar and wind.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Earl Killian, April 23, 2008
What is interesting is the numbers you get when you add in mass transit. To do that you need to do it in g CO2e / passenger-mile. Amtrak is 180g/p-m. The Prius is 242 g/p-m with one person (i.e. better than your average hybrid), and 121 g/p-m with two people. (These are wells-to-wheels numbers from the EPA's website. I don't know if the Amtrak number is WTW.) In other words, two people in a Prius is better than Amtrak. A pure electric vehicle such as the 2002 Toyota RAV4-EV in California (where most of them are) is less than 150 g/p-m with one passenger, and only 75 g/p-m with two.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Jeremy, April 23, 2008
While it may be a good argument to show that shifting the burden to the electrical infrastructure in order to reduce pure CO2 emissions, there is a major problem when it comes to the economics of scale.
Our current power generating capacity and transmission infrastructure is already strained. We already have rolling blackouts in some areas during hot summer months, and some people can barely afford to pay their energy bills as it is. What happens when you start plugging in hundreds of thousands or millions of cars?
Our demand for electricity will just continue to increase faster than we can supply it. Lower supply and higher demand equals higher prices. So even if you aren't driving an electric car, you're subsidizing those who are. This will significantly affect the poor. Not only that, but more power plants and transmission lines will need to be built in order to sustain this increase in demand.
Yes, some of it may come in the form of alternative/renewable energy sources, but when it comes down to keeping costs down, you're also going to see a lot of fossil fuel plants go up as well, which just creates more emissions.
On a small scale, this whole scenario seems like a dream. But when you look at our current situation, what would be needed to sustain increased electricity output, and the effect it would have on energy prices as a whole, it isn't the answer. It is a step in the right direction in order to shift our reliance from gasoline, but a far cry from the answer.
Our current power generating capacity and transmission infrastructure is already strained. We already have rolling blackouts in some areas during hot summer months, and some people can barely afford to pay their energy bills as it is. What happens when you start plugging in hundreds of thousands or millions of cars?
Our demand for electricity will just continue to increase faster than we can supply it. Lower supply and higher demand equals higher prices. So even if you aren't driving an electric car, you're subsidizing those who are. This will significantly affect the poor. Not only that, but more power plants and transmission lines will need to be built in order to sustain this increase in demand.
Yes, some of it may come in the form of alternative/renewable energy sources, but when it comes down to keeping costs down, you're also going to see a lot of fossil fuel plants go up as well, which just creates more emissions.
On a small scale, this whole scenario seems like a dream. But when you look at our current situation, what would be needed to sustain increased electricity output, and the effect it would have on energy prices as a whole, it isn't the answer. It is a step in the right direction in order to shift our reliance from gasoline, but a far cry from the answer.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Bob Wallace, April 24, 2008
A recent study has shown that we if we instantly changed over to BEVs we could provide the power for more than 80% of them from existing capacity.
Our power system it built for periodic high energy uses such as hot afternoons when AC use is rampant. We've got a lot of unused capacity at night.
(Obviously we aren't going to do an instantaneous switch to BEVs so we've got some time to bring more capacity on line. Say, 20 years.)
We've now reached a point at which wind, thin film solar, and thermal solar are cost competative with most other methods of generation. Even coal, if we require carbon sequestering.
We should see 1% of our total electricity come from wind sources in 2008. That's getting close to the 1.6% that we get from petroleum. Wind should equal or surpass petroleum as an electricity generator within two years.
We (US) added 45% to our wind capacity in 2007.
We spent a bit over $30 billion on wind worldwide in 2007 and that amount is expected to rise to over $83 billion in 2008. That's almost a tripling of capital investment.
Big money has bought into wind (and to some extent solar thermal). People don't move massive amounts of capital into new areas if the numbers don't work.
Our power system it built for periodic high energy uses such as hot afternoons when AC use is rampant. We've got a lot of unused capacity at night.
(Obviously we aren't going to do an instantaneous switch to BEVs so we've got some time to bring more capacity on line. Say, 20 years.)
We've now reached a point at which wind, thin film solar, and thermal solar are cost competative with most other methods of generation. Even coal, if we require carbon sequestering.
We should see 1% of our total electricity come from wind sources in 2008. That's getting close to the 1.6% that we get from petroleum. Wind should equal or surpass petroleum as an electricity generator within two years.
We (US) added 45% to our wind capacity in 2007.
We spent a bit over $30 billion on wind worldwide in 2007 and that amount is expected to rise to over $83 billion in 2008. That's almost a tripling of capital investment.
Big money has bought into wind (and to some extent solar thermal). People don't move massive amounts of capital into new areas if the numbers don't work.
-
- +0
-
-
written by jake3988, April 24, 2008
I'm not sure where you got the numbers, but here is my calculations.
Most cars I found tended to get roughly .15kg/km CO2 (it gets down to 85g per kilometer with newer cars), and the only electric car that managed to give the kw/hrs for its battery is 35kw/hr to go 165km.
Now, per kilowatt hour coal sources emit anywhere from 2 to 2.0lbs of co2. Which is just shy of 2kg.
Which means that an electric car over 165km emits ~65kg of c02. While the gas-powered car over 165km goes .15*165 which is 24.75kg.
So the gas-powered beats it hands-down.
Most cars I found tended to get roughly .15kg/km CO2 (it gets down to 85g per kilometer with newer cars), and the only electric car that managed to give the kw/hrs for its battery is 35kw/hr to go 165km.
Now, per kilowatt hour coal sources emit anywhere from 2 to 2.0lbs of co2. Which is just shy of 2kg.
Which means that an electric car over 165km emits ~65kg of c02. While the gas-powered car over 165km goes .15*165 which is 24.75kg.
So the gas-powered beats it hands-down.
-
- +0
-
-
written by jake3988, April 24, 2008
Hmm, I apologize. The EPA says 225g/km for a gas-powered car on average.
Still, that's .225*165=37.125kg. That's still just over half of electric.
Still, that's .225*165=37.125kg. That's still just over half of electric.
-
- +0
-
-
written by jake3988, April 24, 2008
But don't get me wrong, I'm not saying don't switch. I'm just saying switch only if your electric is not produced by coal. Because then it's basically zero :)
Sorry for all the comments...
Sorry for all the comments...
-
- +0
-
-
written by Bob Wallace, April 24, 2008
Jake -
Might want to go back to the original source - Technology Review - the MIT tech site.
This is just a C&P of part of the original article.
Might want to go back to the original source - Technology Review - the MIT tech site.
This is just a C&P of part of the original article.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Bob Wallace, April 24, 2008
Jake -
Might want to go back to the original source - Technology Review - the MIT tech site.
This is just a C&P of part of the original article.
Might want to go back to the original source - Technology Review - the MIT tech site.
This is just a C&P of part of the original article.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Bob Wallace, April 24, 2008
Jake -
Might want to go back to the original source - Technology Review - the MIT tech site.
This is just a C&P of part of the original article.
Might want to go back to the original source - Technology Review - the MIT tech site.
This is just a C&P of part of the original article.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Bob Wallace, April 24, 2008
Sorry for the double.
The 'Add Comment' function on this site is very buggy. At least on Firefox.
The 'Add Comment' function on this site is very buggy. At least on Firefox.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Gerald Leach, April 25, 2008
Do any of these figures take into consideration the effects on the environment of all of the chemicals, polutants and energy consumed manufacturing and disposing the storage cells?
I am by no means suggesting it is a bad idea...I've just heard very little information about this end of the transaction.
I am by no means suggesting it is a bad idea...I've just heard very little information about this end of the transaction.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Earl Killian, April 25, 2008
People, get your numbers right please. It's easy. Go to
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm
For an EV, click on 2002, then Toyota, then RAV4-EV.
For a apples to apples gasser, click on 2002, Toyota, RAV4 2WD, Automatic 4-spd. Note the greenhouse gas emissions in the two columns: 3.9 tons/year vs. 8.0 tons/year. These "wells to wheels" numbers include everything (including coal for the EVs).
Now note the energy efficiency: 112 MPG vs. 23 MPG. That factor of 4.9 in efficiency is why EVs produce less greenhouse gases even though the U.S. grid is 49% coal.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm
For an EV, click on 2002, then Toyota, then RAV4-EV.
For a apples to apples gasser, click on 2002, Toyota, RAV4 2WD, Automatic 4-spd. Note the greenhouse gas emissions in the two columns: 3.9 tons/year vs. 8.0 tons/year. These "wells to wheels" numbers include everything (including coal for the EVs).
Now note the energy efficiency: 112 MPG vs. 23 MPG. That factor of 4.9 in efficiency is why EVs produce less greenhouse gases even though the U.S. grid is 49% coal.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Earl Killian, April 25, 2008
Jake, where did you get 0.150 kg/km? The U.S. EPA uses 8.8 kg CO2 (19.4 pounds) per gallon of gasoline. To get 0.15 kg/km means the vehicle efficiency is 59 km/gallon (37 MPG). The average U.S. vehicle is only 22 MPG.
Moreover, these numbers are tailpipe emissions only, and do not count the refinery, crude transportation, etc. If you take the 23 MPG RAV4 cited above, emitting 8.0 tons CO2e for 15,000 miles, you get 0.484 kg/mi or 0.300 kg/km, twice what you assumed.
Moreover, these numbers are tailpipe emissions only, and do not count the refinery, crude transportation, etc. If you take the 23 MPG RAV4 cited above, emitting 8.0 tons CO2e for 15,000 miles, you get 0.484 kg/mi or 0.300 kg/km, twice what you assumed.
-
- +0
-
-
written by mki, April 26, 2008
The question is: do you need to plug in the plug-in car in to grid?
Why not supply any user of plug-in car with 1KW vertical wind turbine (vertical to minimize the noise). 1KW wind turbine should get like 6-24KW a day, that more enough for most plug-in hybrids. The additional cost will be like $2000-$3000. Additionally it could supply your house with electric power.
We need micro power generation, and it is available right now.
The energy urgency is so high right now that we need resolution with in 2-5 years not 10-50 years.
I think that might be one solution.
Why not supply any user of plug-in car with 1KW vertical wind turbine (vertical to minimize the noise). 1KW wind turbine should get like 6-24KW a day, that more enough for most plug-in hybrids. The additional cost will be like $2000-$3000. Additionally it could supply your house with electric power.
We need micro power generation, and it is available right now.
The energy urgency is so high right now that we need resolution with in 2-5 years not 10-50 years.
I think that might be one solution.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Anita Largent, May 01, 2008
What about including the amount of electricity that is used in refining a gallon of gasoline from oil?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Martin, May 02, 2008
I love democracy but when I read through forums like this one it's clear where the weakness is. So many half-baked theories, influenced more by ideological beliefs, or plain stupidity, than good science. Every board has a small but significant number of contrarian fools, and they vote. Which affects policy decisions. Jake, have you already contributed to the gene pool mate? ;D
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
APR 23
"MKI, Where does one find information on micro turbines? What do you..."
View all Comments