I think the bigger issue is where is the electricity going to come from? Right now a lot of countries are struggling to meet existing demand. The UK for instance is projecting a shortfall over the next decade unless TPTB get off their fat backsides and start building new generating plant (or prod the private sector into building it by reigning back the oh so wonderful electricity wholesale market to let prices rise to a level that will encourage investment).

Setting aside that whole (very large) can of worms I was under the impression that due to transmission losses mains electric vehicles are actually less efficient (and therefore more polluting) than ICE vehicles. If correct it means their only advantage is that the pollution is relocated to the countryside. Even that advantage is pretty much irrelevant in small countries like the UK.

 

Your first point is valid in some cases but is easily dealt with. Most people park their cars at night when electricity demand plummets. A simple timer on the recharger would allow the car to be recharged at night when demand is low. If necessary to reduce demand during peak times, Peak Hour Pricing would be a great incentive to recharge at night.

Regarding your second point, I have heard that too but that is a myth in my opinion. Electricity is sent long distance at very high voltage so the losses aren't that significant. Plus, having electricity generated at one location allows the pollution to be better controlled at that one location instead of at tens of thousands of smaller, moving locations all over the place. Another way to deal with the pollution caused by generating plants is to have plants that don't generate pollution - hydro, wind, nuke, etc.

 

Every type of power station generates pollution though. Nuclear (which I think is the way forward as it happens) generates a lot of pollution while it's being built. So do wind farms - although not as much. Hydro has construction pollution plus often heavy methane release as the flooded vegetation rots down. The debate over what kind of power stations should be built has been raging in the UK for some time now. Every type of power generation has its downside.

As with most things it comes down to compromise and that's part of the reason (that and money of course) why it's taking so long for us to get our act together.

 

Pollution generated during construction is short term and temporary and, in my opinion is a red-herring. True it can't be avoided but when spread over the lifespan of the plant and when factored against the benefit, it should be a trivial impact no matter the type of energy plant we are talking about.

Like the arguement against hybrid cars because of the additional pollution caused by the manufacture of the batteries, I don't think it is a valid position.

Just my opinion of course.

 

I am in favour of nuclear power because right now it's the only sensible alternative the UK has but I don't accept that you can call a nuclear power plant 'zero emmission' or dismiss the costs (financial and environmental) of its lifecycle as trivial. The radiation risks I think are grossly overstated but by the same token I think the pollution figures are being understated.

Some people even argue that nuclear power generation has a net negative energy contribution from start to finish.

 

The same folks who argue that a Hummer has a lower net energy usage cradle to grave than a hybrid vehicle probably. I have yet to see anyone with any real numbers or credible studies that support that arguement. Probably because none exist.....

By the way, I am 100% in favor of nuclear power. I live within 35 miles of two plants and work on an emergency response team for one of them. I honestly believe that nuke power is the solution to much of our energy problems. And granted there is pollution caused during the construction, there is also pollution caused during the construction of a fossil fueled plant. Due to the complexity of a nuke plant I'm sure that has more of an impact but that HAS to be made up during the lifetime of the plant.

 

Even when the electricity comes from the dirtiest source possible - coal - an EV produces less CO2 and other pollutants than an ICE vehicle.

The great thing about EVs and PHEVs is that you can introduce them today, then slowly go back to change the source of the electricity and make the shift to renewables. The great advantage of doing it this way is that you don't have to go back and replace an entire fleet of vehicles.

In the future, most people will just make their own electricity to run their vehicles from their houses.

In the UK, we can buy a 6ft 1.5 kW turbine that provides on average 12 kWh per day. That's enough for 50 miles travel per day in a PHEV, or over 18,000 miles per year. The fuel costs are zero, and the upfront cost of the turbine is only £1,500. A similar thing will happen with solar once the ultracheap printed stuff comes out from nanosolar.


18,000 miles per year for free with one of these.

 

This is an interesting idea. Actually, I think that if more power companies begin implementing some sort of peak-hour pricing, then solar cells, wind etc. could be used to offset peak-hour electricity use at home, or the electricity could be sold to the power companies at peak hours, and then the money used to buy cheaper off-hours elecrticity for charging the electric cars at night.

However, the idea that I think has a lot of potential for the future is small scale cogeneration systems where elecrticity is produced on-site, rather than delivered over lossy transmission lines. Instead of just a furnace for the house, natural gas could be used to power a generator (to produce electricity), and the waste heat could then be used to supply heating, or in hot climates, to power an absorption refrigerator.

Even beyond the simple issue of cost, balancing out the loading on the grid will lead to improved overall emissions as well. Plants tend to run the most efficient generators first, then activate less and less efficient ones as power demands go up, this makes peak hour elecrticity dirtier (less efficient older plants are online).