Two Studies Question Plug-In Hybrids

Yesterday we wrote about some of the problems associated with ethanol and its rise as the most heavily favored alternative fuel. Now we’ll take the opportunity to give the plug-in hybrid equal scrutiny.

Both the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency have issued studies that highlight the potentially negative impacts of plug-in hybrids on air quality.

As many have pointed out, while plug-in hybrids do get much better overall gas mileage than their gasoline and standard hybrid counterparts, they shift much of the pollution burden to coal-burning power plants that supply the electricity to the socket. According to USA Today, about half of U.S. electricity comes from coal plants. In some areas with aging, technologically unsophisticated power plants, a plug-in hybrid would become “nearly the equivalent of a coal-burning vehicle.”

Comments

HAHA, I've been saying this from the beginning.

Broq

This is an old argument - but I for one believe its still a good thing. We are more likely to get movement on power plant cleanliness and alternate power on the grid if we shift our car pollution to those plants.

Single large capital imporovements at these plants would then have even greater impact. We'll no longer have 1000s of cars fertilizing air in cities with heavy pollution.

We'll have a few large coal plants that _can_ be cleaned up -than can do CO2 sequestration and can be replaced with solar/wind/tidal/whatever power sources as those technologies evolve.

Centralizing power generation makes each 'pollution center' far more visible and clearly liable for the damage its causing.

I'll second Dave's comment. And the next administration will be much less likely to let big power companies get away with skirting environmental laws. McCain and Obama are both pro-environment.

Just the opposite. If we put more load on the grid for electricity, then more power plants are needed.

Currently many coal fired plants are restricted to how much power they can generate and the pollution they can put out. Increasing the need for power from the grid will cause these plants to be online more and producing more pollution.

An example of this was during the Enron created power shortage in California. The state was purchasing electricity from a coal fired plant. This plant was exceeding the maximum allowed hours of generation and was being fined for the pollution output. This caused the price of the generated electricity to be 3 times the going rate.

Plug in power is the wrong way to go. The more we load the grid the more the dirty plants will have to be online producing power.

It takes too long for a new power generation to be brought on line.

And when was the last time you hear of a new power plant going up? The red tape is unbeleivable. Can't do hyrdo, dams are bad, nuclear is a no go, got all that waste. You're left with coal, oil and natural gas. One pollutes too much the other two are back to the oil companies.

Getting off the grid is the way to go. Sure use a plug in system but tie it to a solar array on your roof.

The obvious response to this article is WE NEED MORE NUCLEAR GENERATED ELECTRICITY. Problem solved.

thats right. Nuclear is one of the cleanest generated electricity. Yes there is waste problem but we have plenty of mountains to dig under.
Also, they said that yelowstone is one huge valcano - we need to build around it thermo power plants. If it blows up... Then who cares about few powerplants if the whole country will be destroyed?
The plugin cars should really use some kind local source - wind and solar. this will create jobs in those industries and save the environment.

This discussion hightlights that we need a new comprehensive energy policy. Coal burning power plants, nuclear power, wind farms, geo-thermal, wave farms, etc all need to be part of the plan. There isn't one good answer right now.

I notice that this report does not take into account energy produced by Wind, Hydro, or Solar and, it doesn't calculate all the emissions savings from not having to produce, refine, transport, and store all the oil we won't need once these production PHEVs hit the road. PHEVs are an environmental upgrade just like leather seats. Not everyone will want it, and that is ok. I have owned and driven a PHEV for a year and I buy Domestic Wind Energy to offset my Foreign Oil Use. I use that savings to go out to local restaurants more while it using only electric power. PHEVs are better for our national security, our environment, and our economy. Let’s see you plug in a solar panel to an internal combustion engine and see how far you get. As for me, my solar panel saves me even more money in offsetting gas then it does offsetting my electric bill. BTW PHEVs get about 4 miles to the KWH, and a KWH can be free if you make it yourself.

I'm in the process of launching a PV design and installation company, and have overwhelming interest from everyone I talk to. People are constantly asking me about AUTO pollution and what they can do to reduce theirs. It seems like a no brainer to me. If we can afford to pay 25-40 k on a car, than why wouldn't we be willing to spend 25-40 k on CLEAN FREE energy that will last for 25+ years costing little to nothing after 5-12 years of use. For thos who don't have that kind of dough lying around,consider this:
Many of the residential energy evaluations I've done so far have shown that a pv array rolled into a mortgage will instantly cost the homeowner LESS in monthly payments due to the locked in loan rate vs. the consistently rising utility costs.
Put simply, almost anyone with a property and good credit can afford to go solar tomorrow. Buy your plug in hybrids, and plug into your PV array. DUHHH

I'm in the process of launching a PV design and installation company, and have overwhelming interest from everyone I talk to. People are constantly asking me about AUTO pollution and what they can do to reduce theirs. It seems like a no brainer to me. If we can afford to pay 25-40 k on a car, than why wouldn't we be willing to spend 25-40 k on CLEAN FREE energy that will last for 25+ years costing little to nothing after 5-12 years of use. For thos who don't have that kind of dough lying around,consider this:
Many of the residential energy evaluations I've done so far have shown that a pv array rolled into a mortgage will instantly cost the homeowner LESS in monthly payments due to the locked in loan rate vs. the consistently rising utility costs.
Put simply, almost anyone with a property and good credit can afford to go solar tomorrow. Buy your plug in hybrids, and plug into your PV array. DUHHH

Coal plants in the US have been fitted with a wide array of emission control equipment, including particulate and sulfur dioxide controls. Old plants are being retrofitted every day. There are other studies on plug-in hybrids that show that even if the entire US electric generation fleet was coal fired that plug in hybrids would still enjoy a 20 to 30 percent reduction in total air emissions. Now factor in the 20 percent of our national electric grid that is emissions free nuclear and the additional and growing wind and hydro resources and there is a clear environmental advantage to plug-in hybrids over conventional vehicles. Most PHEVs will be driven in cities, where their zero emissions will directly benefit air quality. In stop and go driving when conventional cars are idling and fouling the air, PHEVS will sit silently with no emissions. Offsetting some oil use with electricity will be a very positive development because the equivalent amount of electricity to a gallon of gasoline is a fraction of the cost and keeps the money in this country instead of sending it overseas.

Apparently we need more wind turbines?
Why is nuclear generation not even mentioned in the article?
The author must have a public school education?
That's where he learned how to be politically correct.
Logic is not taught today.

Here's the thing about the generation of electric power-most of the grid basically goes dormant every night. The typical energy usage curve looks like a sine wave, with the valley at 4 am. But the power company needs the capacity to meet the top of the curve. If plugging in 100 million cars overnight flattened out the curve, the generating plants could operate more efficiently, and thus actually lower operating costs (hence our bills). Newer power plants are getting cleaner, and far more efficient than today's cars. Plugging in all these cars could only help reduce the smog and ozone plauging today's cities.

This post inaccurately portrays coal power plants as emitting "heavy doses" of mercury, when in fact much of the coal burned in the U.S. is low mercury, low sulfur coal from the Powder River Basin. U.S. coal plants account for 3 to 5 percent of total worldwide mercury emissions each year, while 40 percent of mercury emissions comes from natural sources such as volcanoes.

UPDATE: The EPA website says U.S. coal burning power plants only contribute 1 percent of global mercury emissions each year. Unlike Mercury, Sulfur Dioxide emissions are easily controlled by scrubbers, and every day old coal plants are being retrofitted. The arguments against PHEVs in these reports made headlines but don't stand up.