Recent Comment
Share
A longer version of this article is cross-posted at GreenOptions.com.
We at EcoGeek are tired of hearing the "Electric Vehicles just swap one dirty fuel for another" argument. And while we've seen a lot of studies showing exactly how much less CO2 would be released if we used electric vehicles instead of gas vehicles, we're glad to announce a comprehensive report on Plug-in hybrids today.
What happens to the air we breathe if plug-in hybrids become commonplace in a few years? Is the switch from burning gasoline to burning coal a net benefit to the environment? A report jointly issued by the National Resources defense Council (NRDC) and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) addresses this question.
Among study’s key findings:
- Widespread adoption of PHEVs can reduce GHG emissions from vehicles by more than 450 million metric tons annually in 2050 -- the equivalent to removing 82.5 million passenger cars from the road
- There is an abundant supply of electricity for transportation; a 60
percent U.S. market share for PHEVs would use 7 percent to 8 percent of
grid-supplied electricity in 2050
- PHEVs can improve nationwide air quality and reduce petroleum consumption by 3 million to 4 million barrels per day in 2050
Keeping a few dozen coal-burning power plants clean, and adding extra equipment to further clean their exhaust output is far easier and more cost-effective than carrying out the changes necessary to clean the exhaust systems for millions of vehicles. Greater efficiency is possible for a fixed installation, like a coal plant scrubber, than is practical for any on-board equipment that a car has to carry around.
Link: NRDC press release via: Popular Mechanics
Hits: 9956
Comments (9)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Mark R., July 24, 2007
My concern isn't with the electric production. My concern is with the ability to charge the battery reasonably fast or better efficiency so you don't have to recharge as often. I drive 10 miles each way for work and for my work I often drive over 20miles each way for meetings. My bussy days I drive 80 miles or more for work at highway speeds. Most of what I've seen from straight electric cars, either a) I cant drive at high way speeds but make the mileage or b) drive highway speeds and get only halfway there.
Electric has a lot of efficiency they need to make up in the mileage department before it is widely accepted. Dense city population cruiser, it may work fine. But here in Texas where sprawl is not just a word but a way of life, electric cars don't cut it yet.
Electric has a lot of efficiency they need to make up in the mileage department before it is widely accepted. Dense city population cruiser, it may work fine. But here in Texas where sprawl is not just a word but a way of life, electric cars don't cut it yet.
-
- +0
-
-
written by jack, July 24, 2007
Its a little more complicated than that. The report states that PHEVs can be worse polluters than standard hybrids if the electricity is generated in coal plants:
That said, I'm all for PHEVs. It is easier to control the production of electricity in major plants...and there's lots of ways to generate electricity...
A PHEV’s global warming pollution is
significantly lower than a conventional vehicle of
comparable size, even when factoring in emissions
from the production and transmission of the
electricity. However, if a PHEV’s electrical charge
comes from today’s coal power, the plug-in would
have higher global warming pollution compared
to a non-pluggable hybrid electric vehicle. And
although driving a plug-in saves more oil than a
conventional hybrid, the plug-in hybrid will not
produce significant global warming reductions
unless it is charged with cleaner electricity. PHEVs
deliver the largest global warming reductions
compared to other cars and trucks when they are
charged with renewables, such as wind and solar,
or power plants that capture and dispose of their
global warming pollution. A plug-in running
on renewable energy emits only as much global
warming pollution as a 74 mpg car.
In regions of the country that have a relatively
clean generation mix, PHEVs are also likely
to reduce soot and smog-forming pollution.
However, in regions that are heavily dependent
on dirty, coal-fired power plants, there is a
possibility for significant increases of soot and
mercury. Promotion of PHEVs in these regions
must be done only after a careful assessment of the
pollution impacts and after the necessary power
plant controls are in place.
That said, I'm all for PHEVs. It is easier to control the production of electricity in major plants...and there's lots of ways to generate electricity...
-
- +0
-
-
written by Sputnik, July 24, 2007
Gosh, it's exactly what I've been arguing for years. Nice to have some research backing to my arguement now.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Justin, July 25, 2007
Batteries are extremely unfriendly to the environment. While the overall global warming effect may be reduced by less oil / coal (assuming charging by renewables) are we actually doing more harm in the form of poisons due to manufacture and disposal of batteries? How much energy and pollution go into the creation of batteries? I assume it's not as bad as gasoline as far as CO2 goes? But are the acids and lead and stuff worse long term than the extra CO2 from gasoline? It's not a rhetorical question, I honestly don't know. But I am a big fan of thinking things through and making sure the cure is not worse than the disease...
-
- +0
-
-
written by Mike, July 25, 2007
I understand that over 95% of a lead acid battery is completely recyclable. I have no idea if Lithium batteries are the least bit recyclable. Anyone know?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Joel, July 25, 2007
Lithium batteries, in their current incarnation, are recyclable but a certain raw material (cobalt) is too scarce to replace our current fleet of IC vehicles, especially since it's also used in military jet engines. Co is also toxic in much the same way as Pb.
For a couple years, I worked on cobalt-free lithium ion batteries, which would be based on some combination of Fe, Mn, and Ni. Some of the materials under study are closely related to some pigments used in makeup (!) in terms of both chemistry and toxicity. Needless to say, they would also be less expensive than cobalt-based materials. They might be worth recycling for the lithium content, but are not much of a problem in terms of waste. If you ever see a lithium-ion battery in a high-volume production car (i.e., not the Tesla roadster), it will be based on these batteries. In talking to my old adviser, it sounds like lots of good progress has been made lately.
NiMH batteries, as seen in current hybrids, are more eco-friendly than most any other battery technology. The only possible exceptions are the newer, cobalt-free lithium batteries.
For a couple years, I worked on cobalt-free lithium ion batteries, which would be based on some combination of Fe, Mn, and Ni. Some of the materials under study are closely related to some pigments used in makeup (!) in terms of both chemistry and toxicity. Needless to say, they would also be less expensive than cobalt-based materials. They might be worth recycling for the lithium content, but are not much of a problem in terms of waste. If you ever see a lithium-ion battery in a high-volume production car (i.e., not the Tesla roadster), it will be based on these batteries. In talking to my old adviser, it sounds like lots of good progress has been made lately.
NiMH batteries, as seen in current hybrids, are more eco-friendly than most any other battery technology. The only possible exceptions are the newer, cobalt-free lithium batteries.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Joel, July 25, 2007
One thing people might be neglecting is the expected decline in oil exports. Plans have been made to liquefy coal into transportation fuel (cf. South Africa during sanctions).
If we are forced to choose between burning coal in power plants to charge batteries, or burning larger quantities of coal to turn the rest into synthetic gasoline, I'd choose the former any day. Plug-in hybrids would have a much, much smaller carbon footprint than coal liquefaction plants plus normal engines.
If we are forced to choose between burning coal in power plants to charge batteries, or burning larger quantities of coal to turn the rest into synthetic gasoline, I'd choose the former any day. Plug-in hybrids would have a much, much smaller carbon footprint than coal liquefaction plants plus normal engines.
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
However, the tax on cars here is so heavy that virtually nobody will consider buying, say, a plugin-hybrid Prius…
Cheers.