Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower

Plug-in Vehicles and Their Dirty Little Secret

By John Petersen,Contributor
January 6, 2011 | 42 Comments

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Bookmark

Feed

Over the last few months I've had a running debate with some die-hard EVangelicals who insist that plug-in cars will be cleaner than simple, reliable and relatively inexpensive Prius class HEVs. Since most of my readers have enough to do without slogging through the comments section, it's high time we lay the cards on the table and show why the myth of zero emissions vehicles is one of the most outrageous lies ever foisted on the American public.

The following graph comparing the life-cycle CO2 emissions of conventional, hybrid and plug-in vehicles comes from a March 15, 2010 presentation by Dr. Constantine Samaras of Rand Corporation. It clearly shows that HEVs and PHEVs are equivalent emitters of CO2 if you take the analysis all the way back to the black earth and base the comparisons on national average CO2 emissions from electric power generation.

1.5.11 GHG PHEV.png

While the graph suggests that there is no meaningful air quality advantage to plug-in vehicles, the reality is much worse because the specific power generation assets that will be used for night-time charging of plug-in vehicles are dirtier than the national average.

The following table is based on data extracted from US Energy Information Administration'srecently released "Electric Power Industry 2009: Year in Review." It lists high emissions power from fossil fuels in the top section, zero emissions power from conventional sources in the middle section and "clean power" from renewable sources in the bottom section. Since the data was pulled from different parts of the report, estimates of total power generated from specific renewable sources can't be provided. Since renewables as a class are inconsequential to national power production, I don't think the missing data is relevant.

1.5.11 US Power.png

The most intriguing facts in the table are the capacity utilization rates for both natural gas and hydro power facilities. Natural gas facilities operated at 25% of capacity in 2009, which works out to a national average of six hours per day. You see the same thing with hydro power facilities which operated at 40% of capacity in 2009, or about ten hours per day. While some natural gas and hydro power plants run 24/7, the nation tends to operate both types of facilities as peak power providers rather than baseload power providers. We turn off the clean hydro power and natural gas at night.

The two baseload elements of US power production are nuclear, which usually runs at a steady state 24 hours a day, and coal, which can be ramped up and down within a limited range to help match supply and demand. During night-time hours, the prime time for electric vehicle recharging, the vast bulk of electric power nationwide comes from nuclear and coal because operators want to conserve their more flexible resources including natural gas and hydro power for high value peak demand periods. As a result, coal accounts for a higher percentage of night-time power than it does day-time power or 24 hour power. There's just no avoiding the reality that electricity produced at night is significantly dirtier than the national average while electricity produced during the day is cleaner than the national average.

As you shift the US average emissions line in the Rand graph to the right to reflect the differences between day-time and night-time power, plug-ins become seriously sub-optimal. The conclusions are inescapable when you study the data.

I have searched without luck for a scholarly technical analysis that quantifies the emissions differential between relatively clean day-time power, which has a high proportion of variable hydro power and natural gas, and dirtier night-time power, which has a much higher proportion of coal. If you know of a credible study, I'd love to have a reference.

The dirty little secret of plug-in vehicles is that they'll all charge their batteries with inherently dirty night-time power and be responsible for more CO2 emissions than a fuel efficient Prius-class HEV that costs a third less and doesn't have any pesky issues with plugs, charging infrastructure or range limitations.

News stories, speeches and press releases can only maintain the zero emissions mythology for so long. Sooner or later the public is going to realize that it's all hype, blue smoke and mirrors, and that plug-in vehicles have little of substance to offer consumers. When the public comes to the realization that plug-in vehicles:

Won't save their owners significant amounts of money;
Won't be as efficient as HEVs when utility fuel consumption is factored into the equation;
Won't be as CO2 efficient as HEVs when utility emissions are factored into the equation; and
Are little more than feel-good, taxpayer subsidized eco-bling for the politically powerful elite,

the backlash against EV developers like Tesla Motors (TSLA), General Motors (GM) and Nissan (NSANY.PK), together with battery suppliers like Ener1 (HEV) and A123 Systems (AONE), could be unpleasant.

Energy Efficiency

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

42 Reader Comments

Comment
1 of 42

Tam_Hunt

January 6, 2011

John, please email me at tam dot hunt at gmail and I will send you one of my student's very well done analysis of this issue, concluding that EVs result in emissions improvements in all but a handful of very coal-reliant states.

Keep in mind that the RAND analysis is using national averages for electricity production and this is seriously misleading. The vast majority of EVs and PHEVs will be bought and used in much cleaner states, like California and New England.

And as time progresses, the generation portfolio in every state will dramatically shift to renewables and natural gas, whether or not we have a national RPS.

So the bottomline is that your conclusions seem highly unwarranted.

Comment
2 of 42

Anonymous

January 6, 2011

A lot of the eco-saints attracted to EVs live on the west coast where coal generation is a small portion of the electricity generation mix; the analysis above neglects such locality factors. I suspect that in the near term these vehicles are going to be a disappointment, but they will have a faithful following and it will be interesting to see pricing trends over the next decade.
Steven

Comment
3 of 42

jonathan-chance-166185

January 6, 2011

Well-designed plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) fueled with appropriate renewable energy sources have multiple benefits that make them infinitely more cost-effective than vehicles that squander non-renewable and very costly energy resources.

Abolish corporate graft, enforce the rule of law, and a genuine free and fair market will determine the real winners and expose the "external" costs of the petro-banking warfare racket.

OpenSecrets.Org

Treasurynet.US

Article 18.

18.1 - The Congress and the Treasury of the United States, having the lawful power to issue sound money fully backed by domestically derived silver, domestic hydrocarbon reserves, renewable energy, and other domestic natural resources, are expressly prohibited from taxing the just wages, salaries, pensions, or other lawful remuneration of Citizens, or from borrowing any money, currency, credit, debt, stocks, bonds, or any other financial instruments and derivatives, under any circumstances including war....

Article 25.

25.1 - Mining, exporting, importing, processing, and any use of uranium, plutonium, or other highly radioactive materials shall be prohibited within these United States.

25.2 - All such radioactive materials shall be removed from any exposure to the Earth's biosphere, and shall be permanently contained and buried in sealed, secure, geologically stable repositories, with a minimum depth of one thousand meters below surface elevation, and two hundred meters above the 2009CE sea level.

25.3 - All costs for nuclear decommissioning and decontamination, including insurance, shall be fully compensated by the central banks, corporations, limited-liability entities, private trusts, holding companies, transnational organizations, and other financial speculators, that have voluntarily funded the atomic energy and nuclear terrorism industry....

Treasurynet.US

Comment
4 of 42

John-Bronson

January 6, 2011

Mr. Peterson is severely uninformed. Here are some facts: An electric motor is upwards of 90% efficient. Compare this to an ICE engine which is only 20% efficient. Oil is a horribly overpriced energy source, due to cartel pricing and other issues. E.g. solar PV is currently CHEAPER than oil fired electricity. EV's operate @ 60 cents/gallon equivalent. The lower fuel costs alone are an excellent reason to switch from gasoline to electricity. A big part of the current US trade deficit goes to imported oil. This deficit cannot be sustained indefinately. With regards to emissions, it is much simpler to sequestor carbon from powerplants, than it is from 100's of millions of moving vehicles. And also,the carbon neutral percentage of electricity is much greater than the carbon neutral percentage of liquid fuels, and is growing much faster.

Comment
5 of 42

v-bruce-stenswick-62270

January 6, 2011

Let's not forget that people who have access to green electricity can pay extra if they wish. I heat my house with a ground source heat pump and buy all of my electricity from Xcel Energy's WindSource program, thus heating my house and emitting no CO2. I could do the same with a PHEV if one were available.

Comment
6 of 42

MJMIZERA

January 7, 2011

A totally misleading article in its own right. That shows that pointing to someone else's graph lines intersecting does not constitute comprehension of the subject.
Clearly, 100% of EV charging can be done with clean energy.
We can ASSIGN renewable energy to the needs of EV owners, even at a slightly higher price, and send it through the grid to satisfy their demand. For example a biohydrogen-from-biomass installation can feed a stationary fuel cell, charging the grid. Or PV or wind. The produced energy is sent through the grid. All we need to do is to keep track of the ownership and the user. We're doing it with many other commodities.
Why John ignores that ? Who pays his bills ? And RAND is not necessarily known for being ecology-friendly. They are known by their support of the military-energy complex over the last 60 years. it's like quoting BP or Exxon.

Comment
7 of 42

venkysarda

January 7, 2011

This article cannot appear on the newsletter of renewableenergyworld.com
Very disappointing to see that the editor/newsletter responsible of this website promotes this knowing it's flaws.

Comment
8 of 42

adel-foda-49940

January 7, 2011

this is an ugly joke i do not understand how such arguments can be published

Comment
9 of 42

jerry-klinken-54665

January 7, 2011

At first I thought this was a joke, but it's not even close to April Fools Day. There are numerous studies that contradict Mr. Peterson's conclusions. Once such study states "the overwhelming preponderance of the data and the conclusions of the best-designed studies show that plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) and electric vehicles (EVs) produce fewer greenhouse gas
emissions and pollutants than conventional cars, hybrids, or hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles". http://images.pluginamerica.org/EmissionsSummary.pdf
This is true even when comparing coal vs. gasoline because the ICE is so inefficient when compared to an electric motor. And the grid is steadily becoming greener.

In my particular case, an EV would produce zero emissions since I have 7.3kw of solar on my roof, and I can usually charge a car during the day.

Can't we keep this sort of pro-oil propaganda limited to Fox news?

Comment
10 of 42

dominic-jermano-62365

January 7, 2011

Dear John,

I do not understand your thinking. There is a means to produce clean non polluting electricity, without radioactive waste, or threats that nuclear energy is used to make the Atomic Bomb. I am buidling my invention. The Gyro-Maglev Electric Generator. And creating new types of batteries that have very Excell-Fast recharge ability.

http://djermano.newsvine.com/_news/2010/01/08/3729647-the-gyro-maglev-electric-generator-

http://djermano.newsvine.com/_news/2011/01/03/5756531-electric-auto-bike-batteries-now-have-excell-fast-recharge-ability

Comment
11 of 42

MrPlumIslander

January 7, 2011

The Automotive X-Prize shows that there is technology that can be used NOW to make fully electric vehicles with long ranges. Li-ion Motors had an impressive 180+ MPGe vehicle that is road worthy and functional. As solar PV module prices come down the EV community can use power generated at their homes to charge their vehicles. People are to short sighted and Corporations are stagnating the evolution of EV vehicles. Look at the Volt which is a sad testament to a Corporation that had an EV vehicle 5 years ago and abandoned it for the Hummer. Really!! Where would the EV1 be now with 15 years of advancement?! We'd probably have 200 mile ranges if not more. High school students have placed small diesel engines in factory made vehicles powering electric motors and gotten over 100MPGe. Tell me corporations and our own government aren't trying to keep us addicted to oil.

Comment
12 of 42

bruce-michael-172671

January 7, 2011

When you look at the CURRENT situation of most people relying on a standard electricity provider, for those of us on coal (including me unfortunately), it can be true that GHG emissions may be Higher with an electric vehicle than a high mileage vehicle. All you have to do is compare the kw/mile for the vehicle in question to mpg, convert to CO2 emitted for each and you will find a breakeven point.

However, what isn't accounted for is that many coal fired plants are running all night and producing more energy than needed, which is "spilled". If this energy is used when plugging in vehicles at night, it is almost "free" as far as GHG emissions. So the end result is that electric vehicles plugged in at night, will be of benefit.

Comment
13 of 42

robert-fiske-166180

January 7, 2011

Boy, what a disappointing collection of backhanded slurs you chose to use in framing your argument, John.

"Dirty Little Secret", "..the most outrageous lies ever foisted on the American Public." *(with a nod towards Inhofe's? classic line challenging climate change)

EV's are clean running, and they also are built without a great many of the fluids and wearing parts that leak, break and cost us car-owners in countless ways..

Yes, Coal Power is dirty. Find me an EV supporter who is pro-coal, I'm sure there are a couple, but not many. ('EVangelical' was more sarcastic rhetoric.. come on.) That your charts show we have an abundance of Coal-fired watts and not a lot of Wind and Solar and pumped hydro is a problem with our electricity supply, not with the appliances we plug into it.. unless you're really trying to say that we have no choice but to continue burning coal as much as today.

EV's are often touted as being 'ideal to charge at night', but that isn't written in stone.. they'll charge when you plug them in. Solar Peaks in the middle of the day, when many people's cars are parked outside work. They can suck up surplus wind energy, while the wind-skeptics tell us there is no way to deal with excess wind. (Pumped Hydro and Compressed Air Energy Storage being other intermediaries in such a process.

People will have an incentive to own PV at home which can help with their vehicle AND house power...

There are Real Tools, like the simple and powerful Electric Motor, that will help us move towards truly cleaner transportation and lifestyles.. tarring them with 'guilt by association' is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

That's a lot more than just 'feel-good, taxpayer subsidized eco-bling for the politically powerful elite,' .. although I don't doubt it will feel good.

Comment
14 of 42

john-dangelo-175629

January 7, 2011

The problem here is living in the fossil fuel world, coal and natural gas, and NOT living in a renewable energy world.

I live in an RE world because I have ON SITE RE energy. I use so little energy (about 200 kWh/month) because of all the ENERGY EFFICIENT (EE) measures I implemented that when I get my pure EV (plug in)I will use my EXCESS electricity my 5 kW PV array to "fuel" my EV. Currently I give back to the utility and they are paying me a LOUSY $.027/kWh (which is highway robbery when they turn around and sell that same kWh for 10-13 cents/kWh).

I plan to use all my excess capacity as FREE fuel. The sooner we transition to an 100% RE generation world the sooner the "dirty" little secret will be come totally irrelevant. The fastest way to achieve a RE energy world is NOT through centralization but threw ON SITE decentralized power.

But for now the author has a very valid point. We will have to charge our plug in EV's with "dirty" electricity for most of us who do not have ON SITE RE systems, but that is changing every day as more and more of us who see the light (and tax and rebate benefits) install ON SITE RE systems.

The status quo will not go quietly into the night but will continue to fight tooth and nail to hinder RE ON SITE systems but they are fighting a loosing battle. RE is here to stay and grows every day. RE energy is at 3.65% and growing daily.

John D @ BeUtilityFree, Inc.

Comment
15 of 42

djdyar

January 7, 2011

This is a very sad article. There are multiple government sources that show the average US grid CO2/kWh is at 600 and dropping. This means that his initial premise is false and therefore everything he says after that is invalid.

The grid gets better every hear which means PHEVs get better every year. Can an HEV do that? No.

Now, let's pretend that an HEV actually was as clean as a PHEV, even if they were EXACTLY the same, would you support buying more foreign oil instead of using US produced electricity? Do you support the OVER $400BILLION we spend every year on foreign oil which is causing over half our trade imbalance and destroying our economy and taking our ability to create jobs?

Why would Renewable Energy World give someone like this a forum to speak from? Does it drive your readership and clicks, thus revenue, to let someone lie and make everyone read? Or do you just get more clicks from a controversial headline like this.

This is truly disgusting and I expect better from Renewable Energy World. I will gladly stop reading this site and find other sources and I encourage others to do the same.

Comment
16 of 42

traindriver92

January 7, 2011

I charge my Nissan Leaf with my solar array during the day

Comment
17 of 42

Anonymous

January 7, 2011

Bravo to Renewable Energy World for publishing John with a different point of view, framed with research interpretation from a reliable source. It is worth our while to debate the value in a commitment made with our taxpayer dollars to forward a transition to limiting CO2. And isn't the limitation of CO2 the baseline of this argument?

What is the true cost of buying an automotive company, regulating the heck out of industry and force feeding renewables based upon a theory that CO2 emission reduction are critical in near term? What is the reward?

I think the real argument should be centered on the cost vs. reward to become energy independent. When I began putting my first ethanol plant together in the 90s our emphasis was adding value to the farmers grain, to keep small family farms by enhancing their value and getting farmers off government welfare programs, saving tax payers dollars. When the gulf war hit it was an awakening for tens of thousand renewable energy developers and investors; we must get off foreign oil since those who produce really do hate Americans.

I don't think anyone knew that China people would rather import corn and change their diets from rice to western like, so no one anticipated that export demand would actually sky rocket. If those folks would go back to eating rice the price impact of making fuel from our farmers produce would be minimized and the driving food vs fuel argument would probably be negate. While at the same time ethanol (and biodiesel) could become a low cost fuel in free market competition and we could displace an even larger quantity of foreign oil. I think we would all like that.

The real point here again is that the current argument centers on an intangible, or rather a pro reduction in CO2 to solve a global climate change theory.

There is no theory that we must get off foreign energy; it is a fact.

Comment
18 of 42

Buck

January 7, 2011

The comments really show the level of religious belief and lack of common sense. A big unwillingness to listen to the other side. Children of our schools for the past years have been brain washed into the new path of GREEN and they are not going to listen if it upsets the apple cart.

Nothing absolutely Nothing Green so far that I have seen can survive without Government support and turning a blind eye to its true CO2 count.

Come on people ! Lets be real. I wish it to be truly green! I wish it to be truly green! There's no place like home. There's no place like home!!

Comment
19 of 42

thomas-mayrand-14505

January 7, 2011

What about all the railroads? I believe most of them use diesel generators to supply electric power to run their trains. If it makes sense to run these huge, heavy pieces of transportation on electricity, why is it so far fetched to run personal transportation in the same fashion?

Comment
20 of 42

daniel-simon-33441

January 7, 2011

@Buck---"Nothing absolutely Nothing Green so far that I have seen can survive without Government support"

Trees survived quite well before (and without) governments.

Re J. Peterson's "opinion"....

Why are we arguing about wheather PHEV are better/worse than HEVs? Both are a major improvement over ICE vehicles. [Full Stop] And together they represent well less than 2% of all vehicles.

As we decarbonize the grid, PHEV will become cleaner in step with the grid. HEV cannot improve over time. (I mean the individual vehicle, not the technology.)

Comment
21 of 42

robert-fiske-166180

January 7, 2011

Buck;
I don't know about 'Religious Belief' .. that gets thrown around heavily these days, but in terms of having a respectful and open-minded debate, it really has to start at the beginning, and as I said above, the Language in the article was inciteful and drew very clear lines in the sand. Open-minded debate is very hard to restart when someone has set this tone of voice.

In either case, we have a struggling manufacturing base, with decades of shuttered factories, and brand new employment numbers that put the lie to this supposed 'recovery' .. EV's run clean, and PV can be a clean source of watts to help fill them. Why shouldn't we be building lots of both? (And closing the Coal-fired Plants)

If you think that's being religious, tell me why.
Bob

Comment
22 of 42

bob-condon-161229

January 7, 2011

John, CO2 emmsisions seem to be the concern/thrust of your article. I think the Solar/Automotive/Hydrogen Fuel Cell factions ought to join hands on getting the charging issue off the grid when it comes to plug in vehicles, either hybrid or electric only. There is linkage, but industry seems to be thinking in a stove pipe manner. A couple of viable options need to be looked at to recharge the vehicles at night or anytime of the day, again: OFF The GRID. Ballard Power Systems (BLDP) and Plug Power (PLUG) make hydrogen fuel cells that can take natural gas using catalytic converters and feed their fuel cells that can recharge a vehicle day or night. How about home based Solar charge/storage systems that are able to use the sun's energy to store power in banks of highly efficient batteries, or possibly a roll out "spare" pack of batteries that can be inserted in the car when it returns for the day and the discharged pack rolled out and connected to the Solar Charging System, so while the car is gone during the day the pack is recharging. How about using the home based solar panels installed on the roof? Just figure out how many more panels you may need to add to accomodate the vehicle charging requirement? Even if you apply such solutions to the "Sun States" we're talking millions and millions of vehicles. No matter what, automotive technology towards getting away from fossile based liquid fuels will move forward. It isn't very productive to point out shortfalls without prescribing potential soluitions. What I have prooposed are not cheap, but neither were solar panels 20 years ago. Approaching the challenge should be the focus, using our inventive nature to solve those challenges is well within our power. It will not be easy, it will take years. We need to get started now.

Comment
23 of 42

phil-manke-79191

January 7, 2011

So many people have made and accepted assumptions and they will find any evidence to support their beliefs. Business operators will find evidence to support running their business as it has been. Nearly every one. It is the rare, open minded person who is willing to see things from a detached perspective. As Popeye says, "Yer buys yer ticket and yer takes yer ride".
My regards to those who promote independence in energy production. It is possible today to make your own free solar energy, and "good on" those who engage in it.
I have been chided for selling Chinese made goods. But think of it this way;
The US and the world buys much from China. Their cash is reinvested in more production as well as improving living standards. Why should I not partake in their using their national income to subsidize their cheaper goods to sell back to us. If their is profit in it we will move into it as well. Meantime............

Comment
24 of 42

JimW

January 7, 2011

I realize there is some distortion here, but thee is also some truth. We are completely open to any technology to get us past the hump, Scientific American says peak 2014. Electric will power cars but for trucks and planes the only one we see today is GreenGas.cc or GreenNH3 If used thru a fuel cell it is even cleaner, but say you are standing on the side of the road some cold night in 2018 out of fuel (or your battery is drained. Remember you read this in 2011.

Comment
25 of 42

Anonymous

January 7, 2011

'True Believers' will always be in denial of conflicting information. This can be seen in the responses to this basically good article. When it comes to PEV supporters, they can get somewhat selfish about who is 'using' green electricity. Maybe you have your own PV electricity and the power company doesn't pay you much for putting it back on the grid, but this is just the economic insanity of the market. The first rule of green electric power should be to replace dirty electricity, not increase demand which large scale PEV use would do. Regional differences do come into play and 'spilling' of night time coal energy is just a poorly designed old system. Implementation of an efficient low carbon grid is necessary before a role out of PEV (which increase demand) can makes sense. When looking at capX costs, implementing a strategy for introducing high efficiency near neat ethanol engines and the accompanying distribution system is more immediately effective than a PEV strategy. There will be a time when LIGHT weight PEV vehicles will be the right strategy but we must fix the grid first. PEV vehicles today are just a 'greenwash'.

Bill B.

Comment
26 of 42

Anonymous

January 7, 2011

robert-fiske-166180

Not arguing about why not go ahead and building things that sell, but manufacturing struggles began, and maybe predominately stalled now, by greedy labor management taking profits and greedy company management taking manufacturing overseas to increase their personal profits - not because of quality of craftsmanship or innovation.

But take a look at where wind turbines, switch gear, steel etc., an other renewable energy components like generators are made - most are not US. A suggestion that macro installations of renewable energy solutions will reignite state side manufacturing is not taking into consideration real world production and Americas buying decisions.

Real solutions for US manufacturing is sort of aside from the mechanics of the decoupling of our energy from fossil, other than we can damage it more by greater federal regulation on its waste.

I think someone above mentioned it in their comment that if we really want to pay the price for energy independence, and perhaps CO2 reductions, it must naturally occur in individuals and or communities decoupling from the centralized monopolies. This is doable. But as we are currently evolving along the renewable energy path, primarily driven by policy, control remains in the hands of those who've monopolized energy in the past.

Large Wind energy boom has occurred because of policy driving investment into multi billion dollar developments and rewarding folks like Warren Buffet and GE. My ethanol industry is now primarily controlled by big oil and farmers portfolio is now back to the whim of the ag market, controlled by DC, Cargill, ADM etc.

Americans can innovate and individuals left with opportunities to create will find solutions outside of big brother or monopoly control, and that is the only way I can see as a renewable energy professional developer that we can truly be energy independent.

It will require both decoupling and a "religious" fervor.

Comment
27 of 42

mzerega

January 7, 2011

As noted in several responses, this article is irresponsible and harmful because it ignores the significant regional nature of electricity generation emissions and EV/HEV/PHEV (PEVs) adoption:

Everyone would agree that PEVs will be adopted faster in California than in, say, Montana... let's see if there's a significant difference in electricity generation emissions between those two States using the EIA as our information source:

California CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel Consumption 2008
From Electric Power Consumption 51.0e6 mt
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/state/state_emissions.html

California Electric Industry Net Generation 2009
204.8e6 MWh
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/fig2_1.xls

So...

California: 56e2 short tons / 204e6 MWh = 0.27t/MWh, or 0.29t/MWh factoring 6.5% T&D losses
Montana: 29.4e6 short tons / 19.8e6 MWh = 1.48t/MWh or 1.58t/MWh with T&D loss

So a PEV in Montana will emit 5.5 times more CO2 than one driven in California...

For a meaningful, worthwhile arugment, you have to make your emissions arguments by State...at least.

Source for 6.5% T&D loss
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/electricity_faqs.asp#electric_rates2

P.S. note that I didn't factor in renewable generation, so the difference is actually larger. And nobody, including Peter (the author), has a good excuse for not doing the math because the data is readily available and all that's needed is the math we all used in grade school.

Comment
28 of 42

Keller

January 7, 2011

John Petersen has got it exactly right. The purported impressive greenhouse gas reductions of the EV are largely mythical for most of the country. The practical realities of power generation (mostly coal) and the real world (hills and cold winter weather) severely reduce the purported benefits.

Further, using "renewable energy" to charge EV's is more or less nonsensical for most of the country. Renewable energy is simply not practical or cost effective in most of the US.

In addition, the cost differential between conventional vehicles and EV means more costly monthly payments and that must be factored into cost analyses. The hybrids, with their lower price, are less impacted.

As to quantifying the differential between day and night emissions, that is highly regional by nature, but is actually a relatively straightforward calculation. The emissions can be developed from data available from the regional transmission operators (available on the WEB) and a knowledge of power plants emissions (available from any number of DOE reports, also available on the WEB). I've made the calculations in the context of development work but have not published a paper as the subject is more of a side-bar issue for my work. Might be something Tam would be interested in doing and publishing.

I suspect EV's are more of a niche for the Los Angeles, California metro area (which has poor air quality caused by legions of vehicles and relies heavily on regional natural gas power plants) rather than the rest of the nation. That being said, I think the hybrids are a much more cost effective solution for California while being useful in the rest of the US to save money on fuel costs.

Comment
29 of 42

a-b-24958

January 7, 2011

Good article, that gets confirmed by other studies. We need to generate more clean sourced electric energy to make PHEV worthwhile, period. And that energy to electricity reconversion will take decades, so John has a point here. He may not have a point in 2050, but heck, what a laugh he has with 29 comments and counting. Carbon emissions on nuclear France : 80 gr/kWh, Carbon emissions from 25% wind power Denmark : 580 gr/kWh.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/01/life-cycle-analysis-gas-electric-vehicles.php?campaign=daily_nl

A study by EMPA, the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology, casts light on the question : when is an electric car better than a gas-powered vehicle measured with a life cycle analysis ?
Their findings prove that electric vehicles offer a better lifetime impact than currently available combustion engine technology, but by a smaller margin than one would like to think :
An electric car charged with power from a coal-fired plant is roughly equivalent to a gas powered vehicle that gets 5.2L/100 km (45.2 mpg).
If charged on the typical mix of European power, derived from renewables and nuclear power as well as combustion plants, the gas-powered vehicle needs to achieve a fuel consumption of 3-4 L/100 km (78.4 to 58.8 mpg) to compete with electric.
An electric car charged solely by renewable energy competes with a fuel efficiency of 2L/100 km (117.6 mpg).

Comment
30 of 42

Anonymous

January 7, 2011

You can very quickly do the analysis using EPA numbers and see that John is right for current average conditions with electric cars like the Leaf and Volt, which get something like 3 miles/kWh. I think the Aptera and Tango get more like 10 miles/kWh.

Bob T

Comment
31 of 42

John-Bronson

January 7, 2011

a-b-24958,

You make no sense. You quote a study the completely disproves Mr. Petersen's article. Then you claim that his article has merit. The US grid is certainly not 100% supplied by coal.

Also, I would venture to say that the main motivation in buying an EV is not the emissions, but the fact that you no longer have to pay $3+/gallon for gas. Gas is likely to get a lot more expensive in the future. I like the GM Volt because it can run on gas, ethanol, or electricity.

Comment
32 of 42

kwh

January 7, 2011

It's all so simple: All the 'tower' buildings in the world use
elevators. Many 100's of thousands of them. OK, takes electricity
to take those people and the cage UP>>>>.

But coming DOWN, can generate power, with all the 'heavies' inside
the cab, and gravity working which noone has yet harnessed.

Dah.....!!!! Use that waste to charge the EV's outside or below
the building.

Oh...Yeah, Good Idea!!

Comment
33 of 42

john-dangelo-175629

January 7, 2011

One thing I want to make crystal clear. ONE NEVER runs out of "gas" in an electric vehicle. I have owned TWO electric vehicles and when the car stopped and could not go any further all I had to do was pull off the side of the road and let it recharge so that I could go a few more miles down the road. I also always carried an extension cord. That was using lead acid batteries and I have to assume it is the same with the new lithium ion cells as well.

I am currently looking to buy another EV because once you drive one you truly never really want to go back to driving a ICE ever again. Back then I used the grid to charge the EV and now I use my ON-SITE power plant to do the same. My how things have changed!

At the moment there are far more central power plants using fossil fuels than renewable but that is definitely changing. Yes the writer does have a somewhat of a valid point if you believe the figures that came from the source. I believe they are fairly accurate.

Comment
34 of 42

john-dangelo-175629

January 7, 2011

"Renewable energy is simply not practical or cost effective in most of the US."

Huh? Not practical? then you have never lived with renewable energy? My solar hot water and solar electric system sure is "practical" to me when it provides 100% of my hot water needs and 100% of my electric needs WITHOUT causing one once of pollution as it daily generates clean free fuel.

I bet you a million bucks you have never used any RE in your lifetime because if you did you would never say such a stupid statement.

The beauty of renewable energy is that it comes in many different forms. Wind (wind generators and water pumpers)and Sun (solar electric and solar hot water) and Water (hydro) are delivered to your site every day free fo charge.

Are you telling me that you don't have at least one of those RE sources available to you where you live? If you can't do ON SITE power then you can buy "green power" from your local utility almost everywhere now but you will never be free but you where not from the get go anyway being hooked to the grid.

"cost effective"? Paying a utility bill for your life time is NOT what I call "cost effective". Paying ONCE for an RE system that lasts a lifetime (40 years plus)is extremely "cost effective".

We have just been conditioned to pay a monthly utility bill from the day we go out on our own till the day we die. Utility company win big and everyone else just pays for a service. We accept the utility making our energy for us with a blink of an eye today and for the last 100 years as well.

Your choice! A lifetime of paying electric bills or choosing an RE system that will give you a lifetime of FREE fuel for whatever purpose you choose! People will catch on to the fact that we will not need a utility company to charge EV's because the FUEL can truly be FREE!

Comment
35 of 42

seth-weber-37790

January 8, 2011

No disclosure, John? No probs, I'll provide it here: John Petersen is a former director of Axion Power International, manufacturer of lead-acid batteries, and owns a substantial long position in its common stock. Hey, thanks so much for providing the stock symbols that you want us to get all nervous about. But if I may offer you some advice: stick to espousing the virtues of lead-acid over lithium ion. This crowd is a little too savvy to buy your schtick about CO2 emissions. Hey, why don't you just build lead-acid batteries for EVs instead of grousing about it? (I have a feeling I know the answer…)

And honestly, RE World, I'm a little disappointed in you. Just throwing a little "views expressed in this article" blurb in does not excuse you.

Comment
36 of 42

Anonymous

January 8, 2011

We currently do approx 6000 miles a year and this emits 1.5 tonnes a year (diesel).

Our electricity emits 450g/Kwh according to my electricity supplier (excluding our PV system). A Nissan leaf for our usage would require 6000/100 charges (100 mile range) at 24Kwh a charge.

So emissions are 60 x 24 x 450/1000 = 648 kg

A considerable improvement. When we get an electic car we will make sure we have more PV capacity and get paid the FIT and use it as far as possible to charge during daylight hours.

Neil in UK

Comment
37 of 42

theBike

January 8, 2011

My state's electricity is much cleaner at night due to the
extensive use of nuclear power. In this situation, note that solar will have virtually zero effect in improving the night-time production emissions. The graphs do not provide any evidence that apples are being compared to apples. A Prius
is a poor competitor to the Volt in every respect. Nor does the Volt require those nasty recharging stations, etc. that the writer complains about. Nor does it have any range limitation - the Volt has a longer driving range than the Prius. And "Conventional cars" displayed in that graph don't exist. But the biggest blind spot in this article is to imply that EVs are only good for reducing emissions. Far more important are the reductions of foreign oil imports. CO2 emissions reductions are a dead end if one is actually trying to alter the Earth's future climate.

Comment
38 of 42

jajagabor

January 9, 2011

Well -- I couldn't read all the many comments (though I wish I could!), but this article, whether you agree with its overall conclusion (that PHEVs are a joke) or not, does point to one thing that I think is still being overlooked: compressed air is possibly a much more efficient way than electric batteries to build/run a hybrid vehicle. Note: I didn't say it IS a much more efficient way -- only that is MIGHT be. Remember, charging an electric or PHEV takes hours after depletion -- an air vehicle does not! One could easily pump to full capacity a large, external tank/reservoir storage device (one's own personal home-based "fillin' station") in the day, and then -- after returning home from work in ones "air hybrid vehicle" -- refill this "plug-in" in a few minutes at night -- and already be ready for the next day drive to work and back. In fact, one could still drive it at night after work and probably have plenty of "air" left over to refill it a second time . . .

This is based purely on my own guesses!! ..... and on an EPA/Ford Motor Company project where a compressed air tank/ICE engine truck was jointly created and test driven. Conclusion: air was superior in stop-and- go city traffic over electric hybrid systems.

The thing is, compressed air has been around awhile, and it should be easy to test this thesis. So if I'm wrong in my guess, it should be fairly easy to prove! :)

Comment
39 of 42

Buck

January 9, 2011

Dear Bill; Comment #26
Thanks for saying it better than I. That was my intention. Its just that in any conversation on the subject. People forget to mention the whole story and all the facts. I think this is what the author and you are pointing out. I think more discussions should be made around the campfire*, relaxed, enjoying a *Cigar and perhaps a good Scotch, slowly and more well thought out.

* Provided the Bay Area Air Quality Management District gives you permission.

Comment
40 of 42

csihde

January 10, 2011

John Petersen has a valid point. However, as our electricity expected to becomes greener in the future, PHEV will be cleaner. The major reason that the renewable energy (I specifically referring to PV energy) does not move forward as faster as we like is because of its high cost. The CPV (Concentrating PhotoVoltaic) is supposedly to reduce the PV cost. The cost of the current CPV is actually higher. The current CPV system does reduces the photo cell cost to about 1/5 to 1/10 of the equivalent silicon cell cost. So 90% of the current CPV cost is from the Assembly/Tracking and Installations (ATI). We can greatly reduce the CPV cost if we can simplify the ATI. We have devised a simple 1-D concentrator which can achieve the same photo cell cost eduction to 1/5 to 1/10. The ATI for the 1-D CPV is much simpler and at much lower cost (much more than 2 to 1). This 1-D concentrator can also easily harvest the heat energy. Unlike the current CPV systems which are more suitable more sunny areas, the 1-D system can be rooftop mounted and used everywhere in the US (and world). Unfortunately the DOE including APAR-E paid no attention to this simple and yet elegant approach. We have built a very simple model to demonstrate the principle and done computer simulation to verify the operation. I'll be glad to discuss this privately with anyone who is seriously interested the system. Charles Ih, Emeritus Professor of Elect. Engg.,ih@ece.udel.edu, 302-831-8173.

Comment
41 of 42

FreeAsTheWind

January 13, 2011

I don't doubt that what you say about EV's being charged with "dirty energy" is true....at least for right now, but I doubt that this remains a problem for very long.

As renewables are more widely adopted in the future, this issue will start to fade into the background. Especially, as solar powered charging stations are installed that will allow an EV owner to charge their vehicle while at work.

Bob "Free As The Wind" Mitchell

Comment
42 of 42

tblakeslee

March 23, 2011

You make a good point. The power utilities must move towards clean sources at night. Pumped storage can store solar and wind energy behind dams and retrieve it at night. We need to urgently develop geothermal power which runs 24/7 and can be competitive with coal.
www.clrlight.org/coal.pdf

Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

NEW Smart Phone App

John Petersen

About: firm of Fefer Petersen & Cie (www.ipo-law.com) and represents North American, European and Asian clients, principally in the energy and alternative energy secto... more »