Study: Electric cars not as green as you think
The environmental benefits of electric cars are being questioned in Germany by a surprising actor: the green movement. But those risks don't apply in the U.S., the American electric-car lobby asserts.
(Credit:
J?rgen Matijevic/WWF)
The German branch of the environmental group World Wildlife Foundation (WWF) has conducted a study together with IZES, a German institute for future energy systems, on the environmental impact of electric vehicles in Germany.
Just like the U.S., Germany has an ambitious goal of introducing electric vehicles. Germany, which today has 41 million cars, aims to have 1 million electric cars or plug-in hybrid vehicles on the road by 2020. The conclusion of the study is that these electric cars only reduce greenhouse gases marginally.
The study, which was published in German in March, has not been widely circulated in English yet. The WWF Germany said a summary in English is set for publication this summer.
"What surprised us was that the carbon dioxide savings were so small," Viviane Raddatz, vehicle expert at WWF Germany, said in a phone interview from Berlin.
In a best-case scenario, the WWF assumes that the 1 million electric cars or plug-in vehicles would be running on renewable electricity and used at maximum mileage. Electric vehicles do not yet have the range of regular cars.
The carbon dioxide emission reductions from these 1 million electrical vehicles in Germany's transportation sector would be only 1 percent, according to the study, and overall national carbon dioxide emissions would only be cut by 0.1 percent. "That is not a very big deal," Raddatz said, adding that "it is not going to help us out of the transportation emission mess."
Worst-case scenario
A worst-case scenario would be that the electric cars would run on electricity from coal instead of from renewable sources.
That could be the case when extra electricity is needed to charge the plug-in cars in the early evening. That's when commuters could significantly add to the electricity demand at a time of day when people are returning home and electricity use is already peaking.
Today, the German plants that deliver marginal electricity are fueled by coal. That is the main problem, according to the study. The research adds that to produce the same amount of energy, coal emits more carbon dioxide than even gasoline.
"The irony is that you don't need a lot more electricity for electric cars," Raddatz, said. "But the problem is that if they cause these peaks, we would have to have power plants that would be ready to start (as) the massive charging starts."
An electric car with a lithium ion battery powered by electricity from an old coal power plant could emit more than 200g of carbon dioxide per km, compared with current average gasoline car of 160g of carbon dioxide per km in Europe, according to the study. The European Union goal for 2020 is 95g of carbon dioxide per km.
Load management needed
The WWF said smart systems that help manage the energy load and battery charge systems could smooth the peaks overnight. With more than 1 million vehicles plugged in, load management is essential, but a smart grid is not enough, according to the study. A lot of electricity storage is needed as well.
"Car batteries are one thing, but you need to develop other kinds of storage as well," Raddatz said. You want to make sure you can get a lot of energy from renewable or you have no CO2 savings."
Germany has voted to phase out nuclear power by 2020, so the WWF has not considered that energy source in its study after 2020.
As mentioned before, the WWF assumes that only half the current transportation system could be replaced by electric cars.
The study says that with electric cars' present range they could only replace, at best, half of the kilometers driven.
President Obama has set a goal for the U.S. to have 1 million electric vehicles by 2015.
The Electric Drive Transportation Association (EDTA), the lobby organization for electric cars in the U.S., said that the risks raised by the WWF study in Germany will not be the same in the U.S.
"For the U.S., there will be environmental benefits because the grid is getting cleaner," said Jennifer Watts, spokeswoman for EDTA. She quotes a study by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory saying that 73 percent of light-duty vehicles could be connected to the grid today without a problem, and that an EPRI study shows that each region of the country will yield reductions in greenhouse gas emissions when the electric car is introduced.
Still a place for electric cars
The German study--which limited its scope to studying energy efficiency and did not consider the economics of electric vehicles--does not rule out the electric car. It emphasizes that electric cars could have a future role for low-carbon urban transport for individuals. It also suggests that marginal electricity should come from a clean source and a smart grid, with smart load management needed. But that system would take a long time to develop, the study stresses.
"The electric car is a serious option for low-carbon future transportation," Raddatz said, "but must be linked with renewable energy to make the difference."
What the hell are we spouse to do with plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) going to do for us?
Statistics:
Table 3. Number of U.S. Household Members
by Census Region and Type of Housing Unit, 1978-2001(Millions of Household Members)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/efficiency/recs_3_table.htm
Plug in vehciles IGNORE a large portion of the population. I know of only ONE hybrid that is affordable... The cost factor of Hybrids/all electric vehciles ignore a large portion of the population. People can't afford them.
none of the vehciles listed meet MY criteria.
1). raw materials our from this nation. No dependacy.
U.S. IMPORTS FOR CONSUMPTION OF NICKEL PRODUCTS, BY COUNTRY1
http://www.indexmundi.com/en/commodities/minerals/nickel/nickel_t9.html
2). Affordability for over 70 percent of new car buyers.
* I'm cutting the green enviroment slack here... NOBODY is addressing the population that can NOT AFFORD new cars.
3). Distribution if energy source.
* This rules out plug ins... Appartment owners are screwed here.
Sorry... This is not an acceptable solution UNLESS other alternate energy vehicles are also made avaible with as much promotion as being given to the hybrid/plugins
By the way, it took Brazil 30 years to become completely independent with a proven technoligy(bio fuel). To expect a nation(not ruled by the military) to become independent in less time for unproven technoligy is just bull.
Dan
When gasoline cars started replacing horses did you think gas stations were already at every street corner? No, but necessity brought along the demand for gas stations therefore gas stations started springing up to meet that demand. Back in the day a car was significantly more expensive then a horse but that didn't seem to stop their eventual adoption. There isn't much difference between the transitions from Horses to cars, then from Gasoline cars to electric cars. We made huge transitions? like this before; there is no reason why it can't be done again.
In 1975 my father purchased a brand new Buick. It has a new environmentaly consious emissions system. Catalaytic convertor, and used this new less polluting gas called unleaded.
Major issue, is there where very very few gas stations at the time that sold uleaded. My father use to buy an additive for regular gasoline. And that helped him for the first 2 years. Then Unleaded gasoline was every where.
It is much like electricity. Its a new area we are going into. I would not be surprised to see Mini turbines at Apartment complex's to help with Charging.
The article also talks about Dirty Coal plant's but there are Clean coal plants, which are what is being built in Germany.
And in many cases people do not commuite huge distances. Yes there are senarios for it, which is a fad that grew through the 80's and 90's. As more and more people moved farther from there work, and companies closed local and made mega factories and box stores. I can see in maybe another 20 years that fad reversing, as transportation costs, which made the Mega Factory Box stores flurish continues to grow. The we will return to the more tradional hub and spoke system, with lots of local specialty stores.
Which will have the work place closed to where people live, and will in the end cut down commute times.
Of course, taking his attitude, if the USA is to stop importing from other countries, other countries should stop importing from the USA. Should be interesting to see what happens to the economy.
Of course, what amuses me most about these 'stop our dependence on other countries, look at all the American money going out of the country' types is that if that measure were applied to the USA by every other country in the world the impact of the loss of the export economy would plunge the USA into the third world.
Electric cars are going to cause security issues. They are going to have to find a way to tie those outlets to residents and prevent unauthorized use from other renters and outsiders. My home, like almost all, has electrical outlets outside. How am I going to stop my neighbor from charging his car while I'm at work for 9 hours a day?
Again, It's not huge deal, but it is something that must be addressed.
Electric vehicles in general and plug-ins in particular still have limited market appeal. Until they make a minivan/SUV that goes 400 to 500km (about 300 miles) on a single charge (and can fully re-charge in about one hour) it won't be a viable family vehicle.
If the gov't wants to spend money on reducing emissions from cars they should invest in public transit to get the biggest bang for their buck.
The concept is not at fault - the authorities that fund it are.
No, the real irony here is that they needed a study to show that plugging in an electric car in a country using mostly coal power plants would produce carbon emissions. As Homer would say "Doh!"
Obviously Germany needs to look at something to replace their coal power plants. It's also ironic they're phasing out nuclear plants, although I can't really blame them much for that. Danger aside, there's still nothing safe that can be done with the spent nuclear fuel. However, I don't see many other options that can provide as much power as the coal plants. Maybe they will have to bite the bullet and spend the money to make those coal plants cleaner.
Sounds to me like they're stuck between a rock and a hard place. I don't suppose hydro is an option in the area?
By the way, that's a pretty sensational headline considering the electric cars are not the problem here. It's the coal plants that are emitting the carbon.
Anything you plug into the grid will cause the same reaction.
For disposal? YUCCA MOUNTAIN! That place is pretty much the safest place to put this stuff, unless a meteorite of about 2 miles in diameter hits that place directly. Then, we will all be dead anyway and won't be around to care!
I swear..... e n v i r o l o o n i e fits you to a T!
TO me its not just about the environment, its about cutting a tie to a major industry that to me has become corrupt.
If I want to buy an electric car, I can easily get a windturbine and power it up. Sure I can't travel a long distance, but when I look at 90% of my trips they are short hops.
To me, that's where we are flawed. Fix the technology that has the dependency, and you change the dependency. Gas is the best because nobody has developed an engine that can make better use of other types of renewable energy. I don't think wind, or water are the answer. Wind comes and goes, water is a finite resource as it is. Solar seems the best option, but for the fact that nobody has discovered how to leverage it properly. Additionally, we collect sunlight, not just light, which isn't always around (i.e. rainy or overcast days).
What boggles my mind is how we can make synthetic car oil, yet we are unable to properly synthesize gasoline using a fraction of the petroleum that we use today.
For instance, there is much evidence to suggest that weekly or bi-weekly municipal recycling results in more carbon being emitted than simple mining of garbage dumps, which could occur in the future. But now that municipal recycling systems are in place and mentally socialized, its like any bad government program that never goes away. But people feel good about it.
Those that realize these fallacies and point them out are attacked, often on a national political level, by those that, as alluded to just above, simply don't really seek facts, preferring to stay within their political bubble.
There is a similar conundrum with hybrid automobiles.
They honestly think that man could do jack **** to cause the Earth to heat up (Sorry, but WATER VAPOR is a bigger greenhouse gas than CO2 by MAGNITUDES!), etc.
Between this and your ongoing support for child rapists... actually, I hope you become associated with that group of brain-dead, self-righteous, me-me-me types.
I guess that's the common factor between the two groups, the attitude of not caring who else gets hurt so long as y'all get what you want and making up any amount of crap to justify it.
We do need CLEANER things.... however, we are going to have to realize that the BIG problem is that big business drags it's damned feet at every turn, whining "IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE TO BE CLEAN!" like a 2 year old who didnt' get the pony she wanted!
We need to start telling these corporations "We don't give a **** how expensive it is........ DO IT OR WE TAX YOU OUT OF EXISTENCE or nationalize your companies! Which do you want?!"
.1% isn't nearly enough to make a difference at all.
Luckily for Germany, they pay UNBELIEVABLE gas prices, so the electricity price increase from renewable energy sources shouldn't be too painful.
you burn way more diesel fuel is burned by trucks, trains, container ships and combines than by passenger cars.
what measures are being taken to reduce fuel consumption in these industries?
if you really want to cut down on fossil fuels you have to change the way things work fundamentally. it's cheaper to make things in one place and sell them everywhere else, or grow things on million acre industrial farms and ship the produce across the country.
why not change that? why not make it so it's more economical to move production to smaller, more efficient, and more local facilities? instead of shipping all the work over seas and then shipping finished products back to be trucked to local retail outlets. instead of giant farms that need huge machines to plant, harvest, and process, why not grow everything locally and sell it where it's grown?
god no! we can't do that! that would raise prices! that's the most unamerican thing i have ever heard!
it would mean putting americans to work instead of using slave labor in the third world! it would mean energy independence from countries that hate us! it would mean rebuilding all of those industrial centers that are rusting away! no thanks!
i'll take cheap plastic chinese made crap over economic stability any day!
Production in more local facilities? Again, NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! There is such a thing as 'economics of scale' and it's more efficient to make things overseas and then move them here, as well as cheaper in most cases.
Has anyone seen the mess recycling batteries makes?
The chemicals?
This is what happens when the histrionics of the followers of ALGORE act before thinking.
Too bad, it ruins really good science and attempts to make things better the right way.
The batteries that are toxic are our current lead batteries... nicle batteries are much easier to recycle and reuse.
I lived near a superfun site in pennsylvania that was caused by batteries. Please read my earlier post, I am not an advocate of any of these alternate vehicles... But I have read enough to know that hazerdous waste cleanup is no worse with them then what it is today.
Dan
Lithium Cobalt batteries are dirty and they are a mess. Not as bad as lead acid (and considering their useful life nothing compared to the emissions petrol powered cars generate) but they are not a scalable solution.
Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries, which are becoming mainstream mainly because they are cheaper but also because they are safer, are perfectly clean. Theis solid elements can be recycled easily, and their chemicals are inert and based on three elements that you could feed yourself on.
So there's no mess there. LiFePo batteries should outlast most of the cars they will be put in, and at end of life they will be recycled with ease. And even if they are not, the most damaging component in them is the box they come in.
So no science is ruined.
Next you add in that you cannot make trucks or anything that need power on an open road with electricity right now as the batteries to drive at that much power would add more weight to trucks that already weigh to much. We also have the planes and boats that use oil to run that electricity just will not work.
I always heard how electric cars were good, but then I read things about computers and electronics attributing to global warming. If you have driven in one of those little prius' you would know that they suck, but its cool to pretend you are being green. The only plus going electric has right now is independence from foriegn oil, but once everyone goes to something, we will be just as dependent again as foreigners will be able to create huge amounts of electricity to sell really cheap to our government/nation who will just outsource everything overseas anyways by giving companies tax breaks. We don't need to give our nation foreign independence, but independence from greed and corporate tyranny.
Production can be clean or not, it depends on the sources. But even in the worst case, factoring all losses enf to end, efficiencies are at around 50%, not 1%.
So redo your analisys with those inputs and you'll reach the conclusion that electrics are the greenest, most efficient option, the only one that scales, and the only possibility that does not have a chicken and egg problem that keeps them permanently in the future.
There's lots of people lying about it, and that should be expected when some tech that's gaining traction is going to remove billions of dollars and tons of power from the hands of those in control, but you have one defense: be skeptical and do your own research, don't trust unreputable sources.
http://www.megawattmotorworks.com/display.asp?dismode=article&artid=327
The technology is advancing and one day will be sufficient to replace all oil based motor fuels. Either that or we're stuffed when the oil eventually runs out.
By the time it gets to a point where everyone is charging at the same time,
the grid there would have been modified to accommodate such an electrical demand!
Geesh! It will take many many years until that happens! Geesh!
On the other hand, do they account for pollution created by extracting and processing oil? Oil refineries are notorious for pollution, perhaps even burning gasoline may create less pollution than manufacturing gasoline.
Lithium is a natural element and even a nutritient. So are iron and phosphor. And even combined in a battery they are non toxic and quite inert. You can open a LiFePo battery and throw the contents in your garden and it wouldn't hurt your grass.
Lithium Cobalt is not as clean, but that's being phased out and will never reach mass volumes.
It is far easier to monitor and further cleanse a relatively small number of power plants and virtually impossible to truly monitor the emissions of millions of cars.
Here in the U.S., where our grid is much cleaner than in Germany, further nitpicky analysis should be performed. California is #1 in per capita hybrid sales with Washington state #2. Electric production in both states is much cleaner than in much of the rest of the U.S. It is therefore likely that California and Washington will continue to lead in electric car sales.
Power plants need to be made cleaner and we need more renewables. We also have to build more nuke plants as conservation along isn't going to save us.
EPRI studied this issue insofar as PHEVs, plugin hybrids, are concerned and concluded that, even with half the U.S. electricity coming from coal, plugins won't bring down the grid and that air quality will improve. As such, I don't fear PHEVs and EVs.
http://www.epri-reports.org
A gas turbine/steam turbine natural gas power plant is about 70%+ efficient.
A steam turbine, coal fire power plant is about 33% efficient.
We lose 7.2% efficiency over the power grid.
Reciprocating engines, by themselves, have an average efficiency of 18%.
After you factor in transmission, differential and aerodynamic drag, a good automobile gets about 7% efficiency out of the fuel used.
Electric motors are about 90% efficient by themselves.
Good electric cars do not have transmissions or differentials. After you factor in aerodynamic drag, grid and power plant efficiency, coal gets about 23% and natural gas gets about 60% while wind and solar get about 80%.
An ICE is 15% energy efficient at the wheels.... the MAIN product of a heat engine is .... wait for it .... HEAT. There's no 'energy efficiency' rating on cars because it's a well kept secret. There is no 'new technology' that can ever dramatically improve that low number... it would be like trying to make an incandesant light bulb produce less heat.
There is a perfectly logical reason why EVs cost 1/10th as much per mile to run as a petrol, powered car............ they use 1/10th the energy to do the same work!
That's 90% less........ not 1%
Simple logic would tell you if you're using 90% less enegy it will cause 90% less CO2 pollution minium, no mater what the power source.
These reports are just absolutley bogus!
There are some transmission losses, but so there are for petrol, at about the same order of magnitude (and the tankers and trucks not only consume diesel fuel but they also generate their own emissions).
Yes, electricity is not 100% clean. But reasoning "it's not perfectly clean, so it is equal to petrol power" is childish.
The calculations have been made by serious researchers, and there's about a 4x difference in efficiency and an even higher difference in emissions, plus in the long term we CAN move geenration to renewables, something that we can't do with petrol (and no, biofuels are not the solution, they create even more greenhouse gases than oil).
- by jscott418 May 1, 2009 5:14 PM PDT
- A rather unpractical ideal for many and if it does not appeal to most. The cost cannot come down and it will die. Hybrids (gas?electric) seem to have the most promise. One big negative in my area is cold weather which has to cause some loss of energy with a electric type vehicle. I agree though that electric could be used for things like limited routes such as postal deliver. But still, the amount of energy required and the cost is still going to put it out of reach for many. Many of the rest simply will not want it. As many engineers have said, if the EPA would stay out of it and let technology catch up we would have more fuel efficient engines. But making engines jump through hoops has cost MPG in order to meet emissions. We just seem to be going at this from the wrong angle. Its not all or nothing.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (96 Comments)