Comments on: San Francisco installing EV charging stations

Charging stations placed prominently across the street from city hall are part of a two-year pilot project to promote electric vehicle use.

[ppgreat]

Back to the future. They had some of these sites set up in California when the GM EV-1 was available.

[mikekrause]

My question is why are electric vehicles better? Electricity doesn't grow on trees. The vast majority of it is generated by burning coal. You need a battery to store the electricity, and batteries are not great at holding a charge.

So, really we've got a city-sponsered program to shift the type of fuel being used from gasoline to coal and we're choosing to store this in a fairly inefficient way. All this to further the great Utopian idea of cheap, non-polluting, rechargable cars. The only problem is, it isn't cheap or non-polluting.

[shootthecops]

electric vehicles allow you to render the energy from *wherever*. if it has to begin from coal and other un-eco-friendly sources, that always has the potential to change as new technology becomes available without the need to change from electric powered vehicles. it also allows partial green energy sources to be used alongside un-eco-friendly sources and gradually switch over. technology is never cheap at first, all the technology you own at one time was out of the price range for the average person. as money pours into sources of green energy, then we will see whether or not it has the potential to replace fossil fuels and coal as a source of energy, no one knows until research and serious funding occurs.

[gojirasf]

Actually, California only receives 16.6% of its electricity from coal-burning power plants, so this is hardly a "vast majority." Besides, pollution is a lot easier to harness at one location (the power plant) rather than at millions of smaller power generators (cars), right?

[ErnieTheBear]

You're all missing the whole point! This system allows San Franciscans to use "clean energy" that is generated by "dirty" methods, but it's in someone else's back yard. Some poor, unenlightened schmuck out in the sticks, and therefore unimportant. San Frans get to feel good, without actually solving the problem! "See how Green we are? We have ELECTRIC cars!" It's perfect!

[sodapop2k9]

Idiots. Don't trust the Newsom administration. They should have put the charges in the financial district and tourism districts - not at city hall where they all ride in chauffeured cars. Not to mention that SF is one of the few cities of which you don't need a car at all. Electicity still pollutes - at the site the electricity is produced.

[Shaynomore]

The point is that most energy forms that we are contemplating that are completely natural gas independent are going to be turned into electrical energy since it is one of the most efficient and safest ways of storing energy. While the majority of electricity may originate from coal plants right now, energy sources like nuclear energy, kinetic energy and things like that are renewable will also convert energy into electricity since it is one of the most universal energy forms also.

[mikekrause]

OK, I will revise my statement and say that nearly 62% of electricity consumed by the state of California comes from burning natural gas or coal. I got this number straight from the California Energy Commision's web site:

http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/total_system_power.html

That is a vast majority. My point is that the dream of everyone driving around in electric cars that are powered by electricity generated from the sun or the wind, although a nice one, is not reality.

[mikekrause]

And, by the way, there is a * next to coal in their table. When I looked to see what this meant, they give the following explanation:

"*Note: In earlier years the in-state coal number included coal fired power plants owned by California utilities located out-of-state. The 2007 methodology of the calculation the fuel mix of imports is based on specific imports based on reports of California load serving entities and estimated regional non-specified imports. The methodology and values are reported in the appendix of the 2007 Net System Power Report - Final Adopted Commission Report"

Umm... doesn't this seem like a fancy way of waving hands and saying they changed the way they count percentage of electricity generated from coal plants without really telling you why or how?

[LunaticSX]

It cannot be denied that electricity generation is being shifted away from coal and towards greener and more renewable energy sources as time goes by. Also there are ways to retrofit coal plants to make them cleaner. Regardless, it's easier to manage pollution at a single source that provides energy for many vehicles than at the tailpipes of lots of cars spreading their exhaust everywhere they go.

It also cannot be denied that electricity is generated largely through domestic resources, rather than foregin oil.

Finally, electricity is cheaper per mile traveled than gasoline.

Right now the costs and pollution associated with operating electric vehicles are already less than those of operating gasoline vehicles. As time goes on, with production increases and advancement in materials, the upfront costs of electric vehicles will only drop, and end-of-life concerns about battery disposal will also be reduced (and dead battery disposal is a problem for gas-powered cars, too).

NO ONE is arguing that electric vehicles will run for free or have no environmental impact. Compared to gasoline-powered vehciles, though, there's really no argument that electric wins.

[LunaticSX]

P.S. For those in San Francisco: Aren't you glad that so many Muni busses (actually trolleybusses) run off of overhead electric wires and thus aren't spewing diesel fumes in the air? They're all powered by hydroelectric power from Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, BTW, so no coal pollution is involved.

It would not be at all surprising if the EV charging stations mentioned in the original article, above, simply plugged into the same grid that Muni uses for its eletric trolleybusses, too. So in the same way as Muni, cars charged at those stations would not be getting their power from coal-fired plants.

As far as the comment above about putting the chargers in the financial district or tourist areas:

The majority of people already use public transit to commute to the financial district (who seriously thinks there's enough parking there to handle even HALF the number of people who work in all those highrises?).

As for tourists, there aren't yet enough of them driving electric vehicles.

These EV chargers are meant to "serve hybrid electric plug-in vehicles from Zipcar, City CarShare, and the city's municipal fleet." That means locals, not tourists. And whether not the politicians all ride around in limos, there are loads and loads of other city employees who go to and from the civic center in city vehicles that will be able to make use of these EV chargers.