UoCS Study: How Green are Electric Cars?

[bonnie]

The Union of Concerned Scientists just released a study saying:
1) Electric Cars Cost $1,200 a Year Less to Run.
2) Electric vehicles also are responsible for fewer emissions than gasoline models even when taking into consideration the output from coal-fired power plants and other generating sources. The environmental advantage varies by part of the country.

I think this is the link to actual study: Global Warming Emissions and Fuel-Cost Savings of Electric Cars (2012) | Union of Concerned Scientists

Do we need an 'Anti-anti-ev-gibberish' thread? (good find)

 

[JRP3]

We do have a thread discussing this particular study: NY Times - How Green are Electric Cars? Depends!!

 

[vfx]

Glass half full version

http://www.nydailynews.com/autos/el...udy-article-1.1063629?localLinksEnabled=false

 

[JRP3]

Unfortunately the headline contradicts the reality. EV's "greenness" is connected to the power source and in some cases they are not the greenest.

Even in states where coal dominates the electricity grid, such as the Rocky Mountains, driving an EV produces emissions equivalent to a gasoline vehicle with a fuel economy of 33mpg (7.12 l/100km) -- around the level of the best non-hybrid compact gasoline vehicles on the market

​

Which means that there are some non-hybrid and hybrid vehicles which are indeed cleaner in some areas.

 

[Robert.Boston]

^^ Depending on comparing like-to-like. A Model S vs. an Audi A7, EV wins. A Model S vs. a SmartForTwo? Unfair comparison. But Volt vs. Cruze? Hmm.

 

[ESdude]

I think this article is very relevant to this thread:
Traffic pollution kills 5,000 a year in UK, says study

Although the popular perception of air pollution involves images of smoke stacks billowing out toxic black fumes into the atmosphere, industry and the power sector turn out to kill fewer than vehicle emissions, the data shows.

 

[DuncanWatson]

Unfortunately the headline contradicts the reality. EV's "greenness" is connected to the power source and in some cases they are not the greenest.
Which means that there are some non-hybrid and hybrid vehicles which are indeed cleaner in some areas.

over the lifetime of the vehicle the EV wins hands down.

 

[JRP3]

over the lifetime of the vehicle the EV wins hands down.

That doesn't make sense. If the vehicle is cleaner on a per mile basis it will be cleaner on a lifetime basis.

 

[DuncanWatson]

That doesn't make sense. If the vehicle is cleaner on a per mile basis it will be cleaner on a lifetime basis.

Over time the percentage of tar sand oil used to produce gasoline goes up. The ghg/mile increases.

Overtime the percentage of our power production using coal goes down. The ghg/mile decreases.

 

[JRP3]

Since the average vehicle lifetime is around 10-12 years I doubt we'll see enough change in that time period to make a mostly coal powered EV today better than a Prius in 10 years or so.

 

[ElSupreme]

That doesn't make sense. If the vehicle is cleaner on a per mile basis it will be cleaner on a lifetime basis.

Well if you start calculating the lifespan of the vehicles and the energy to produce them. But at that point it is mostly guessing, speculation, and stacking the deck whatever way you want it.

 

[Norbert]

Since the average vehicle lifetime is around 10-12 years I doubt we'll see enough change in that time period to make a mostly coal powered EV today better than a Prius in 10 years or so.

Robert's numbers in the "more anti-EV gibberish" thread apparently say there is a 9% improvement (less coal) this year alone. So currently things change quite quickly. And solar will be more and more in the grid parity range.

EDIT: Plus it is mostly about creating the market and not just about each individual car.

 

[Robert.Boston]

Robert's numbers in the "more anti-EV gibberish" thread apparently say there is a 9% improvement (less coal) this year alone. So currently things change quite quickly.

To be clear, a 9-percentage point drop, from 48% to 39%, which is a 19% decline (1- 39/48).

 

[DuncanWatson]

Additionally when a coal plant is taken off-line in favor of hydro, solar or wind it has a very large impact on the local power companies %. The 19% change Robert is talking about is a national trend. EPA rules also are now in place to apply the Clean Air Act to coal power production, <snark>it only took 20 years </snark>, so this will accelerate not deaccelerate. Coal plants will also work to lower their emissions with scrubbers which again benefits EVs vs ICE vehicles.

 

[Dave EV]

Since the average vehicle lifetime is around 10-12 years I doubt we'll see enough change in that time period to make a mostly coal powered EV today better than a Prius in 10 years or so.

In 10 years the amount of coal used to produce electricity should go down a LOT compared to today.

Or at least I hope it does - at least all current indicators point in that direction.

 

[dsm363]

Even if your EV is only as clean as a 40 mpg highway ICE, that's still not bad and as was said above, it should get better over time due to the amount of coal power likely going down over time. You also have the option to install solar panels, buy wind energy down the road...etc to indirectly offset your use. Also, at a minimum, you shift the pollution from your car to the power plant and farther away from a population center (most likely).

 

[jerry33]

Also the mechanical condition of the ICE car will deteriorate with time and cause additional pollution. While the electric car's mechanical condition may also deteriorate, the deterioration is not likely to cause the same amount of extra pollution. And in many areas the "pollution check" is kind of a joke.

 

[JRP3]

It's important to note that in the near term coal will be replaced with NG, which may end up with similar green house emissions when methane release is taken into account.

 

[Robert.Boston]

JRP, that conclusion has been rebutted. There was a good reference to the rebutting report posted elsewhere on these forums, but the net takeaway is that NG is still far better than coal. (Also remember that coal mining often releases trapped methane gases, which are not captured.)

 

[JRP3]

In fact I posted one of the rebuttals, but I'm still not sure it's definitive and that the concept has no merit.