ETA says plug-in cars could "speed climate change" unless we get off coal
Think that plugging in your vehicle will protect the earth? Sure, this was the message that EPRI and the NRDC sent following a 2008 study that found that, if 60 percent of the U.S. fleet of light vehicles converted to plug-ins by 2050, CO2 emissions would drop by 450 million metric tons annually (the same as taking 82 million cars off the road) while electricity consumption would increase only eight percent.Not everyone is convinced that plugs are the answer. The Environmental Transport Association in the UK, for example, believes that switching to electric cars could increase the rate of climate change, depending on how the electricity is created. Like the Natural Resources Defense Council report last year that found that PHEVs will add to pollution levels if the grid remains coal-centered, the ETA's statement warns that a shift from gasoline to electrons needs to be accompanied by a change in how we generate our electricity. Looking at how EU rules handles emissions, the ETA found that, if the regulations don't change, "sales of electric cars are likely to result in higher overall CO2 emissions and oil consumption." The ETA's soundbite for the report: if you're using coal to make electricy, then standard hybrids are better than plug-ins.
In the past, the ETA opposed a cash-for-clunkers-like plan in the UK. Each year, the ETA also organizes a Green Transport Week.
[Source: ETA]
PRESS RELEASE:
Switching to electric cars could speed climate change
The idea that a wholesale switch to electric cars would automatically reduce CO2 emissions and dependence on oil is one of a number of myths dispelled by a major new report conducted on behalf of the Environmental Transport Association (ETA).
The report found that whilst there were significant potential environmental benefits to be had from a switch to electric vehicles, these were wholly dependent on changes in the way electricity was generated, energy taxed and CO2 emissions regulated.
For example, under the current EU emissions trading system, sales of electric cars are likely to result in higher overall CO2 emissions and oil consumption.
Director at the ETA, Andrew Davis, said: "Whilst the report is not intended to dampen enthusiasm for electric vehicles, their introduction should not be viewed as a panacea; significant changes to the way we produce and tax power are needed before we will reap any benefits."
Key findings of report:
Performance
Electric cars powered by wind or solar energy are obviously superior, but if the electricity comes from coal, hybrids perform better.
Price
There is potential for improvement in performance and reduction of costs in the medium term, but not enough to suggest electric cars could compete head-on with conventional vehicles within the next two decades.
CO2 emissions
The EU emissions trading system implies that plug-in electric cars would not increase CO2 emissions because the power sector is covered by the scheme. If this trading scheme remains unchanged, sales of electric cars are likely to result in higher overall CO2 emissions and oil consumption.
Popularity
Low running costs of electric vehicles would lead to extra demand for car transport and make necessary the taxation of electricity.
On-board metering of electricity use would be a key requirement.
National Grid
Even if the National Grid has the capacity and the basic infrastructure to meet the needs of electric cars, the new demand patterns they will create may mean greater use of coal and nuclear power.
Recommendations made by the report:
It unlikely that electric vehicles will number more than 25% of new sales by 2050, but in order to speed the uptake of the technology and manage the transition, the report recommends the following three
measures:
Stringent CO2 standards for cars
The most certain way to promote electric-powered transport is to tighten long-term CO2 standards for cars to 80 g/km by 2020 and 60 g/km by 2025 whilst at the same time increasing fuel taxes.
A lack of stringent CO2 standards removes the main incentive for motor industry to invest in electrification. Road tax exemption and grants for electric cars should be abolished; electric cars must be rewarded for their energy efficiency, not for moving emissions from exhaust pipes to power station chimneys.
Quantity and quality of electricity used in electric cars must be measured.
On-board metering of the amount of electricity will be critical in order to manage and regulate demand for electric vehicles.
The power sector has to be de-carbonised Existing loopholes in the Emissions Trading Scheme need to be closed and the cap further tightened.
Ends
For a copy of the report or an interview with Andrew Davis, please call Yannick Read at the ETA press office on 0845 389 1064 or 07788 606 483.
Notes to editors
The report, 'How to avoid an electric shock: Electric cars from hype to reality' was conducted by the European lobby group Transport & Environment, an organisation co-founded and supported by the ETA.
The Environmental Transport Association is provides carbon-neutral breakdown cover and insurance products. As well as encouraging responsible driving to reduce carbon, the ETA campaigns for sustainable transport www.eta.co.uk
The ETA each year analyses the environmental performance of every new car on sale in Britain. The greenest car on sale in Britain this year is the Honda Insight Hybrid
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Matt 8:05PM (11/11/2009)
Every week I see wind turbine parts going down the interstate. We're getting there, somewhere, but in other places we have nukes sitting idle because of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard, see Bellefonte in Hollywood AL). Nuclear power is our near term clean power; long term we can switch to solar and wind, but the power/dollar ratio just isn't as good. Why can't we have engineers as political leaders?
Reply
wincros 10:20PM (11/11/2009)
You should provide some facts and references to substantiate such surprising and counterintuitive assertions. One of the many problems is that no insurance company will insure nuclear power enterprise and that utilities will not build the power plants without insurance. Insuring it requires great gobs of money from the taxpayer. The public subsidy is always omitted in cost comparisons.
Failure is seldom, but when it is, it is catastrophic. What is the cost of the loss of the use of Three Mile Island computed to the 51st century? Or the untold misery for thousands of cancer victims around the world from the accident at Chernobyl. Assurances of an accident free future are just not credible when no insurance company in the world will step forward.
No one knows how to take care of the nuclear waste for the length time needed to be safe for humanity except for its shiny eyed proponents. No government to provide the oversight has lasted that long in human history. Nuclear waste is leaking into the environment all over the place these days, the more worrisome being those that threaten the water supplies of major metropolitan areas. We cannot predict even geological stability for thousands of years. Global warming and rising sea levels were largely unforeseen 50 years ago and will still be denied by "conservatives" who routinely block any solutions as seaside nuclear reactors are swamped with corrosive sea water.
Yaroukh 8:04AM (11/12/2009)
@wincros: OMG reading the bullshit you wrote reminded my why I usually avoid Autoblog Green. Just let me remind you that not even "50 years" ago your alikes were running in circles screaming "we're all gonna freeze here!!!".
May God have mercy on your soul, Mr. Madison.
RSR 8:12AM (11/12/2009)
wincros, and where can I find the references for your claims?
Matt 9:50AM (11/12/2009)
I feel like there are a lot of people that really believe the same things wincros does, so I'll acknowledge the comment and provide some good articles:
Cost Comparison (check out how close wind gets, only 2.5x more, that's good):
http://thisweekinnuclear.blogspot.com/2009/01/episode-60-energy-bailout-showdown.html
Three Mile Island (no human deaths or cancer from the PARTIAL meltdown):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
Why the Soviets were idiots and Chernobyl is never going to happen again:
"The Soviet-designed RBMK-type reactor unit of 925 MWe such as at Chernobyl uses a large mass of graphite (some 1200 tonnes of it) to moderate the reaction and water flowing through channels holding the fuel elements to cool it. There is no containment structure on this kind of reactor."
(available anywhere, but http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf44.html should be one good source)
If you'd like to make a point, please hang up and try your post again.
Lad 9:58AM (11/12/2009)
There are many reasons that coal is a poor choice to produce electric power other than efficiency. Coal mining is a disaster to the environment, covering acres of productive land with unproductive over-burden, contaminating water wells with heavy metals and plugging miles of water-ways; When the product is burned, it fills the air with CO2, heavy metals, SMOG, acid rain and coal ash. The companies have for many years contained residue coal ash in huge water ponds that now pose a danger to many nearby waterways, i.e., the recent TVA river spill.
GoodCheer 10:58AM (11/12/2009)
Well, it is a fact, and a matter of public record, that Nuclear generation receives two massive (incalculable in the literal sense) subsidies from the US government. One is that nuclear generation developers do not have to buy their own liability insurance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act
The second is that nuclear developers are not responsible for the 'disposal' of the waste they produce, rather it is take over by the government. (I couldn't find any short, easy references, but that fact is mentioned here:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants
Of course the problem of being liable for cleaning up their messes is also relevant to coal generation, as others have pointed out. Things got better in the 90's with the development of SOx and NOx cap and trade schemes, but as others have pointed out, coal electricity still has a colossally destructive effect on the environment (our shared environment) that they don't have to pay for.
gorr 11:46AM (11/12/2009)
I don't understand you. I said 3-4 days ago, in this site that producing electricity endlessly at low cost and without pollution is easy, only the traders oppose it( chatters, bloggers, journalists, c.i.a, e.p.a, gm, wall street, banks, nuclear, exxon, europeen union, white house, canadian goverment, coal traders, natural gas traders, zone 51 residents and promoters, army, flu scientists, medical scientists, goverment scientists, subsidies traders, arm traders, greenpeace folks, uneducated folks, toyota, bmw, mercedes, mazda, ford, chrsler, tata, byd, enerdel, etc) All these folks are actually making big $$$ suffocating peoples with subsidies from the state.
The technology is just to recycled the co2 output from the chimney back to fuel with green algae farming or a new process discovered last month.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/11/joule-achieves-direct-microbial-conversion-of-co2-into-hydrocarbons.html#more
Endless electricity.
wincros 12:30PM (11/12/2009)
Ignoring the smooth brained teabaggers who just scream and the unresponsive nuclear power industry flack. Really? You provide a link to a Three Mile Island article that has nothing to do with what I said about it? And make a bigoted statement that Russians stupidity will never be equalled by any other human involved in the nuclear industry? And a link to a nuclear energy industry blog that disproves what you say? And you completely ignore the waste problem like the nuclear industry does? You ignore the billions of nuclear subsidies in the US and the billions in every country that uses nuclear energy? Really?
RSR:
A simple google search will provide you with the information you need. Here is a good even handed article to start with:
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/startups/news/2007/11/nuclear_economics
Matt 6:01PM (11/12/2009)
Not really sure how I proved or disproved anything. As stated above I'm a fan of basically anything other than coal, and it appears that nuclear is the cheapest/fastest way to eliminate coal use. If you want to take it personally, fine, but the facts are there for anyone with an objective view. I'm not afraid of another nuclear accident, and I don't think there is any conspiracy keeping wind or CO2-algae whatever down. The man is you. You are the man. Let it go.
Turbofrog 8:33PM (11/11/2009)
I'm pretty sure they're just plain wrong. The well-to-wheel efficiency of a plug-in vehicle is simply better.
Not to mention, BEVs plug-in at night and often utilize base load power that would otherwise be wasted completely.
Silly soundbite that seems like FUD. I'd love to see their methodology, but given a lack of anything concrete in their report, it doesn't sound promising.
Reply
Dave 9:53PM (11/11/2009)
"According to Hans-Dieter Schilling (Energie-Fakten), the average efficiency of all coal power stations in the world currently stand at around 31%"
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_energy_efficiency_of_an_average_coal_powered_plant
With grid efficiency of 95% and EV efficiency (charging / discharging / hysteresis / HVAC loads etc) at 90% (And I'm being generous) that puts EV efficiency at 26.5%. Factor in the greater amount of energy required to manufacture an EV, and the EV is less efficient than a reasonably efficient ICE powered car.
In addition, coal has a greater percentage of carbon than gasoline.
Dave 10:02PM (11/11/2009)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
Pounds of Carbon dioxide emitted per million British thermal units of energy:
Automobile gasoline 156
Coal 205-227
why not the LS2LS7? 10:27PM (11/11/2009)
You're being very generous as to the efficiency of the grid. But you're also trying to subtract off hotel loads from efficiency of an EV but not from a regular ICE car. And you omit the loss of energy on the ICE side from transporting gasoline around to get it to your car.
Boyprodigy1 10:34PM (11/11/2009)
@ Dave
Too bad less than 50% of the energy in the united states comes from coal.
Too bad the efficiency of the battery to kinetic energy is so much greater that per unit of energy you travel farther with coal than with gasoline (More of gasolines energy gets turned to heat)
Too bad coal is a dying breed (Why do you think they have all of those desperate adds?) They are losing market share, and fast.
Too bad that when you take those select chosen facts, you quickly realize that the readers of this site know the rest of the fact to tie them together to tell you why you are wrong.
Yup... too bad...
jake 11:02PM (11/11/2009)
@Dave
Not all plants are coal plants (you would be hard pressed to find any local region with 100% coal generation). From my own calculations, efficiency doesn't directly correspond to emissions (it's related but not an accurate way to get emissions). Like why not the LS2LS7? says you didn't factor in refining and gasoline distribution. The number I have is 83% for that. Also you didn't factor in additional losses from the transmission for the gas vehicle vs the lower losses in the EV due to it using a reduction gear instead. In the end, working with efficiency numbers are a lot harder, though if you have the mpg numbers rather than guesstimating numbers it'll be a lot more accurate (like Prius vs plug-in Prius).
About the additional resources used by plug-ins, it seems it doesn't factor that highly (judging by previous discussions of Prius vs Hummer). By weight would seem to be a good estimate of additional resources and plug-ins don't weigh that much more than normal cars.
Looking more closely at the report (given by moreati's links), in all average cases, PHEVs are cleaner than hybrids, only when 100% coal is it worse; this is exactly what I would expect from my own calculations:
http://www.transportenvironment.org/News/2009/11/Electric-cars-likely-to-lead-to-more-CO2-because-of-EU-legal-loopholes/
It also says plug-ins in general do better than both hydrogen and biofuels.
Chris M 11:20PM (11/11/2009)
Dave, a flaw in your analysis is that you're comparing the "source to wheel" efficiency for electrics against the "tank to wheel" efficiency of gassers. Add in the energy losses for refining and shipping the fuel for the gassers, then you'll have a fair comparison.
By the way, refineries use electricity, too, and the amount of electricity needed to make a gallon of gasoline would propel the average EV about 24 miles.
Turbofrog 11:46PM (11/11/2009)
Okay, let's just agglomerate everything we've looked at here:
Gasoline:
0.830 refining/distribution (DOE)
0.3 internal combustion engine (being generous)
0.9 drivetrain (10% losses in a FWD car)
total = 0.224
Electric
0.303 lumped average electrical efficiency + grid (DOE)
0.9 electric drivetrain
= 0.273
So a typical example using the US' energy mix puts the BEV ahead.
If you want to try to apply a correction factor for grid electricity carbon, it actually swings farther in favor of PHEVs rather than the other way around, since 28% of the US grid produces no carbon, while natural gas (22%) produces about 1/3 less CO2 than gas. Coal makes up 48.5% of grid electricity in the US.
Dave 8:05AM (11/12/2009)
"Gasoline:
total = 0.224
Electric
= 0.273"
Thats probably about right (close enough, anyway). Now factor in the energy required to manufacture a battery that increases the curb weight of the vehicle by 50%, in the case of a BEV or the energy required to manufacture a smaller battery and a genset in the case of a PHEV.
If plug ins have any well-to-wheel efficiency advantage it is tiny.
The case becomes even more severe in the UK (this report is not about the US) where ~50% of ICE vehicles use smaller diesel engines.
Dave 8:19AM (11/12/2009)
"Too bad coal is a dying breed (Why do you think they have all of those desperate adds?) They are losing market share, and fast. "
Completely wrong. (unfortunately)
We don't have enough natural gas to replace coal at current electricity demand, let alone with increased demand. Theres lots of commercials for natural gas, too (I keep hearing them in Rhode Island anyway) - they claim a 100 year supply - at current consumption. If you want to decrease our reliance on oil, natural gas should be used to heat homes, not for electricity generation.
Nukes are politically nonviable. (unfortunately)
And renewables (aside from hydro) cannot provide steady load, in addition to the fact that many barely produce enough power to payback their own manufacture and installation. (unfortunately)