So much for electric cars being "green" !
waynefromnscanada
Solar Expert Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭✭
Turns out if the electricity they use is generated by coal, they damage the environment more per mile driven, than do gasoline or diesel powered vehicles!
"The global warming potential from electric vehicle production is about twice that of conventional vehicles."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19830232
"The global warming potential from electric vehicle production is about twice that of conventional vehicles."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19830232
Comments
-
Re: So much for electric cars being "green" !
makes sense, but in the USA coal produces only about 1/3rd of the electricity
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/14/483432/us-coal-generation-drops-19-percent-in-one-year-leaving-coal-with-36-percent-share-of-electricity/
It seems to be decreasing in use according to above article.
So overall electrical vechicles are still good because on average 2/3 of the electricity used to power them is not from coal.
The original article is kind of flaky too. Since when are copper and aluminum toxic minerals, I'm pretty sure nickel is pretty stable too?
"In addition, producing batteries and electric motors requires a lot of toxic minerals such as nickel, copper and aluminium."
And their photo caption about coal plants shows a nuclear cooling tower set up?!?! -
Re: So much for electric cars being "green" !
Yeah, the article looks like a straw man to me. For example, in the introduction to the research paper, the authors write:EVs offer advantages in terms of powertrain efficiency, maintenance requirements, and zero tailpipe emissions, the last of which contributes to reducing urban air pollution relative to conventional internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) (Wang and Santini 1993). This has led to a general perception of EVs as an environmentally benign technology.
Nonsense. No one who is remotely aware of how EVs work thinks they are "environmentally benign". The article then goes on to discredit this supposed "general perception" by calculating the environmental cost in the least favorable ways (powering them by burning lignite coal, e.g.).
The issue has never been whether EVs are "environmentally benign", but always whether they are relatively better than ICE vehicles. And in the end, the conclusions they reach are largely in-line with what I think most people would expect in this regard (the BBC's misleading headline notwithstanding). E.g.:
(global warming effects)When powered by average European electricity, EVs are found to reduce GWP by 20% to 24% compared to gasoline ICEVs and by 10% to 14% relative to diesel ICEVs under the base case assumption of a 150,000 km vehicle lifetime. When powered by electricity from natural gas, we estimate LiNCM EVs offer a reduction in GHG emissions of 12% compared to gasoline ICEVs, and break even with diesel ICEVs. EVs powered by coal electricity are expected to cause an increase in GWP of 17% to 27% compared with diesel and gasoline ICEVs.
Other pollutants:
(TAP = terrestiral acidification effects).As more than 70% of the life cycle TAP is caused by sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, the sulfur intensity of the use phase fuel largely determines the relative performances of the different transportation technologies in terms of TAP. Because of its share of hard coal and lignite combustion, the use of average European electricity for EV transportation does not lead to significant improvements relative to ICEVs. Significant benefits may only be expected for EVs using electricity sources with sulfur intensities comparable to or lower than that of natural gas.Particulate matter formation potential (PMFP) follows a trend similar to that of TAP. Structural path analysis identifies the same metal supply chains—nickel, copper, and aluminum—as the dominant sources of emissions from the production phase, and SO2 emissions are the leading cause of PMFP for all life cycle transportation scenarios (35% to 46% of impact). EVs using natural gas electricity perform best with regard to PMFP due to the relative purity of natural gas and the completeness of its combustion. The use of average European or coal-based electricity leads to a potential increase in PMFP relative to ICEVs, though this impact is spatially and to some extent temporally distanced from the use phase.The photochemical oxidation formation potential (POFP), or smog formation potential, is one of the environmental impact categories for which EVs perform best, with European and natural gas electricity mixes allowing for reductions of 22% to 33% relative to ICEVs. For all scenarios, releases of nitrogen oxides are the predominant cause of impact. These are mostly caused by combustion activities, but also from blasting in mining activities.
So, burn filthy fuels and you get bad results. Surprise. :roll:
This is not the first such "straw man" argument in the popular media over the last month. "Electric Cars Pose Environmental Threat" -- the BBC didn't even bother to put in "potential". (Last month we had that Stanford Study which claimed to show that organic food was no better than non-organic, and that got the media all worked up, but then turned out to rest on a laughably narrow definition of "better than" than no one even cared about). -
Re: So much for electric cars being "green" !
let's face it guys, nothing mankind touches or does seems to be 100% green or natural unless we are all pushing daisies.:-) -
Re: So much for electric cars being "green" !
BS on the article, smokestack emissions for coal plants are scrubbed making them far better than tailpipe emissions for a gas car. I'm no fan of coal, either. Oh, and according to Wiki coal is used to make 42% of the electricity in the US.4.5 kw APC UPS powered by a Prius, 12 kw Generac, Honda EU3000is -
Re: So much for electric cars being "green" !
We should do our own "study" of the environmental effects of EVs. We'll start by replacing the EV batteries with starter batteries ("we thought they were the same thing"), carefully calculating the massive environmental costs of replacing and disposing of them every few months.
Then, we'll charge it with some dirty leaded-gasoline engine. I propose a tired old hit-and-miss engine that needs a ring job.
Our conclusion will be that the widespread adoption of EVs would have the potential to eradicate most life on earth. The media should love it. -
Re: So much for electric cars being "green" !BS on the article, smokestack emissions for coal plants are scrubbed making them far better than tailpipe emissions for a gas car. ...
I agree
A utility company has far more equipment and regulation to clean and filter it's exhaust, as compared to a vehicle. -
Re: So much for electric cars being "green" !
Not to mention the. Basic fact that electic cars are very much more thermally efficient than an ICE. Add it the fact that an electric car can regenerate much of its own power through deceleration and braking and you add in another significant layer of efficincy.
Finally electric cars mostly sit 23/7. Get up, drive to work for half hour, sit for 8 hours, drive home, all he time it can be plugged in to the grid. With proper time of day metering/peak demand metering, electic cars an become the large (disaggregated) battery bank that everyone talks about as a requirement for solar to become "vialbe".
The US on averge produces ~15 million cars in a normal year. If 1/3 were plug ins, in tn years you would have ~50 million battery banks plugged in 23/7. Now, with good design you could program you car as follows. I will buy power from the grid when it is cheap, and I will sell it back when it is more expensive, all the while make sure you live me enough power in my batter yo drive X miles tomorrow. Very simple technology that is widely available now (inverters, smart meters etc)
The benefits of such a system are multi fold. With a large battery bank plugged in, it would allow the idle spinning grid capacity that is waiting for for the next toaster to turn on, to be reduced. (this is the most wasteful energy, as well as the dirtiest since you get no benefit from it. Another benefit would be now you have storage capacity for excess solar and wind.
When you hear someone pooh poohing plug in cars on environmetal reasons, IMHO they are doing so out of ignorance, or because of some other interest that is not always obvious.
Veering too lose to the political,
Tny -
Re: So much for electric cars being "green" !
I have to agree with most here, We have 2 Volts and charge them off the TOU grid tie. SO far this year our TOTAL cost paid to the utility is still under $200 for our total operation including the power we buy at night for AC. They are cheaper to operate and cheaper to maintain. Ours are really green, but most are pretty green buying power off peak to charge them. -
Re: So much for electric cars being "green" !
You know what really pollutes? Driving a Hummer for your two mile commute to work every day.
It's a matter of picking the right vehicle (or anything else) for the job. Unfortunately people seem to be reluctant/unable to do this much of the time.
Then you end up with the fanatics who declare everyone should drive an electric car no matter what on one side, and those who decry that they are really more polluting than gasoline vehicles on the other.
Most people are too simple to understand it's not a black-and-white choice of "this is the one and only answer to energy needs". They all pollute. The only real way to decrease pollution of all types is to increase efficiency of use. Our amazing carbon tax has done nothing to improve the environment because it is an insignificant penalty on use instead of a punitive one on waste. Politicians, you see, are the simplest of them all and are easily swayed by members of the two schools of fanaticism.
Education is key to solving the problem, no matter what the problem is. -
Re: So much for electric cars being "green" !
Well this thread sure got a lot of interesting discussions going. Great reading too! -
Re: So much for electric cars being "green" !
Clearly from an environmental standpoint there's not much of a purpose to electric cars unless we are going to convert our whole grid to non-carbon intensive sources: solar, wind, hydro, etc.
Since that project is basically too big to totally succeed, we're either going to have to drive less among us on average, or suffer the climate consequences. -
Re: So much for electric cars being "green" !Clearly from an environmental standpoint there's not much of a purpose to electric cars unless we are going to convert our whole grid to non-carbon intensive sources: solar, wind, hydro, etc.
Since that project is basically too big to totally succeed, we're either going to have to drive less among us on average, or suffer the climate consequences.
Part of the problem with pollution is contamination concentration. If there were more electric vehicles used in cities where the traffic density is highest the air would become more breathable. If the power is generated from carbon fuels at an electric plant elsewhere this is just shifting the point of pollution to a different location, but it still improves air quality within the city.
Good luck doing it, though. -
Re: So much for electric cars being "green" !Cariboocoot wrote: »Part of the problem with pollution is contamination concentration. If there were more electric vehicles used in cities where the traffic density is highest the air would become more breathable. If the power is generated from carbon fuels at an electric plant elsewhere this is just shifting the point of pollution to a different location, but it still improves air quality within the city.
Good luck doing it, though.
And, of course, when you are concerned about greenhouse effect rather than heavy metal poisoning, acid producing oxides, CO, etc., then every point on the Earth's surface is equally bad. That part of the problem is much harder to solve without use of RE and simple conservation.
Interesting factoid: The amount of C02 produced annually by accidental coal mine fires burning out of control in China is greater than the annual amount of CO2 produced by all forms of land transportation in North America.SMA SB 3000, old BP panels. -
Re: So much for electric cars being "green" !
Except, as I said before,, electic car motors are very much more efficient than a comparable size Internal Combustion Engine (ICE). That, coupled with not idle energy loses, and the ability to regen during deceleration, regardless of the source of power, an electric vehicle in nearly every case has to be net/net more green. Add in the ability to power from PV/wind/small scale off hydro for examples and the equation only gets better.
Ydont have to change the entire fleet, just begin to change as practicalities happen.
Tony -
Re: So much for electric cars being "green" !
Here is an article that will have you locked up in your home (where the situation is probably worse):
An expert finds New York City's air is full of foreign matter, including rubber and rust
Bits of clothing, fat, carbon, fungus and dead skin cells also flutter through New York's atmosphereBig Apple air is a bizarre brew of bacteria, pollen, clothing fiber, fungus, tire rubber, dead skin cells, cooking fat and carbon emissions.
-Bill "you are what you breath" B.Near San Francisco California: 3.5kWatt Grid Tied Solar power system+small backup genset -
Re: So much for electric cars being "green" !Clearly from an environmental standpoint there's not much of a purpose to electric cars unless we are going to convert our whole grid to non-carbon intensive sources: solar, wind, hydro, etc.
But at least regionally, there are large population centers powered mostly by renewables (e.g. BPA here in the PNW is mostly hydro).Since that project is basically too big to totally succeed, we're either going to have to drive less among us on average, or suffer the climate consequences.
I think that horse has already left the barn-- climate change has passed the point of no return. We will be driving less and there will be fewer of us driving but not by choice. The only question is how much longer the current fossil fuel binge can continue...
-
Re: So much for electric cars being "green" !
I think that horse has already left the barn-- climate change has passed the point of no return. We will be driving less and there will be fewer of us driving but not by choice. The only question is how much longer the current fossil fuel binge can continue...
Good point, although big oil and big coal are doing all they can to discredit this belief. -
Re: So much for electric cars being "green" !I think that horse has already left the barn-- climate change has passed the point of no return.
Yes and no. Yes, some amount of climate change is now inevitable. At the same time, there will still be further consequences - more severe climate change - from emissions now and in the future. So the barn door is open, and some of the horses have escaped, but there are also some horses that would stay in the barn if we could close the door. -
Re: So much for electric cars being "green" !Clearly from an environmental standpoint there's not much of a purpose to electric cars unless we are going to convert our whole grid to non-carbon intensive sources: solar, wind, hydro, etc.
I'm not sure why you say this. Take a look at the paper that started this thread (you can click through to the actual paper, not just the BBC's attempt to summarize it for you). Here again is one thing it found:When powered by average European electricity [that's European electricity as it currently is produced, and it's Europe the article is focused on], EVs are found to reduce GWP by 20% to 24% compared to gasoline ICEVs and by 10% to 14% relative to diesel ICEVs under the base case assumption of a 150,000 km vehicle lifetime.
That's average European electricity as it currently exists. The idea that EV's aren't helping global warming potential came about from the article hypothesizing about what would happen if electricity came entirely from dirty sources like heavy oil and lignite coal; something that Europe is nowhere close to doing now or in the future. Likewise, the petrochemical oxidation formation potential was found by the article to be lower with EVs, as I quoted from it above. They think production of the other pollutants would be comparable with either source of motive power.
This is the article that is supposedly showing us that EVs aren't any better. Read the actual paper folks, not just the media's spin on it. -
Re: So much for electric cars being "green" !Clearly from an environmental standpoint there's not much of a purpose to electric cars unless we are going to convert our whole grid to non-carbon intensive sources: solar, wind, hydro, etc.
Here in San Diego our mix is:
10% renewable
7% coal
62% natural gas
18% nuclear
So even now we are way cleaner than a coal based power system. Natural gas is many times cleaner than coal.
When I charge my leaf it generally comes from solar (during the day) or San Onofre (at night.) Both of which are very low carbon. Or will be once they bring San Onofre back on line . . . -
Re: So much for electric cars being "green" !
Jeez folks, I thought this was a solar energy forum. Why not use solar power to charge your electric car instead of a coal-fired power plant. In my case, my modest size (3.15 kW) grid-tied PV array generates about 185% of what I use in the house (http://www.residentialenergylaboratory.com/rel_energy_use_pv.html), so an electric car is of interest just to make use of the excess energy generated. The greenhouse gas emissions for the solar PV are very small. -
Re: So much for electric cars being "green" !Jeez folks, I thought this was a solar energy forum. Why not use solar power to charge your electric car instead of a coal-fired power plant. In my case, my modest size (3.15 kW) grid-tied PV array generates about 185% of what I use in the house (http://www.residentialenergylaboratory.com/rel_energy_use_pv.html), so an electric car is of interest just to make use of the excess energy generated. The greenhouse gas emissions for the solar PV are very small.
Possibly because the solar only puts out when the sun shines (biggest problem with solar energy: storage) and the car may not be sitting in your driveway then and because the solar power usually costs significantly more than utility power. There's been more than one discussion of this dilemma on the forum.
Most people probably could not afford to shell out tens of thousands for an electric car and then thousands more for the solar to recharge it.
Unless it makes economic sense, it doesn't make any sense. -
Re: So much for electric cars being "green" !
LOL - I was going to give you a ribbing about San Onofre, but looks like you did it already.bill von novak wrote: »Here in San Diego our mix is:
10% renewable
7% coal
62% natural gas
18% nuclear
So even now we are way cleaner than a coal based power system. Natural gas is many times cleaner than coal.
When I charge my leaf it generally comes from solar (during the day) or San Onofre (at night.) Both of which are very low carbon. Or will be once they bring San Onofre back on line . . .
Supposedly SDG&E should be up over 15% renewables now, but losing San Onofre for the year is really going to increase carbon emissions overall, especially since SDG&E has been running older in-efficient gas turbine plants that burn twice the fuel of modern combined cycle gas plants to make up for the shortfall.
While is probably true, a recent California survey of plug-in owners found that a whopping 40% of the owners also have PV on their house. Impressive!Cariboocoot wrote: »Possibly because the solar only puts out when the sun shines (biggest problem with solar energy: storage) and the car may not be sitting in your driveway then and because the solar power usually costs significantly more than utility power. There's been more than one discussion of this dilemma on the forum.
Most people probably could not afford to shell out tens of thousands for an electric car and then thousands more for the solar to recharge it.
That said - storage isn't really an issue at this point in time. Charging your EV in the middle of the night (midnight-6am generally) during super-off peak and then letting your PV system export energy during the day is the best use of the grid right now. Typically peak energy is much dirtier than off-peak energy, so not only will doing this be better for the environment, it can also be your best bang of the buck if you are on a TOU billing. -
Re: So much for electric cars being "green" !
Not everybody lives in California. Although the traffic might make you think otherwise.
Now let's see how practical it is here ... Hmmm ... $30,000 for a MIEV, $20,000 for the solar to recharge it, ten cents per kilowatt hour for electric ... $1.47 per litre for gasoline ... no TOU plan, no feed-in tarif ... no tax credits or rebates ...
Of course there's the problem of having to replace the electric car every year when the logging roads tear it to shreds ... Could have some trouble with the feet of snowfall and -40 temps too ...
The world may be round, but it's not the same all around. -
Re: So much for electric cars being "green" !Cariboocoot wrote: »
Of course there's the problem of having to replace the electric car every year when the logging roads tear it to shreds ... Could have some trouble with the feet of snowfall and -40 temps too ...
No worries, Via Motors is building the perfect EV truck or SUV for you. Have an extra $80,000 lying around? :roll: -
Re: So much for electric cars being "green" !Cariboocoot wrote: »Unless it makes economic sense, it doesn't make any sense.
It's been a while since I did all the numbers for a non-battery grid-tied system but I fairly sure that the lifetime return of a typical installation is less than $0.15 per kWh. Many EVs can get as good as 4 miles/kWh. If you figure conservatively at 3 miles/kWh that's $0.05/ mile "fuel" cost. Compare that to a decently efficient gas vehicle at 30 miles/gallon at $3.00/gallon and you have $0.10 per mile fuel costs.
So, with pessimistic PV cost/EV mileage compared to good gas mileage and gas prices not seen in a couple of years the "fuel costs" of a PV charged EV are half the cost of petrol. Actual cost comparisons can come up quite a bit better. If you manage to drive 20,000 miles a year your annual cost savings for fuel can be significantly more than $1000. EVs typically require much less maintenance too. This is all before you get into the environmental/social cost discussion of petrol and with todays EV technology.;)
Sure, EVs have operational limitations which are a problem for many drivers but there are many who can benefit. Places where electric utility rates are lower than the cost of PV will have a greater financial return for EVs...until rates increase anyway.:roll: The broad view may not show much "green" benefit but the cleaner tail pipe emissions are still nice for urban areas. (Important to me. Most of my family has asthma.)
-Alex -
Re: So much for electric cars being "green" !
As I said, where I am there is no EV that makes sense. The initial cost, the long-distance only driving, the bad climate all add up to "no go".
However, it would not be unreasonable to say that 50% of the commuters in the Vancouver area could save a ton of money by switching to EV: high gasoline prices, low electric prices, stop-n-stop traffic (they're changing the name of the Patullo Bridge to the Patullo Parking Lot), and a mild climate (yes, really) make them entirely practical for that area.
This all goes back to what I said before about using the right tool for the job. Too many people pick a sledgehammer when they need a ball-peen. I'd hate to see legislation controlling our choice of vehicles (you can not buy a truck unless you can prove you need one?) but when people continually act stupid that's what happens. Oh they won't actually say "no Hummer sales allowed" they'll just put a massive gas guzzler tax on them (remember that?) so you can't afford one. Of course the people who can still will, so what has been accomplished?
Six cents per litre carbon tax, that's what. :roll: -
Re: So much for electric cars being "green" !Cariboocoot wrote: »This all goes back to what I said before about using the right tool for the job. Too many people pick a sledgehammer when they need a ball-peen.
Agreed. I've been an EV advocate for a long time, but lately I've seen them touted as the solution to all our woes. They're not; they are just one of the many solutions.
To within a percentage, the fuel used on US highways right now is:
Gasoline 71%
Diesel 29%
Both made from oil, of course. Thus we are almost entirely dependent on oil for our surface transportation needs. (And most of our rail, as well; we'd lose most of the grid if we lost our oil supply; no trains = no coal = no power in most places in the US.)
The goals should be more diversity, cleaner and cheaper. Thus we should be aiming at a mix like this:
Gasoline 20%
Diesel (including biodiesel) 20%
Methane** 20%
BEV 20%
Alternative storage (nitrogen, ammonia, hydrogen) 10%
Alternative fuel (synfuel, ethanol, gasified coal/wood/waste) 10%
(** - natural gas or biogas)
Of the non-BEV categories above, approx. 30% should ideally be capable of pluggable hybrid operation.
It will be a long time before EV's can compete with hydrocarbon fuels for trucking, for example. But natural gas can replace diesel and gasoline right now, and is currently cheaper - and much cleaner. And with a mix like the above, if we do see oil supplies come to a crashing halt, we only lose between 22 and 40% of our ability to transport people and goods, as opposed to the 99.9% we'd lose if it happened today. Also with greater diversity come greater economic pressures; competition tends to drive prices down, and if people really do have a choice between gas or electric (as they do with a Volt or a Prius PHEV) then pressures to reduce gas prices become much stronger. -
Re: So much for electric cars being "green" !bill von novak wrote: »Also with greater diversity come greater economic pressures; competition tends to drive prices down, and if people really do have a choice between gas or electric (as they do with a Volt or a Prius PHEV) then pressures to reduce gas prices become much stronger.
Yes indeed. The recent increase in the popularity of diesel vehicles has pushed the price of diesel up above that of regular gasoline here.
Truckers aren't too happy about that. -
Re: So much for electric cars being "green" !Cariboocoot wrote: »
Now let's see how practical it is here ... Hmmm ... $30,000 for a MIEV, $20,000 for the solar to recharge it, ten cents per kilowatt hour for electric ... $1.47 per litre for gasoline ... no TOU plan, no feed-in tarif ... no tax credits or rebates ...
Everyone's economics are different. In my case, the PV system generates an excess of about 2500 kWh per year. I can sell that back to the utilities for $0.03 per kWh, or I could use it to charge a plug-in hybrid or electric vehicle. The fuel costs for an electric vehicle look favorable if I'm using electricity at $0.03 per kWh. The initial vehicle costs are high, but I bought my first set of solar PV panels when they were much more expensive than they are today.
Not too many of us drive the logging roads to get to town.
Categories
- All Categories
- 222 Forum & Website
- 130 Solar Forum News and Announcements
- 1.3K Solar News, Reviews, & Product Announcements
- 191 Solar Information links & sources, event announcements
- 886 Solar Product Reviews & Opinions
- 254 Solar Skeptics, Hype, & Scams Corner
- 22.3K Solar Electric Power, Wind Power & Balance of System
- 3.5K General Solar Power Topics
- 6.7K Solar Beginners Corner
- 1K PV Installers Forum - NEC, Wiring, Installation
- 2K Advanced Solar Electric Technical Forum
- 5.5K Off Grid Solar & Battery Systems
- 424 Caravan, Recreational Vehicle, and Marine Power Systems
- 1.1K Grid Tie and Grid Interactive Systems
- 651 Solar Water Pumping
- 815 Wind Power Generation
- 621 Energy Use & Conservation
- 608 Discussion Forums/Café
- 302 In the Weeds--Member's Choice
- 74 Construction
- 124 New Battery Technologies
- 108 Old Battery Tech Discussions
- 3.8K Solar News - Automatic Feed
- 3.8K Solar Energy News RSS Feed