Archives

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL REPORT CASTS DOUBT ON DECISION TO PRODUCE ELECTRIC CARS IN ABSENCE OF RENEWABLE ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE
"...When the damages attributable to the other parts of the lifecycle were included, especially the emissions from the feedstock and the fuel (emissions from electricity production), the aggregate damages for the grid-dependent and all-electric vehicles become comparable to, or somewhat higher than, those from gasoline." -- page 146
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12794

TANSTAAFL. That's disappointing information, but not much of a surprise.

"...When the damages attributable to the other parts of the lifecycle were included, especially the emissions from the feedstock and the fuel (emissions from electricity production), the aggregate damages for the grid-dependent and all-electric vehicles become comparable to, or somewhat higher than, those from gasoline."

Yes, but the emissions can then be controlled at ONE point of souce. Clean up the plant and the entire auto stream is cleaned up overnight.

"
Yes, but the emissions can then be controlled at ONE point of souce. Clean up the plant and the entire auto stream is cleaned up overnight.

Though this sounds good in theory, I'm not sure that that improvement is all that great either. Cars are already pretty clean, except for the vast amounts of CO2 emissions. Since "original" generation of the electricity for BEV cars also generates vast amounts of CO2, just where does the emissions improvement lie, particularly if transmission and generation inefficiencies are considered? Carbon sequestration could change that equation, but that doesn't seem to be in the near or mid term cards.

To me, the advantage for us as Americans in BEV's is that we can use more American energy as the "original" source. But, it's JMO.

Jim, have you checked out how much electricity is used just to refine oil into gasoline and diesel?

Some of the spin about this press release makes it sound like they are comparing apples to orangutans. Consider the two following quotes from the official press release (http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12794) to help think about some nuances:

"Both for 2005 and 2030, vehicles using gasoline made from oil extracted from tar sands and those using diesel derived from the Fischer-Tropsch process -- which converts coal, methane, or biomass to liquid fuel -- had the highest life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions. "

"The life-cycle damages of wind power, which produces just over 1 percent of U.S. electricity but has large growth potential, are small compared with those from coal and natural gas."

The easiest comparison to make is of average cost of a gallon of gas to the cost of an equivalent unit of electric power this seems to be getting the press spin. A more relevant comparison would be the total costs "on the margin" of the gasoline displaced by electrification versus the total cost of the electric power production for the electric vehicles. The quotes above from the press release point in the direction of the comparison.

My impression is that oil from tar sands and shales are likely to be the source of gasoline at the margin of change--because they are the most expensive to extract they would be the oil that would be left in the ground as a result of reduced gasoline prices/demand . In the electric market you would expect new sources of electricity to fuel fleets of electric vehicles to be less coal based. Natural gas, wind and nuclear seem poised to increase market share in energy production. I think that a better way to read the article is that we need to consider how we source our electricity before we proceed with large scale conversion to electric vehicles. This strikes me as a blinding glimpse of the obvious (BGO).

I haven't examined the article's arithmetic (don't feel like coughing up $50 for a BGO), but congressionally commissioned reports tend towards the political safety of the status quo. I am curious where the original post's quote came from--I didn't see it in the linked press release. If the quote came from the original article, more context would be useful to determine its relevance.

Jim, have you checked out how much electricity is used just to refine oil into gasoline and diesel?

No, I have not checked that out in any definitive way. Certainly there must be costs to the refining and transportation of gasoline and diesel.

It's just that I tend to be suspicious of folks with agendas, and we here certainly have an electric car agenda ;) It isn't necessarily a bad thing, but nontheless it does tend to make one suspicious. There are certainly inefficiencies and hidden comsumption is both ways of powering vehicles. It would be interesting to see a comparison of the front to back total emissions and FE of the two approaches. I have not seen such a comparison. But, I know one for sure, it makes no sense to say that the FE of a hybride electric car such as the Volt is 250 MPG. That sort of arguement sets me off right away :(

There are many ways known today to generate electricity with very few emissions. I do not know any low-emission ways to burn gasoline.

Generate the electricity onboard the vehicles using nanotechnology fuel cells that run from fat. In addition to being emission free, it would increase the MPG of other cars* and reduce the battery requirements. Fat is about 7 times as energy dense as hydrogen by volume and America already figured out how to generate fat at an increasing rate.

* Obesity contributes to 3 days of fuel usage every year.

There are many ways known today to generate electricity with very few emissions. I do not know any low-emission ways to burn gasoline.

I do. It is called a Porsche. They had some of the first PZERO cars on the road and met emission standards years before they were required. In many cities the air coming out of the pipe is cleaner than the air that went into the intake. They are fun too.

Which model was the first to achieve this? (Just curious)

ILAveo, really excellent point about the marginal impact of vehicle emissions.

Also, the study does at least give some hint that the damage caused by consuming electricity varies widely. If your local power source is primarily coal, you may very well emit less carbon and less local pollution driving a Prius than a comparably sized grid-charged EV. If, on the other hand, your source is primarily natural gas, it may tilt slightly the other way. And if your source is primarily renewable and/or nuclear, there's no question that grid-charged EV is a better way to go.

I do. It is called a Porsche. They had some of the first PZERO cars on the road and met emission standards years before they were required. In many cities the air coming out of the pipe is cleaner than the air that went into the intake. They are fun too.Reminds me of a recent South Park episode in which Cartman decided the world was going to heck and decided to commit suicide by locking himself in the garage with his mom's car running. When he still showed up at the bus stop the next day, the other kids asked why he was still alive. Cartman: "Freakin' hybrid wouldn't do the job."

Yay, so this means I can heat my shop or house with the exhaust of my car running!
I think not.

Guess which gasses were left out of the statement that the exhaust was cleaner than the surrounding air.