@texases Thanks for the info. You just proved that there is little “moral” rationale for driving an EV, unless coal is phased out as a power boiler fuel. It calls into question the large subsidies the government provides for these cars. I do agree that EVs reduce urban air pollution, and transfer it to the countryside.
Hybrids in the long run seem to make the most sense as long as we have enough liquid fuels at resonable prices. At $100 per barrel large new sources of oil are being developed.
The availability of fuel is ultimately far less important than the carbon dioxide released from burning it.
My son needs the tax credits since he currently has no deductibles or credits. :<()
@texases
Science American article showed CO 2 emissions were higher from coal in an EV compared to a hybrid ? Two questions…did they compare CO2 emissions compared to a regular ICE vehicle. I get some hybrids, they are almost or qualify as zero emission vehicles. But I think we are talking about the gazillion internal combustion motor cars. And, could you give the article please. Besides, if you read the other articles, the idea that EVs produce more emissions from coal plants is totally misleading as we DONOT get all of our power from coal plants…it’s a mix. A mix that returns a net gain in emissions from ICE cars and in areas that did not burn coal, hybrids as well. It’s not a real life situation. Buy a hybrid then if you live in coal country. Buy an electric car if you live elsewhere, anywhere else !
Unfortunately I can’t now recall the source, but I distinctly remember a different answer regarding the comparison of greenhouse gas emissions from powering electric cars with coal generated electricity versus ICE cars. It was a very authoritative source, and I’ll try to track that down. The bottom line is that electric vehicles are very beneficial in terms of reductions of greenhouse gases, even if the source of the power is a coal plant.
The explanation given was that it’s easier to control carbon emissions from a single large point source like a coal plant, than from a very large number of small sources of CO2 and other emissions from cars.
But again, the most important fact is that it’s becoming possible to power some forms of transportation with inexhaustible solar energy, with minimal net greenhouse gas emissions. And with development of radically lighter weight cars, the same battery capacity will enable greatly extended range.
I’m not at my PC so the literature survey will have to wait. But the article evaluated co2 emissions by region of the US, not by electricity source. Those regions heavy with coal were the ones with higher co2 emissions with ev vs. hybrid.
As for EPA categories like ‘zero emissions vehicle’ (ZEV or PZEV) those relate to ‘regular’ pollutants like CO and hydrocarbons, not co2.
@texases,
OK, I would like to read that article when you locate it, and I’ll post my source if I can figure out where I found it ;~) Don’t hold your breath!
From your response I wonder if we are comparing apples to asparagus or something, each expressing valid facts which can’t be compared. Or something…
@westernroadtripper. As mentioned, don’t confuse CO2, which is not really a pollutant, with CO, Volatile unburned hydrocarbons, soot, Oxides of Nitrogen, and other nasty stuff coming from tailpipes. It’s only recently that after much struggle that CO2 has been labeled a “pollutant” by the EPA.
I agree that elecric cars take tailpipe pollution out of cities and disperse it into the countryside. That’s a good thing as Martha Stewart would say.
If CO2 was a plollutant, we are all guilty by exhaling! And your home gas furnace takes CH4 (natural gas), adds O2 from the iar and produces heat and … CO2!
"...don't confuse CO2, which is not really a pollutant, with CO, Volatile unburned hydrocarbons..."
@Docnick
As a chemistry major in college, I well understand the difference between carbon MONOXIDE, and carbon DIOXIDE. You are using the same false argument that we heard from Congress a few years ago over the EPA ruling you cited. Yes, carbon dioxide is a normally occurring part of our atmosphere, we do inhale CO2 as it is part of the mixture we call air, though we do not use it, and yes, as you mentioned, we and all animals produce CO2. Plants use it for metabolism. We all learned that stuff back in seventh grade.
What’s different, and what you carefully don’t mention, is the recent extraordinary increase in concentration of carbon DIOXIDE in the atmosphere. It is that rapid spike in concentration which climate scientists recognize as a primary cause of the greenhouse effect, where the amount of solar energy being trapped in the atmosphere is increasing.
Carbon Dioxide at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Observatory reaches new milestone: Tops 400 ppm
Just a few weeks ago, May 9, 2013, CO2 concentration passed 400 parts per million as measured by the oldest carbon dioxide measurement station on Earth, operated by NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It previously had been oscillating in the vicinity of 280-300 ppm for 800,000 thousand years.
Here’s a quote from the NOAA announcement:
Carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere by fossil fuel burning and other human activities is the most significant greenhouse gas (GHG) contributing to climate change.
Notice please that NOAA is referring to carbon DIOXIDE. Check it yourself in the full article:
http://researchmatters.noaa.gov/news/Pages/CarbonDioxideatMaunaLoareaches400ppm.aspx
Here’s another article showing the CO2 spike in graphical form:
The passing of this threshold is an exceedingly alarming sign of global warming induced by human use of fossil fuels. Not only has the concentration of CO2 risen faster than scientists predicted two decades ago, the rate of increase is increasing! In other words, the problem is accelerating. That is why it is vitally important for humanity to quickly transition away from burning fossil fuels and toward sustainable energy forms which do not consume fuel and do not produce carbon dioxide. Unfortunately, making such a change is probably not going to occur soon enough to prevent catastrophic changes in viability of Earth climate and vegetation. It’s likely that much of our productive agricultural lands will become deserts.
How can you NOT be concerned?
No longer concerned. Resigned to higher CO2 but will be pleased when the politicians and anti-climate change people will be remembered for their self-fishness.
The trouble with CO2 is that developing and developed countries have to produce CO2. A “concrete” example is the manufacture of portland cement for concrete.
Eat beans.
Remember, The Farm bill/Ethanol bill is up for renewal. Get cows to eat more corn rather than we produce more of that poisonous gasohol.
@WesternRoadtripper I agree that CO2 has been increasing. To put it in a historical perspective, CO2 has been as high a 7000 ppm in the past, when the whole earth was tropical. It has fluctuated greatly over the past millions of years.
In spite of the rapid CO2 increase, global temperatures have not increased at all in the last 13 years. The “linear” relationship between CO2 (just one of the greenhouse gasses) and temperature is not really linear, but some relationship, not yet figured out by climatologists, must exist.The “hockey stick” graph by now has been thoroughly disredited. We had Medieval Warming, the little Ice Age (when my country of birth, Holland, was very cold) and then some more warming. I am a scientist myself and could manipulate cause, coincidence and effect (if I wanted to) to show almost anything. For instance, with all the worry about polar ice shrinking, the total amountof ice covering the North Pole and the South Pole has been constant for a very long time. Antarctic Ice is actually increasing.
Am I worried? Somewhat, but mostly about what misguided governements, eco opportunists like Al Gore, and Eco Facists may cause us to do. Adaptation and mitigation work a lot better than totally swearing off carbon!
To counteract the Al Gore Hype (his book has many errors, exaggerations and erroneous conclusions), please read a book written by a real scientist, one of the founders of GreenPeace, Dr. Patrick Moore. It’s called “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout, and the Making of a Sensible Environmentalist”. Another good read is “Cool It!” by Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish environmentalist. I recently met Lomborg and he is a very sensible and reasonable environmentalist. None of the authors I recommend are “deniers”; they all believe there is some warming going on. But they all recommend workable and affordable solutions.
Yes, I have a whole shelf full of environental books ranging from “neurotic/alarmist” to practical and sensible. If the Chevy Volt sold for $22,000 I would buy one as my next car, even though all the electricty here is generated from coal. Our family of 3 generates about 24 tons of CO2 from all sources (home, transportation, leasure activities, etc.) per year. If you watch Motor Week on PBS, most cars alone genetate about 7 tons per year. We have 2 cars, 3 TVs, 2 fridges, 1 freezer, 2 computers, a 4 bedroom house and a full range of all the electric gadgets imaginable. Although frugal, we don’t cramp our lifestyle.
P.S. I also recommend a book called “Sustainable Fosil Fuels” (not an oxymoron) by Dr. Mark Jaccard , Cambridge University Press. He proposes some unique solutions for the future energy mix, which cannot solely rely on solar and wind.
Here’s the article about CO2 emissions of EVs
@texases Good article. So the greenhouse gas savings are nort all that great. New York imports a large amount of clean hydro energy from Canada, so that helps out.
In our case, our gas bill so far this year for 2 cars is all of $650! At this rate we wil pay $1560 total for 2 cars for the year. The extra depreciation cost of a Volt over 10 years is $2200 per year. The depreciation over the average of our cars is $1100. So if the Volt used no fuel at all and we got rid of one car, it would still cost us $1100-$1560/2=$320 more per year to own the Volt.
Re: Which emit more CO2 - Electric vs gasoline automobiles?
Thanks for posting that Scientific American link @Texases. I’ve taken the liberty to excerpt some of the salient points below, for those who are link-clicking-averse.
In breaking down the United States region by region, the group concluded that 45 percent of Americans live in areas where EVs emit lower levels of greenhouse gases than a conventional 50 mpg vehicle. That puts them ahead of even the most efficient gasoline-powered hybrids.
Another 37 percent of the U.S. population lives in areas where EVs have emissions similar to those of a vehicle with a 41- to 50-mpg rating, such as the popular Toyota Prius.
“This report shows drivers should feel confident that owning an electric vehicle is a good choice for reducing global warming pollution, cutting fuel costs and slashing oil consumption,” said Don Anair, the report’s author and senior engineer for UCS’s Clean Vehicles Program.
“Those in the market for a new car may have been uncertain how the global warming emissions and fuel costs of EVs stack up to gasoline-powered vehicles. Now, drivers can for the first time see just how much driving an electric vehicle in their hometown will lower global warming emissions and save them money on fuel costs,” he said.
Even in parts of the country where coal makes up most of the electricity supply, EVs produce the same amount of greenhouse gases as the best gasoline-powered nonhybrid vehicles that get about 33 mpg.
@WesternRoadtripper
Good post ! It’s really something I don’t understand. Regardless of how many noted scientist, govt agencies and the general academic world we depend on for research in ALL other areas, including medicine, defense and just about anything else worth while you can think of…when this same scientific community, by a wide margin, agrees that global warming, CO2 emmissions are problems we must confront, they are some how dismissed as quacks and Al Gore lackies. NASA can’t be believed by the right, as well as our own defense department, every major university and anyone who happens to value reading any article that doesn’t come from the the same agenda driven source.
Regardless, USA needs to bend the curve further down to less oil dependence. We are lucky to have a good mix of energy sources that other countries do not have. We have gotten into many conflicts because of oil.
But, the energy mix if left to energy corporations will be geared more towards profitability then climate change considerations. It takes govt. Intervention to force the issue. We will be tied to the world mix of energy sources to maintain price stability for the energy producers. We already have a surplus of refined gasoline for example, that is sold on the world market. Where the energy comes from, has nothing to do with making the US independent. It has to do with short and long term profits. Holding steady on mileage regulations, insisting on stricter construction standards and stimulating consumer choices in energy directly and not through energy company subsidies makes us more independent. Things like well insulated home and a practical electric car will put the energy needs of the US in line with both efficiency and co2 emmissions needs.
I think the answer to your question is “no, there aren’t any Volt owners here.” If there were, you’d only hear high praises. Don’t go to Internet forums about advice on EVs of any kind. Believe it or not, people are getting paid to seek out questions (or post fake ones) on these sites and then espouse the point of view of whoever is paying them. It’s really easy to setup a google alert for certain key words and then jump into the discussion. Have you ever noticed how passionately some people will argue against EVs without ever trying one? Who do you think they all are and why would they be so passionate about keeping things the way they are now? These are important things to consider, but my main point is stay away from the Internet. Hit the street and ask a real owner. Go to your Chevy dealer and ask if they’d arrange a meeting between you and another owner. Chances are there are many owners who wouldn’t mind meeting you face to face and tell you everything you want to know and many things the dealer doesn’t know. Btw, I’m a Volt owner and it’s the best car I’ve ever owned, hands down, no question. I’ve owned lots of new vehicles in my time but never anything this awesome at any price.