GAO says truly clean plug-in hybrids need to be powered by alternatives to coal plants
by Sebastian Blanco on Jun 25th 2009 at 7:42PM 
The long tailpipe. The longer you've been interested in cleaner cars that come with a plug, the more chance there is you've heard about this topic and thought of ways to mitigate the effect of the resources that are being consumed elsewhere to move your wheels. Solar and wind are two obvious clean choices to power an EV, but they're not as prevalent as coal-fired electricity in the U.S. So, given this situation, what impact with plug-in vehicles have on the overall greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.? The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report this month called "Plug-in Vehicles Offer Potential Benefits, but High Costs and Limited Information Could Hinder Integration into the Federal Fleet" that presents the complicated reality of plug-ins. Some news outlets have jumped on this report to decry plug-ins, but it's not that simple.
While a shift from gas to coal does reduce dependency on foreign oil, they also are like "trading one greenhouse gas emitter for another," said Mark Gaffigan, a co-author of the report in an interview with CNS News (the site bills itself as an "alternative to the liberal media"). The GAO report suggests that new nuclear and carbon sequestration technologies could help reduce the amount of greenhouse gases that are emitted even if plug-in cars become commonplace. It also says that nighttime charging from coal plants will likely reduce the amount of smog formed by powering plug-in vehicles. The GAO says that, "Besides offering environmental benefits, reduced oil consumption from plug-ins could help to limit U.S. vulnerability to supply reductions and subsequent oil price shocks" (page 13).
Overall, the tone of the report is much less alarming (or surprising) than the CNS News report makes it appear. But not everything in the report is accurate. On page 19, for example, they still list the Phoenix all-electric truck and SUV as making an appearance in 2009. That's maybe possible, but very unlikely. You can download a PDF of the GAO's report here.
Gallery: AFVI Ride & Drive Phoenix SUT
[Source: GAO (PDF), CNS News, Green Car Congress]
Photo by Paul Jerry. Licensed under Creative Commons license 2.0.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
downtoearth 8:04PM (6/25/2009)
It was just a matter of time those fake misleading press releases compiled by idiots start to appear, associating plug-in cars with coal-fired powerplants.
Cars of today are powered by nearly 100% fossil oil (biofules don't matter).
At the same time...
1. U.S electricity generation is is only 50% coal. 19% is clean nuclear. 7% is hydro:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sources_of_electricity_in_the_USA_2006.png
2. Europe electricity generation is much less coal and much more nuclear and hydro: http://www.world-nuclear.org/uploadedImages/org/info/Fuel_for_electricity.png?n=4568
3. Canada is mostly hydro.
4. Russia is mostly natural gas.
5. UK is less then 40% coal but the harmful idiot Jeremy Clarkson said: Tesla Roadster = Coal fired powerplant.
6. France is 80% nuclear: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sources_of_Electricity_in_France_in_2006.PNG
Reply
AndrewNoNumbers 10:23PM (6/25/2009)
Good info there. But even if plugins emitted the same amount of greenhouse gas as ICEs it would still be good just so there's a push to develop the technology for when we eventually end coal-dependency.
nixon 11:49AM (6/26/2009)
downtoearth -- Very good points, but the even worse thing is that it takes a huge amount of electricity to refine oil. The electricity that is generated from coal plants is NOT accounted for in this study. If it were, it would show just exactly how bad burning oil really is.
Here is a post that basically shows that we use so much electricity and natural gas to extract and refine oil, that if we were to just directly power our cars and power plants with that electricity and natural gas, we could just leave the oil in the ground:
"The electricity used to refine oil alone would power
cars further than what's in the rest of the barrel"
http://evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1715
Taking this a step further, and applying it to this study, they would have to add all of the GHG impact of producing the electricity to refine the oil onto the ICE vehicle side of the equation. Since it will take approximately the same amount of coal-powered electricity to refine the oil as it takes to run electric cars for roughly the same distance, the GHG emissions from generating electricity roughly cancels out on both sides. All that is left is the GHG emissions from burning the oil.
So no matter what source the electricity comes from, the electric car beats the pants off of burning oil.
NeilBlanchard 9:53PM (6/25/2009)
Hi,
Renewables are even better, of course. But even if you get the electricity from coal, the EV still yields better efficiency than an ICE burning petrol because of the much higher efficiency of the electric drive system vs the ICE. And don't forget that oil also has a 1:15 return on invested energy -- this adds 6.67% to what the ICE consumes. Though, how much energy does it take to mine/transport/etc. coal?
EV's shut off when you stop moving, so this is 5-15% improvement over an ICE vehicle.
So using coal to power an EV is only slightly better than an ICE vehicle, but it is better.
Reply
Chris M 10:45PM (6/25/2009)
It isn't just the higher efficiency of EVs, it is also the higher efficiency of the power plants. Stationary power plants use several efficiency boosting devices that are too large and heavy for use on vehicles.
John Rowell 11:05PM (6/25/2009)
EVs (and plug-ins to a lesser degree) offer one critical element that's missing from today's cars: CHOICE. With an EV you're free to choose where your energy to power the car comes from. You can sign up for green power from your electric company. You can even install solar panels. With a gas car, there is no choice - your energy comes from unstable regions of the world such as Iraq, and it pollutes. Period.
Reply
Sir.Vix 11:17PM (6/25/2009)
Who decided that "trading one form of greenhouse gas for another" meant that it was somehow confirmed that charging an EV pollutes the air with the exact same amount of carbon and CO2 as the amount that comes out of an ICE's tail pipe?
Pardon me for not giving a link to sources, but it has been stated a while ago that using electricity generated at the plant level is always more efficient than having an entire refining and liquid fuel transportation infrastructure than burns the fuel on the vehicle itself. It was determined even further that much of a power plant's generated power is wasted at night since they don't/can't lower output at night. electricity will always be cheaper than gas as well, unless gas goes down to like 50 cents a gallon.
The problem with still shaming a vehicle for being electric and arguing that its share of greenhouse emissions just come from a different source, then your t.v., washing machine, and refrigerator are dispicable polluters that you should boycott. By that logic, one could offset their volt's electrical usage by wearing each article of clothing TWICE before washing and drying instead of once!
Reply
Rain 11:16PM (6/25/2009)
Geothermal is one of the overlooked sources of renewable energy,Solar Towers
are another source.
As for the naysayers,well,let me say this:
Back in the 1980's under the administration of Saint Redink,the House of Saud owned something like 30% of the wealth in the US.
After 24 years of the contract with America,how much do they own now,excluding members of Our government from both sides of the aisle?
Since the media is run by the liberal elite in this country then what would be the harm of restoring the Fairness Doctrine?
Perhaps to some people the ramblings of "the most watched network" and the most listened to talk show celebrity" must seem to be too liberal for their cultured tastes.
Reply
nixon 11:29PM (6/25/2009)
Buy an electric car, and you can clean up your GHG emissions from coal-fired power plants by having the coal power plant converted to capture and sequester the GHG emissions.
If there are millions of electric cars running on electricity from coal power plants when they are converted, all the sudden millions of cars instantly become cleaner.
Meanwhile, the millions of cars that are running on gas will always be just as dirty, and just as much a GHG emitter as they were the day they left the assembly line. Just try to set up a GHG capture/sequester on the tailpipe of your gasoline burning car....
Reply
!!D 12:17AM (6/26/2009)
The Long Tailpipe is a weak argument. Here are my counterpoints:
1) Coal makes up less than half of the power produced; the other half is much cleaner.
2) All power plants are maintained daily for optimum production by engineers and technicians. Whereas, most current cars are designed with poor energy conversion efficiency and very few are maintained regularly by their driver.
3) Energy companies have a financial incentive to produce the most electricity at the least cost. Costs of oil, coal and gas are always rising and only renewable energy sources have a fixed (and sometimes falling) price. Any energy company that isn't increasing its renewable sources will be at a competitive disadvantage to those that do.
@nixon: Sequestration is not a solution for coal power plants. Burying a problem is not solving a problem. Furthermore, sequestration doesn't address the destruction of natural terrain (including leveling scenic hills and mountains for mining and soot run-off into surrounding waterways) in the USA. We must find ways to decrease the use of coal.
nixon 11:34PM (6/25/2009)
Just moving the emissions out of high population centers and releasing them from tall smoke stacks far away will have a massive positive impact on the health of millions of people.
This alone is worth the conversion to EV's.
Reply
murc 11:56PM (6/25/2009)
This is where I disagree with most of you people.
I'm for electric cars because American money, stays in America.
We buy some of our oil from enemy countries...were essentially funding bad governments.
Thats the ONLY reason I like electric.
As for the "what powers the electric car" discussion...I dont care, because all of the United States electricity, comes from the United States.
If you truly believe that CO2 is hurting our planet, then do mother earth a favor, and hold your breathe until you die.
Reply
Nick 4:17AM (6/26/2009)
@murc,
Whether you chose to believe the world's top scientists, or FoxNews' entertainers is your choice.
But Climate Change isn't the only reason pollution should be eliminated. What about the tens of thousands of Americans who die every year from breathing filthy air, drinking polluted water?
I guess health doesn't matter to so-called patriots.
MT 9:22AM (6/26/2009)
@murc,
So your argument is that because every animal exhales CO2 it can't be dangerous?
I guess you're not a big proponent of sewage treatment then. Using that logic, we ought to just dump raw sewage into our rivers and lakes, even the ones we get drinking water from. If it's something that naturally comes from our bodies, it can't be harmful.
Anonymouse 12:47PM (6/26/2009)
Murc,
Unlike those other two, while I disagree with you on CO2, I respect your stance. Different people have different reasons for wanting to move off oil, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Come people care more about the environment. Others care more about not funding overseas dictators. Either way, it's the same result: both goals are won with electric at the same time.
murc 9:26PM (6/26/2009)
Anonymous - Thanks.
Nick - First of all, thanks for calling me a patriot, I like that title. Because I put country first...something politicians dont do.
Top scientists??? even the scientists are is disagreement about global warming.....oh, sorry, I forgot, these days its called "climate change".
Yes, I watch FOX news because I like to know whats going on with my country. I'm republican, but I consider myself "center-right"...meaning I like people like Glenn Beck, more then Sean Hannity. Theirs been times I've been watching Hannity, and its just so right wing, Its hard to watch.
As for your "health" part, I would like cleaner air.
I'm in favor of nuclear plants, wind, solar, clean coal, natural gas, tidal...you name it.
I dont believe CO2 affects the climate at all.
MT - ...Your comment is so ridiculous is doesn't even deserve a response.
gorr 12:02AM (6/26/2009)
I say and i have said and i have to repeat to not subsidize hybrids and if private capital sell hybrids to normal paying consumers then anyway the coal electrical stations can feed green algae farming with their co2 instead of losing it and not cashing money with it. They even charge more money to the consumer to respect regulations that mandate coal use and prohibit green algae farming because green algae farming is not polluting. They don't feel be part of the creation ( human biology corpse made of flesh ) That was predicted by nostradamus and nobody have believe me and nobody is still believing me that you can feed green algae farming with these big chimmys .
I said to write in advance here what products will appear in the coming months.
Reply
Dave - Phoenix 12:22AM (6/26/2009)
A significant number of todays electric vehicle owners also have solar panels installed.
That's how we can charge EV's without burning more coal.
Reply
mike 1:49AM (6/26/2009)
I'm tired of this deceitful argument against Electric and hybrid vehicles.
The majority of charging would be done at night using excess power generated.
And as others have said it is easier to reduce pollution at the power generator than in millions of vehicles. As time goes on a larger share of power generation will be from clean and renewable sources. Most likely in line with the uptake of Ev ' s and hybrids.
Reply
CaramelZappa 3:33AM (6/26/2009)
Of course the power should come from a cleaner source. But that's the beauty of switching to EV's. The change is gradual. Already once you have an EV charging from a coal plant, it's much more efficient than a gasoline car, but you can slowly switch to hydro, wind, and solar energy as time goes by. A gasoline car can only be so efficient, and it will always use oil. So a prius is great in that it gets good MPG compared to other gas cars, but it will always still be polluting, whether you're getting 40mpg or 100mpg. An ev may have a "long tailpipe" at first but as time goes by the emissions go down until you have a completely green car.
Reply