USA Today: plug-in vehicles may increase air pollution
Today's USA Today has an article that talks about two studies on plug-in hybrids, both published last year, that "have yet to trigger alarms." The studies, one by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the other by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, found plug-in hybrids and electric cars might increase certain types of air pollution in specific areas.
The NRDC study says that in regions heavily dependent on energy from coal, "there is a possibility for significant increases of soot and mercury" given an increase in PHEVs. The NRDC study also says that when charged with electricity produced by a coal plant, PHEVs have "higher global warming pollution compared to a non-pluggable hybrid electric vehicle." The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency study found that "a PHEV has marginally lower emissions for all emittants, except CO2 and SO2." The increase in SO2 emissions is 182 percent "due to the high sulfur content of the coal combusted to generate electricity."
When will the alarms trigger? Are PHEVs headed for the same U-turn of support from the green community that biofuels ran into?
[Source: USA Today]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Tim 11:31AM (2/26/2008)
More half-truths.
FACT: It's a LOT easier to clean up and KEEP clean ONE coal fired electric plant than it is to clean up and KEEP clean 10,000 gasoline-hybrid cars.
Why is it called "common" sense when it is obviously uncommon?
Engineers and “scientists” often think in square circles.
Reply
Wise Golden 11:39AM (2/26/2008)
It's an unfair study for several reasons.
1) Many, in fact most people get electricity from a source other than coal.
2) Not all coal is high in sulfer -- only coal from certain areas and power plants are increasingly using the low sulfer veriety.
3) Coal plants are themselves improving steadily with better pollution controls, better combustion processes and better transmission methods.
4) Coal is being improved in some cases through gasification and crushing and washing techniques.
5) PHEV's and EV's are likely to require power that is in addition to our current capacity to generate electricity. That capacity is being built and uses mostly natural gas, wind and waste to energy.
And lastly, I don't believe in a million years that a car can burn a fuel more effectively than a power plant -- I just don't buy what they are selling, which I suspect to be oil.
Reply
MitchJi 11:47AM (2/26/2008)
Hi,
Misses the point which is we should stop using Coal (a filthy source of energy. We should also forget about "Clean Coal" (a filthy source of energy with Carbon Sequestration).
Reply
Chris 12:18PM (2/26/2008)
Most studies I have read conclude that a majority of the existing vehicle fleet in the US could switch to plug-ins and not require large increases in generating capacity - if the plug-ins are charge at night during off peak hours.
Reply
Lou Grinzo 11:48AM (2/26/2008)
In addition to the notion that electricity generation can be cleaned up, as others have pointed out, I would add that we can be very sure that it actually will be cleaned up. We're so far behind the curve on curbing CO2 emissions, and so much of it (at least in the US) comes from coal-fired electricity, that we'll have no choice but to clean it up, whether we're plugging in our cars or not.
Reply
Amtoro 11:53AM (2/26/2008)
Not only PHEV and BEV are an effective way to reduce North America's dependence on oil but a technology other countries will buy from the USA and use (in the same way they adopted cell phones, personal computers and Walmarts) Many of those countries generate their electricity from hydroelectric plants, natural gas and rely very little on oil. Once they have seen the EV's working and adopt the use of electricity for personal transportation, the effects of the reduced pollution levels will become increasingly more noticeable on a global scale.
Reply
Dad 11:56AM (2/26/2008)
Wow, some folks can find anything to complain about. I suspect that if someone gave these folks a million dollars (USD) they would complain about having to pay the tax.
Reply
steven rydel 12:07PM (2/26/2008)
Bull! At what cost is the oil that we use? We spend billions on a war and are soldiers are dying because of oil. We import the oil from all parts of the world.What kind of pollution is happening as a result of the transport of the oil in the ships. The refining of the oil once it is here,the shipping of the refined gas to the gas station and finally the burning of the gas in your car.
Reply
Mike Z 12:06PM (2/26/2008)
Cleaning up the non-co2 emissions of coal is a very manageable problem. Also new coal plants that use ultra super-critical or IGCC technology are rather efficient (generating less co2 per kWh generated). Of course areas that are use a lot of coal are likely having to waste a lot of energy to not having appropriate peaking capacity, PHEVs would help balance the grid.
I actually find the NRDC study perplexing, because I met with someone from the NRDC and they were advocating carbon capture coal (even building co2 national pipelines to sequester the stuff in old natural gas fields in Texas).
Reply
Wise Golden 12:07PM (2/26/2008)
I would like to address your question, “When will the alarms trigger? Are PHEVs headed for the same U-turn of support from the green community that biofuels ran into?”
I am an environmentalist and I am aware that many people, from many political viewpoints consider themselves friends of the environment. However, there appears to be a radical fringe that has identified itself as “environmentalist,” who are giving the rest of us a black eye and taking a foolish, unpractical and unworkable approach to environmental protection. This would be fine is they stayed in their packed earth homes, unshowered, stoned, and off the grid, and allowed the rest of us to continue our lives, pursuing our dreams and working for environmental improvement.
Let’s quickly run down a list of things that these radical environmentalists have achieved – all bad in my opinion.
1) Destroyed the HydroPower movement.
2) Destroyed the Nuclear Industry.
3) Currently working to ban windmills.
4) Currently working to under mind bio-fuels of all types.
5) Working to ensure that existing coal plants can not be upgraded to new coal technology that is 25% cleaner.
6) Working to ensure that power lines can not be upgraded to new transmission lines that allow 25% more power to reach the consumer without loss to the atmosphere.
7) Working to ensure that waste to energy plants are not allowed.
8) They work to prevent used oil from being burnt at oil power plants – it’s just nuts – makes no sense.
In fact, this group infringes on any type of new power construction imaginable, from tidal to geothermal to Nuclear – they have never met a form of power that they like, except solar. And if it doesn’t have the word solar on it – it’s their enemy. Well, unless it’s made from hemp and then they like it. Solar panels made from hemp – I think that’s what they want.
So yes, they will latch on to this and they will try to get it destroyed. And they are puppets – easily manipulated puppets. There is only one industry that stands to be harmed by PHEV and EV’s and it’s the largest industry on Earth; the oil industry. These studies, un-doutably are in some way funded through the oil industry (which also controls most natural gas production and would like to see all power plants converted to natural gas.) This is my suspicion and I suspect they are also behind the misinformation being spread concerning bio fuels. Mark my words: as we get closer to EV’s, you’ll start hearing about batteries exploding and studies that link batteries to birth defects and on and on.
It’s a Trillion Dollar plus sum of money, per year, at stake. These guys are not going down without a fight.
Reply
RickM 12:20PM (2/26/2008)
This story is spinning old news. The NRDC study is published without a dateline, but has comments going back to last September. The Minnesota study is dated March 2007.
The NRDC study highlights the benefits of PHEVs, saying they can reduce greenhouse gas emissions overall, and adds as a side note that caution should be used in areas that are heavily dependent on burning dirty coal in older power plants. The NRDC's policy advice: promote PHEVs and clean up coal generation.
I don't know Healey, but when he presents these old studies as news, and implies that they argue against PHEVs, you have to wonder about his agenda.
Reply
J.Sneep 12:25PM (2/26/2008)
PHEV wil by charged at night when the powerstation running almost idle. In the daytime when driving electric there is no pollution.
Looks BS to me.
Reply
Tim 12:31PM (2/26/2008)
Wize Golden - That's why these wacky (and dangerous) environmentalists like Al “Green” Gore are called Eco-socialists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-socialism
The Democratic-Socialists and Neo-Conservative Socialists are in lock-step toward a world government under the UN controlled by the global Elite aristocracy.
But FIRST they need to destroy the US economically just as the US destroyed the Soviets.
A global state of emergency is needed before the gullible people will comply. Man-made global warming is the PERFECT ruse so the people will shift power to the UN and it will also transfer $Trillions in “carbon offsets” to the elite’s giant corporations like GE. This is taking place now and will accelerate under President Obama or President McCain.
These Elite own the Federal Reserve Bank AND the 5 giant corporations that own ALL newspapers, TV, Cable and Radio stations. That’s why people laugh when they hear “Fair and Balanced”. They know it’s a lie, but they don’t understand the depth.
Simplicity is the mark of genius.
Reply
KarenRei 1:04PM (2/26/2008)
I've done my own calculations and gotten wildly different results.
http://www.daughtersoftiresias.org/greenwiki/Electric_car#Aptera_Typ-1e%3A_An_emissions_case_study
I used the emissions levels per kWh from London's power mix (which contains a fair amount of coal), which I found a reference for, and compared it to the kWh/mi used by the car I plan to get, the Aptera Typ-1e, as well as to the emissions from car meeting the stringent Euro IV standards and cars of different mpg ratings. Results:
CO2: 30.6 g/km (28% of that of a 50mpg car; 14% compared to a 25mpg car; 7% compared to a 12mpg car)
CO: 0.0048 g/km (0.5% of the Euro IV limit for gasoline vehicles and 1.0% of that for diesels)
NOx: 0.088 g/km (110% of the Euro IV limit for gasoline vehicles and 35% of that for diesels)
HC: 0.0036 g/km (3.6% of the Euro IV limit for gasoline vehicles)
SO2: 0.12 g/km (couldn't find car emission standards)
All PM combined: 0.014 g/km (All particulate matter combined is 56% of the Euro IV limit for diesels' PM10 alone)
Sure, the Aptera is a *very* efficient electric car. It's twice as efficient as the MiEV and three times as efficient as the Tesla. Let's just say that your average electric car is three times more wasteful than an Aptera. You get:
CO2 emissions equivalent to a 60mpg car.
CO emissions only 1.5% that of the Euro IV limit for gasoline and 3% that of the Euro IV limit.
NOx emissions 3x the Euro IV limit for gasoline and about the level for diesels.
HC emissions only 10% that of the Euro IV limit for gasoline vehicles
"More" SO2 (can't find how much)
All PM combined is ~160% more than the specific PM10 limit for diesels
A brief summary of various pollutants:
CO2: According to the IPCC, the largest contributor, by a good margin, to global warming. Relatively harmless apart from that.
CO: A highly potent poison that permanently weakens the heart, among other effects.
NOx: Lung irritants that produce the stereotypical brownish "smog haze"
HC: Irritatants, some of which are carcinogenic.
SO2: An irritant and the prime source of acid rain. On the upside, it contributes to global cooling by seeding cloud formation.
PM10: Respiratory disorders
Then factor in the fact that these emissions are moved *away* from urban areas where people will be breathing them. I'd say it's clear that EVs are better.
Reply
jake 1:04PM (2/26/2008)
It's a good thing this is shifting pollution to coal plants because it's about damn time we cleaned up those things in the first place. Coal plants are pretty much the largest source of pollution in the US. PHEVs also have other benefits as they can use the excess energy we just throw away at night anyways and can serve as excellent load balancers. Another thing is there is no place in the US that relies 100% on coal. West Virginia which relies most on coal only has 73% coal generation.
If we don't find ways to reduce pollution from coal plants we will have problems regardless of whether we have PHEVs or not. If shifting pollution to electrical sources can put increased attention on pollution from our coal plants, that's a good thing.
Another thing is this is not true in many places in America, for example in CA which is only 15% coal and some places that are almost 90% hydroelectric. Those places can stand to have 80% less pollution than a coal fired plant and probably have close to no sulfur dioxide emissions, which is certainly more than what a hybrid can provide.
Reply
KarenRei 1:08PM (2/26/2008)
Oh, and don't forget about this:
http://www.daughtersoftiresias.org/greenwiki/Image:WellToWheelEmissions.jpg
Graph taken from this study:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2S-4M04DW9-1&_user=440026&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020939&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=440026&md5=e7b3b8bfb288aaed28ee38d247e49a24
Reply
scatter 1:09PM (2/26/2008)
Wise Golden those people are in a tiny minority and there's nothing wrong with them describing themselves as environmentalists. They are deep greens and their contribution to the debate is in my view valid and important. I also think that it's highly unlikely that our future will follow that sort of path.
The fact is that many environmentalists disagree fundamentally with many of those technologies you listed for a variety of very valid reasons (be it cost, wider environmental damage, negligible impact in CO2 emissions when the indirect emissions are accounted for etc). Some will be pro nuclear and anti biofuels, others might be anti hydro and pro clean coal.
In dealing with climate change we're involved in a process of natural selection of ideas and solutions - some are beneficial and will thrive, others are less beneficial and hopefully won't thrive (although vested interests are going to do their damnedest to keep them alive). This process needs to be drastically sped up though.
As for it being some socialist plot, Tim, you really don't have to worry. Capitalism is the only game in town and isn't going anywhere.
Reply
bdeflaviis 1:37PM (2/26/2008)
If everyone had a plug-in hybrid, the definition of peak hours would change significantly.
Also, what about city drivers? Where do they plug in at night? I don't drive, but I know plenty of people who rarely park in the same spot twice.
Reply
KarenRei 1:38PM (2/26/2008)
"It’s a Trillion Dollar plus sum of money, per year, at stake. These guys are not going down without a fight."
As a Keynesian, I look at it as, why make a fight out of it? Don't write them out of the future; write them *into* the future, playing a different role. Take a carrot and stick approach to prod them in the right direction.
* Who better to do carbon sequestration than an industry that makes a living out of knowing and dealing with deep strata?
* Who better to make offshore wind farms than an industry that makes offshore oil rigs?
* Who better to do enhanced geothermal (deep heat reservoirs; works almost anywhere, but in the US, especially well in the west) than a company founded on drilling deep pipes into the rock and pumping liquids through them?
And so on. This is an industry packed full of hundreds of thousands of chemical and mechanical engineers, an industry that has become so efficient that it can pump things from miles underground, ship them halfway around the world, run them through all kinds of complicated processes, distribute them across the US, and ultimately sell it for cheaper than milk or bottled water. Think of the potential of redirecting this labor force toward a more sustainable future.
A carrot and stick approach can do this. You let gas prices rise, rather than trying to keep them down. You even help the rise along with taxes. You put ever-tightening cap and trade systems on. Meanwhile, you use all of the money you get from taxes and fines into projects they can bid for -- wind, solar, geothermal, battery production, and so on. Payments based on results. The companies that play along thrive and profit. The companies that resist lose money and are gobbled up by their competitors.
Reply
KarenRei 1:43PM (2/26/2008)
"If everyone had a plug-in hybrid, the definition of peak hours would change significantly."
Our grid can already support 84% of our vehicles being replaced by PHEVs without any new infrastructure.
Believe me, power companies would *love* PHEVs. Not simply because it means more business, but because it means more business with almost no more capital investment. It is, for the most part, only marginal costs, not capital costs. It lets them raise their capacity factor -- a dream come true for the power industry. You can expect electricity rates, if anything, to *drop*, not rise, as PHEVs start taking up significant market share.
As for people who don't have plugs, which do you think is cheaper to build: a plug or a gas pump? You need infrastructure either way, but the former is much cheaper infrastructure than the latter.
Reply