Plug-in cars could actually increase air pollution
#1
03-04-2008, 02:43 PM
Plug-in cars could actually increase air pollution
The expected introduction of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles could cut U.S. gasoline use but could increase deadly air pollution in some areas, two reports say.
That's because a plug-in's lower tailpipe emissions may be offset by smokestack emissions from the utility generating plants supplying electricity to recharge the big batteries that allow plug-ins to run up to 40 miles without kicking on their gasoline engines. Plug-ins, called PHEVs, are partly powered, in effect, by the fuel used to generate the electricity.
That's because a plug-in's lower tailpipe emissions may be offset by smokestack emissions from the utility generating plants supplying electricity to recharge the big batteries that allow plug-ins to run up to 40 miles without kicking on their gasoline engines. Plug-ins, called PHEVs, are partly powered, in effect, by the fuel used to generate the electricity.
#2
03-05-2008, 04:12 PM
Re: Plug-in cars could actually increase air pollution
I don't believe this article is accurate. From what I can tell the anti-coal crowd are just trying to attract attention by throwing mud at another electrical load . . . This whole story stinks of the Sudbury nickel plant story that tried to blame a former environmental disaster on Prius hybrid batteries.
I sent a note to one of the quoted sources and he stands by his statements even after I suggested they might want to clarify it. Fortunately, it doesn't matter as gas is already up over $3/gal and headed higher and the plug-ins are coming.
Bob Wilson
I sent a note to one of the quoted sources and he stands by his statements even after I suggested they might want to clarify it. Fortunately, it doesn't matter as gas is already up over $3/gal and headed higher and the plug-ins are coming.
Bob Wilson
#3
03-05-2008, 04:42 PM
Re: Plug-in cars could actually increase air pollution
Even if the pollution issue was a wash (and I don't beleive it), the PHEV would still offer a major benefit by moving the pollution sources from the metro areas to more urban or even rural environments.
Fossil fuel power plants are sited to take advantage of prevailing winds for stack efficienty and with polution drift models in mind. They can also afford scrubber technologies and other methods for removing combustion byproducs that are simply not practical or affordable in a motor vehicle of any size.
Fossil fuel power plants are sited to take advantage of prevailing winds for stack efficienty and with polution drift models in mind. They can also afford scrubber technologies and other methods for removing combustion byproducs that are simply not practical or affordable in a motor vehicle of any size.
Last edited by FastMover; 03-05-2008 at 04:47 PM.
#4
03-05-2008, 06:30 PM
Re: Plug-in cars could actually increase air pollution
I agree although I think the real problem is coal plants should (and CAN!) be cleaner. This nonsense about 'credit' . . . sorry I just don't buy it. Regardless, this is the note I sent them:
When I got his reply, I responded with:
I've received no further e-mails and don't expect to. I think we can put "Environmental Law & Policy Center" into the 'useful idiots' bucket . . . although I remain confused as to what use.
Bob Wilson
Originally Posted by myself
. . . (stuff emailed back)
Please visit ELPC's website at www.elpc.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Wilson [mailto:b4wilson@hiwaay.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 12:29 AM
To: Fidelia Gaines
Subject: Are you anti-PHEV?
Hi,
I just read James R. Healey's article "Plug-in cars could actually increase air pollution" USA Today and he quoted you' all as if you oppose PHEV:
"Plug-in hybrids are perhaps not good for all areas," says Howard Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center, a Chicago-based advocacy group. In "states that are heavily coal, that equation doesn't work out very well for the environment."
Do you actually support this statement? Does it also mean you oppose electric cars for the same reason? Would coal-to-oil be a better answer?
I'm really confused about your position on plug-in hybrids and recommend you clarify your position with a press release. I couldn't find anything on your web site so James Healey's article pretty well defines what is known about your position.
Bob Wilson
Please visit ELPC's website at www.elpc.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Wilson [mailto:b4wilson@hiwaay.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 12:29 AM
To: Fidelia Gaines
Subject: Are you anti-PHEV?
Hi,
I just read James R. Healey's article "Plug-in cars could actually increase air pollution" USA Today and he quoted you' all as if you oppose PHEV:
"Plug-in hybrids are perhaps not good for all areas," says Howard Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center, a Chicago-based advocacy group. In "states that are heavily coal, that equation doesn't work out very well for the environment."
Do you actually support this statement? Does it also mean you oppose electric cars for the same reason? Would coal-to-oil be a better answer?
I'm really confused about your position on plug-in hybrids and recommend you clarify your position with a press release. I couldn't find anything on your web site so James Healey's article pretty well defines what is known about your position.
Bob Wilson
Originally Posted by myself
. . .
Hi Howard,
On Feb 27, 2008, at 9:55 PM, Howard Learner wrote:
> Bob,
> You asked if I oppose all electric cars and, in particular, PHEVs.
> My comments, which the reporter chose to include in the USA TODAY
> article, are:
> Þ "Plug-in hybrids are perhaps not good for all areas," says
> Howard Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law &
> Policy Center, a Chicago-based advocacy group. In "states that
> are heavily coal that equation doesn't work out very well for
> the environment.” . . .
This position puts the whole burden of night time coal plant operation on just the "plug-in hybrid" while ignoring water treatment plants, street lights, home heating and air conditioning units, and a host of other power demands that dwarf the current non-existent plug-in load and even the projected loads in any near time frame. Your opposition to coal fired power plants is being applied to just one technology, one that is not even on the market, and eviserates any claimed support.
If you don't like coal plants, condemn the states by name for the coal plants and focus on those plants. But once you start blaming just one load, "plug-in hybrids," you really shouldn't stop until every load is listed, in proportional to their actual, not projected contribution. Today, the "plug-in" load is 0 kW but your quotes make it sound like if we can just kill "plug-in hybrids" in some unnamed states, the coal plant problem is solved.
> Þ “Learner calls PHEVs "really important emerging technology —
> where the cleaner technologies are used to charge them."
> The first point is correct, for now, for those areas of the country
> where coal-generated electricity is at the margin at night when
> PHEVs are recharging. The second point is pro-PHEV, not in
> opposition to PHEVs.
A similar problem occurred a year or so ago when the "Daily Mail" published a totally bogus report about Canadian nickel that claimed Toyota Prius batteries were the source of Sudbury environmental contamination. An insignificant amount of annual nickel production, less than 1/1000 thousand of the annual output, ever showed up in Prius batteries but the author published photos and reports of the 1970s destruction as if that was the current conditions around Sudbury Canada and due ONLY to Toyota hybrid battery production. In no small part, your claim about "plug-in hybrids" forcing coal plants to run all night follows the exact same and terribly misleading path.
I hope you reflect and someday clarify your position. But as it stands now, the first paragraph in the USA Today article doesn't condemn coal but "plug-in hybrids." The second, luke-warm, actually neutral statement does not cure the problem.
> Thank you for your email and for your commitment to advancing PHEVs.
Thank you for considering my comments. I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree on this point. Sad to say but it takes the focus off of coal power to a peripheral and today, nonexistent load.
Bob Wilson
Hi Howard,
On Feb 27, 2008, at 9:55 PM, Howard Learner wrote:
> Bob,
> You asked if I oppose all electric cars and, in particular, PHEVs.
> My comments, which the reporter chose to include in the USA TODAY
> article, are:
> Þ "Plug-in hybrids are perhaps not good for all areas," says
> Howard Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law &
> Policy Center, a Chicago-based advocacy group. In "states that
> are heavily coal that equation doesn't work out very well for
> the environment.” . . .
This position puts the whole burden of night time coal plant operation on just the "plug-in hybrid" while ignoring water treatment plants, street lights, home heating and air conditioning units, and a host of other power demands that dwarf the current non-existent plug-in load and even the projected loads in any near time frame. Your opposition to coal fired power plants is being applied to just one technology, one that is not even on the market, and eviserates any claimed support.
If you don't like coal plants, condemn the states by name for the coal plants and focus on those plants. But once you start blaming just one load, "plug-in hybrids," you really shouldn't stop until every load is listed, in proportional to their actual, not projected contribution. Today, the "plug-in" load is 0 kW but your quotes make it sound like if we can just kill "plug-in hybrids" in some unnamed states, the coal plant problem is solved.
> Þ “Learner calls PHEVs "really important emerging technology —
> where the cleaner technologies are used to charge them."
> The first point is correct, for now, for those areas of the country
> where coal-generated electricity is at the margin at night when
> PHEVs are recharging. The second point is pro-PHEV, not in
> opposition to PHEVs.
A similar problem occurred a year or so ago when the "Daily Mail" published a totally bogus report about Canadian nickel that claimed Toyota Prius batteries were the source of Sudbury environmental contamination. An insignificant amount of annual nickel production, less than 1/1000 thousand of the annual output, ever showed up in Prius batteries but the author published photos and reports of the 1970s destruction as if that was the current conditions around Sudbury Canada and due ONLY to Toyota hybrid battery production. In no small part, your claim about "plug-in hybrids" forcing coal plants to run all night follows the exact same and terribly misleading path.
I hope you reflect and someday clarify your position. But as it stands now, the first paragraph in the USA Today article doesn't condemn coal but "plug-in hybrids." The second, luke-warm, actually neutral statement does not cure the problem.
> Thank you for your email and for your commitment to advancing PHEVs.
Thank you for considering my comments. I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree on this point. Sad to say but it takes the focus off of coal power to a peripheral and today, nonexistent load.
Bob Wilson
Bob Wilson
#5
03-06-2008, 02:00 AM
Re: Plug-in cars could actually increase air pollution
Hi all,
I also don't agree the article contents 100%, but I would like to comment some.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri...t/co2emiss.pdf
On the Table 1 of above material, it says coal power plant emits approx 2.1 pounds CO2/kWh (935g/kWh).
On the Table 3, it says some divisions, such as East North Central and West North Central, generate more than 70% from coal.
We know the base electricity is generated by nuclear, then the other electricity is generated on-demand by mainly the fossil fuels. Therefore, if number of plug-in/electric cars were increased, the fossil fuels usage will be increased.
http://www.eaa-phev.org/wiki/Prius_PHEV
A plug-in Prius requires 260 Wh/mile (162 Wh/km) from grid electricity, which means a plug-in Prius emits 151 g-CO2/km using coal generated grid.
http://www.hybridsynergydrive.com/en...emissions.html
The UK gas/electric hybrid Prius is rated as 104 g-CO2/km.
Of course, a plug-in car does not use 100% coal generated grid, but I would like to tell the plug-in car does not mean totally clean.
Regards,
Ken@Japan
I also don't agree the article contents 100%, but I would like to comment some.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri...t/co2emiss.pdf
On the Table 1 of above material, it says coal power plant emits approx 2.1 pounds CO2/kWh (935g/kWh).
On the Table 3, it says some divisions, such as East North Central and West North Central, generate more than 70% from coal.
We know the base electricity is generated by nuclear, then the other electricity is generated on-demand by mainly the fossil fuels. Therefore, if number of plug-in/electric cars were increased, the fossil fuels usage will be increased.
http://www.eaa-phev.org/wiki/Prius_PHEV
A plug-in Prius requires 260 Wh/mile (162 Wh/km) from grid electricity, which means a plug-in Prius emits 151 g-CO2/km using coal generated grid.
http://www.hybridsynergydrive.com/en...emissions.html
The UK gas/electric hybrid Prius is rated as 104 g-CO2/km.
Of course, a plug-in car does not use 100% coal generated grid, but I would like to tell the plug-in car does not mean totally clean.
Regards,
Ken@Japan
#6
03-06-2008, 03:03 AM
Re: Plug-in cars could actually increase air pollution
Hi,
I agree with the approach but would prefer to see the plug-in and Prius CO2/km normalized for the same speeds. I took the US EPA numbers of 4 tons of CO2 / 15,000 miles and my conversion figures came up with 150 g-CO2/km:
It is true that coal fired plants have the ability to handle variable power demands better than nuclear or other base load generators. The best variable load supply is a hydro-electric dam. The problem is that our power demands are not steady but vary through out the day and even day of week. What plug-in hybrids do is give us new ways to manage power so more base load plants make sense. For source data, I would like to recommend this study:
http://www.acpropulsion.com/technolo...grid_power.htm
By giving a significant discount for off-peak electrical use, a growing fleet of plug-in vehicles will even out the power demand. This will encourage utilities to install more base power systems with less reliance on variable-demand coal plants. But the other advantage occurs to employers who put in 'plug-in' parking lot facilities.
A smart, parking lot gives employers a local, co-generation capability so power outages and brown-outs can be mitigated by paying the employees for access to their plug-in hybrid power plants. In fact, it moves co-generation closer to the employee and their families. This is the right way to go.
Plug-in vehicles also solve a problem of wind driven power systems, energy storage. But to abort plug-ins because of coal power plants exist is to cut off one's nose to spite one's face.
As a fuel, coal is pretty ugly but 'dirt cheap.' Ultimately it makes sense to use it as chemical feed stock but first we have to get there.
Bob Wilson
Hi all,
I also don't agree the article contents 100%, but I would like to comment some.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri...t/co2emiss.pdf
On the Table 1 of above material, it says coal power plant emits approx 2.1 pounds CO2/kWh (935g/kWh).
On the Table 3, it says some divisions, such as East North Central and West North Central, generate more than 70% from coal.
We know the base electricity is generated by nuclear, then the other electricity is generated on-demand by mainly the fossil fuels. Therefore, if number of plug-in/electric cars were increased, the fossil fuels usage will be increased.
http://www.eaa-phev.org/wiki/Prius_PHEV
A plug-in Prius requires 260 Wh/mile (162 Wh/km) from grid electricity, which means a plug-in Prius emits 151 g-CO2/km using coal generated grid.
http://www.hybridsynergydrive.com/en...emissions.html
The UK gas/electric hybrid Prius is rated as 104 g-CO2/km.
Of course, a plug-in car does not use 100% coal generated grid, but I would like to tell the plug-in car does not mean totally clean.
I also don't agree the article contents 100%, but I would like to comment some.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri...t/co2emiss.pdf
On the Table 1 of above material, it says coal power plant emits approx 2.1 pounds CO2/kWh (935g/kWh).
On the Table 3, it says some divisions, such as East North Central and West North Central, generate more than 70% from coal.
We know the base electricity is generated by nuclear, then the other electricity is generated on-demand by mainly the fossil fuels. Therefore, if number of plug-in/electric cars were increased, the fossil fuels usage will be increased.
http://www.eaa-phev.org/wiki/Prius_PHEV
A plug-in Prius requires 260 Wh/mile (162 Wh/km) from grid electricity, which means a plug-in Prius emits 151 g-CO2/km using coal generated grid.
http://www.hybridsynergydrive.com/en...emissions.html
The UK gas/electric hybrid Prius is rated as 104 g-CO2/km.
Of course, a plug-in car does not use 100% coal generated grid, but I would like to tell the plug-in car does not mean totally clean.
4 tons CO2 -> 8,000 pounds
8,000 pounds -> 3,628,738.96 grams
15,000 miles -> 24,140.16 km
3,628,738.96 / 24,140.16 -> 150.32 grams CO2/km
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ (I used 2008 Prius)
I would observe that for USA drivers, the current EPA tests show a combined mileage of 46 MPG and GreenHybrid.com shows this model Prius having an average of 47.6 MPG.8,000 pounds -> 3,628,738.96 grams
15,000 miles -> 24,140.16 km
3,628,738.96 / 24,140.16 -> 150.32 grams CO2/km
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ (I used 2008 Prius)
It is true that coal fired plants have the ability to handle variable power demands better than nuclear or other base load generators. The best variable load supply is a hydro-electric dam. The problem is that our power demands are not steady but vary through out the day and even day of week. What plug-in hybrids do is give us new ways to manage power so more base load plants make sense. For source data, I would like to recommend this study:
http://www.acpropulsion.com/technolo...grid_power.htm
By giving a significant discount for off-peak electrical use, a growing fleet of plug-in vehicles will even out the power demand. This will encourage utilities to install more base power systems with less reliance on variable-demand coal plants. But the other advantage occurs to employers who put in 'plug-in' parking lot facilities.
A smart, parking lot gives employers a local, co-generation capability so power outages and brown-outs can be mitigated by paying the employees for access to their plug-in hybrid power plants. In fact, it moves co-generation closer to the employee and their families. This is the right way to go.
Plug-in vehicles also solve a problem of wind driven power systems, energy storage. But to abort plug-ins because of coal power plants exist is to cut off one's nose to spite one's face.
As a fuel, coal is pretty ugly but 'dirt cheap.' Ultimately it makes sense to use it as chemical feed stock but first we have to get there.
Bob Wilson
Last edited by bwilson4web; 03-06-2008 at 03:44 AM.
#7
03-06-2008, 07:23 PM
Re: Plug-in cars could actually increase air pollution
Hi Bob,
Thank you for your comments.
I think this is more constructive confrontations than the article author.
I also saw the EPA's 4 ton number, but I felt it strange.
On the 2008 Prius page, it also says 7.4 barrels/year (311 gallons/year) and 20 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) per gallon.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/co2.shtml
It means 311 * 20 = 6220 pounds -> 2820 kg -> 117 grams CO2/km.
On the other thread, there is another data.
"Greenhouse Gas Emissions/15k mi 5,100 pounds". This means only 96 grams CO2/km.
Anyway, hybrid Prius is not bad comparing to plug-ins.
Yes, I know this technology, bit it is not available yet or for future.
There is an affordable one called "Pumped-storage hydroelectricity".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped_...droelectricity
In Japan, that one is very popular and helps a lot peak electricity supply.
Then, coal usage is increasing now.
Again, I would like to tell the plug-in car does not mean totally clean, and we love Prius.
Ken@Japan
Thank you for your comments.
I think this is more constructive confrontations than the article author.
Hi,
I agree with the approach but would prefer to see the plug-in and Prius CO2/km normalized for the same speeds. I took the US EPA numbers of 4 tons of CO2 / 15,000 miles and my conversion figures came up with 150 g-CO2/km:
I agree with the approach but would prefer to see the plug-in and Prius CO2/km normalized for the same speeds. I took the US EPA numbers of 4 tons of CO2 / 15,000 miles and my conversion figures came up with 150 g-CO2/km:
4 tons CO2 -> 8,000 pounds
8,000 pounds -> 3,628,738.96 grams
15,000 miles -> 24,140.16 km
3,628,738.96 / 24,140.16 -> 150.32 grams CO2/km
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ (I used 2008 Prius)
I would observe that for USA drivers, the current EPA tests show a combined mileage of 46 MPG and GreenHybrid.com shows this model Prius having an average of 47.6 MPG.8,000 pounds -> 3,628,738.96 grams
15,000 miles -> 24,140.16 km
3,628,738.96 / 24,140.16 -> 150.32 grams CO2/km
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ (I used 2008 Prius)
On the 2008 Prius page, it also says 7.4 barrels/year (311 gallons/year) and 20 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) per gallon.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/co2.shtml
It means 311 * 20 = 6220 pounds -> 2820 kg -> 117 grams CO2/km.
On the other thread, there is another data.
"Greenhouse Gas Emissions/15k mi 5,100 pounds". This means only 96 grams CO2/km.
Anyway, hybrid Prius is not bad comparing to plug-ins.
It is true that coal fired plants have the ability to handle variable power demands better than nuclear or other base load generators. The best variable load supply is a hydro-electric dam. The problem is that our power demands are not steady but vary through out the day and even day of week. What plug-in hybrids do is give us new ways to manage power so more base load plants make sense. For source data, I would like to recommend this study:
http://www.acpropulsion.com/technolo...grid_power.htm
By giving a significant discount for off-peak electrical use, a growing fleet of plug-in vehicles will even out the power demand. This will encourage utilities to install more base power systems with less reliance on variable-demand coal plants. But the other advantage occurs to employers who put in 'plug-in' parking lot facilities.
A smart, parking lot gives employers a local, co-generation capability so power outages and brown-outs can be mitigated by paying the employees for access to their plug-in hybrid power plants. In fact, it moves co-generation closer to the employee and their families. This is the right way to go.
http://www.acpropulsion.com/technolo...grid_power.htm
By giving a significant discount for off-peak electrical use, a growing fleet of plug-in vehicles will even out the power demand. This will encourage utilities to install more base power systems with less reliance on variable-demand coal plants. But the other advantage occurs to employers who put in 'plug-in' parking lot facilities.
A smart, parking lot gives employers a local, co-generation capability so power outages and brown-outs can be mitigated by paying the employees for access to their plug-in hybrid power plants. In fact, it moves co-generation closer to the employee and their families. This is the right way to go.
There is an affordable one called "Pumped-storage hydroelectricity".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped_...droelectricity
In Japan, that one is very popular and helps a lot peak electricity supply.
As a fuel, coal is pretty ugly but 'dirt cheap.'
Again, I would like to tell the plug-in car does not mean totally clean, and we love Prius.
Ken@Japan
#8
03-06-2008, 09:49 PM
Re: Plug-in cars could actually increase air pollution
Moving the massive pollution from the vehicles themselves to the power grid is a good thing. There are FAR fewer power plants than vehicles, and they can be controlled MUCH easier. Let the conversion happen. The dirty power plants can be dealt with, or slowly eliminated in the future.
Plus, as Bob mentioned, much of the PEV plugged-in time should be off-peak hours, limiting the need for increased coal-fired plants. We can also scrub the output of such power plants.
Plus, as Bob mentioned, much of the PEV plugged-in time should be off-peak hours, limiting the need for increased coal-fired plants. We can also scrub the output of such power plants.
#9
03-06-2008, 11:11 PM
Re: Plug-in cars could actually increase air pollution
Moving the massive pollution from the vehicles themselves to the power grid is a good thing. There are FAR fewer power plants than vehicles, and they can be controlled MUCH easier. Let the conversion happen. The dirty power plants can be dealt with, or slowly eliminated in the future.
However, US government is not thinking so.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/...ectricity.html
coal powered percentage:
50% in 2005
57% in 2030
Ken@Japan
#10
03-07-2008, 07:28 AM
Re: Plug-in cars could actually increase air pollution
. . .
I also saw the EPA's 4 ton number, but I felt it strange.
On the 2008 Prius page, it also says 7.4 barrels/year (311 gallons/year) and 20 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) per gallon.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/co2.shtml
It means 311 * 20 = 6220 pounds -> 2820 kg -> 117 grams CO2/km.
On the other thread, there is another data.
"Greenhouse Gas Emissions/15k mi 5,100 pounds". This means only 96 grams CO2/km.
I also saw the EPA's 4 ton number, but I felt it strange.
On the 2008 Prius page, it also says 7.4 barrels/year (311 gallons/year) and 20 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) per gallon.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/co2.shtml
It means 311 * 20 = 6220 pounds -> 2820 kg -> 117 grams CO2/km.
On the other thread, there is another data.
"Greenhouse Gas Emissions/15k mi 5,100 pounds". This means only 96 grams CO2/km.
My thinking is the plug-in is just another load and does not by itself dictate the source of that power. The unfairness of the article is to lay the blame on the plug-in as if the other power loads play no part. This takes the eye off of the real problem, the power source.
Although bi-directional plug-in is a new technology, my Prius has a 1 kW inverter that we use for emergency house power during outages. With the right engineering, our Prius should be able to generate 18-20 kW using the existing hardware with modified software and appropriate power connectors. This is roughly three times the power needed by a typical USA home. Add a common clock source, say GPS generated, and 60 Hz power from multiple Prius would be quite practical and useful.
A plug-in provides the power connectors needed. All that is needed to go in the reverse direction is a well engineered, safe electrical interface.
Bob Wilson
Last edited by bwilson4web; 03-07-2008 at 07:40 AM.
