Electric Transportation and Carbon Dioxide
I just received this:
Today, Ford announced its decision to use GE charging stations for its workplace charging network. Ford plans to install the GE WattStation™ at more than 50 of its facilities throughout 2014. The stations will be networked together, allowing Ford to gather information such as the number of hours vehicles are charging and the amount of carbon dioxide reduced.
I’m always amused when people who should know better make statements to the effect that they know how much CO2 is reduced as they charge their EVs. This figure, sometimes positive, other times negative, fluctuates in real-time throughout the day and night as grid operators around the nation figure out how they can meet ever-changing demand at the lowest cost, and then buy and sell power from different sources accordingly. This is further complicated by the fact that, even within one type of resource, say coal, there are numerous variables in terms of plant efficiencies, losses in transmission, coal types, levels of effectiveness of scrubbing, etc. — none of which we can monitor.
And I chose coal deliberately, as, especially in that part of the country (Dearborn, Michigan), an incremental load on the grid normally means burning more coal, which is far worse for the environment and human health, not only in terms of CO2, but also NOx, SOx, heavy metals, radioactive isotopes, etc., than the oil that the EV displaced.
That said, I remain a fan of electric transportation, as I believe that overall, we’re moving in the right direction in terms of all the things that will make EVs a terrific solution going forward. Not only are we decommissioning coal, but we’re also bringing on more renewable energy, and since that comes largely in the form of solar and wind, it means integrating variable resources. EVs, through their ability to store excess energy capacity, will be a huge help in this regard over time.
Also, we need to keep in mind that many people install solar on their roofs when they get an EV, totally eliminating this issue. In fact, the third quarter of 2013 saw the largest number of American homes in history (31,000) install solar panels on their rooftops. This is the most recent data I have; there could have been new records set in the two more recent quarters.
We’ll get there. That’s not the issue, but rather this: How much damage will we have done in the process? The answer: no one knows.
Craig,
It seems we’re largely coming to an agreeable compromise position in terms of EV’s in terms of pollution. In many/most cases EV’s are worse than ICE vehicles of similar size and performance in almost all forms of pollution. Some EV buyers – perhaps appreciating this – have chosen to offset the emissions from their more-polluting purchase by also purchasing solar panels. Installing solar power is going to always work towards the betterment of the planet, regardless of any other decisions the person may make, that decision is going to be a net environmental plus.
(Ok,I might just be having a little fun here)
🙂
But really I like the tone of this article. It clearly strikes a position that taking it for granted that EV purchases are good for the environment is simply wrongheaded, and careful consideration should be made about the pros and cons. In that, we completely agree.
Where we disagree is a little more complicated.
First: While I’m as big a cheerleader as anyone for more solar power coming online, it’s a drop in the bucket compared to the fossil portion of the grid. Last year saw a record-shattering level of solar power coming online, and the total energy produced by solar generation in 2013 increased by ~4.876 TWh. That’s not bad… it’s not nothing…. But as I commented on your “Trend Toward Energy Efficiency and Conservation” article, there were 2.739 PWh of fossil-generated electricity in 2013. So the gain in solar energy was ~0.178% of the fossil energy demand. It’s certain that 2014 will see higher total electricity demand than 2013, and there was almost no new wind installed last year… so even with a doubling of solar energy you will still see a significant increase in electric power consumption. Worse, due to the cold winter, the price of NG will remain higher and the utilization of NG must then be lower, so there will be a large increase in coal generation in 2014 over 2013.
It will be a VERY long time before progress in wind and solar generation become significant in reducing fossil electricity generation. (I lament this, but I don’t think the outlook will change quickly).
Second,
I see no way that EV’s would be useful in helping with the integration of variable power supplies. You would need to – along with the EV – buy a smartgrid charger that significantly reduced its load when the grid price is high and significantly increased its load when the grid price is low.
To my knowledge, this is not something that EV owners persue, because they wan’t the security of having their batteries charge as quickly as their charge infrastructure allows, and they don’t want to risk running low on charge as a result of the smartgrid charger deliberately reducing the charging load. Furthermore, local and state governments (California in particular), and local power companies make it even less likely this would be pursued by offering discounted rates for EV charging without regard to timing or smart ramping/tamping… which removes any financial incentive for the EV owner to persue this strategy.
If all you do is plug the battery in and let it charge, you’re introducing a reliable, constant demand load – one that is essentially always responded to by ramping up the overall capacity factor in a coal plant… Increasing baseload power and doing nothing whatsoever to help the grid respond to variable power.
🙂
Re: your comment
Some EV buyers – perhaps appreciating this – have chosen to offset the emissions from their more-polluting purchase by also purchasing solar panels.
… keep in mind that some EV customers are not offsetting their emissions with PV; they’re charging their cars. I know people who haven’t driven off anything but sunlight for the last 15 years.
My experience so far as an eV driver has parallels to the above (I will be installing solar panels that will generate more than the electricity used by my eV), but with substantial divergence regarding timing of the load. At least half of my charging occurs overnight (regulated by a timer), owing to the only price signal given by the utility (off-peak time of use rates are ~15% of peak rates). If my local utility provided more granular price signalling to manage demand, I would certainly consider a more sophisticated charging set up that responded to utility demand management if it were economically efficient.
eVs also contribute other positive externalities of simpler/more cost-effective management of pollution (central facility vs. distributed point sources) today, and, presuming sources of utility generation become less carbon intensive (even from coal to natural gas), decreasing CO2 emission over the duration of vehicle operation. Re-purposing of partially degraded eV batteries after an initial life in a vehicle hasn’t been substantial as yet, but in the next decade could add substantial distributed storage capability for peak load (and generation) management so as to better tolerate a higher penetration of variable, low carbon intensity sources on the grid.
My utility here in Michigan charges me a cheaper rate after 11pm. My Volt waits until then before it starts charging and finishes around 5am. During the night there is an excess of electric supply so I’m not causing more pollution by making them burn less coal – they are just wasting less of it. Plus, since I signed up for the Green Generation program my money does not go toward buying coal. It goes to the people who supply wind power to the utility. So buying an electric vehicle combined with signing up for your utility’s renewable energy program will significantly reduce your pollution today, as well as make you a builder of tomorrow’s renewable energy economy.
CRAIG,
Perhaps you have taken some factors and put a certain spin on them. Here is another:
Technology can be a fad. Although the EV has a very old history in some ways its recent reinvention has aspects of a fad. When people want to buy something rational can be put aside. It is also just as possible for a rational to follow an interest as to preceed it. And so some, I would suggest most will search for a rational. Also there will be some who take advantage of a fad to offer cheap knock-offs and even rip-offs.
Although some may want an EV because they look good (Tesla etc.) most may be moved to a purchase or lease for one of three other reasons. Strategic, (concern over fuel supplies,) economic (by analysis or impression the EV appears less expensive) or for environmental reasons. Of the three, environmental reasons are the weakest as they are hardest to support. But may appeal to some EV drivers. It is hardly ALL EV drivers yet detractors jump on environmental reasons like a lion culling out the weakest antelope. This shows more predatory behavior than mental analysis.
There is a flaw in your assumption that every electrical demand requires more coal, more fuel. A coal fired power plant cannot be turned off or effectively turned down. In midwest states where they represent up to 90% of the grid off peak demand creates an environmental nightmare. Some of that fuel is just being used because the boilers must be kept hot at night. The coal plants must keep operating but demand can fall below 40% of peak daytime loads. So what is the value of that night-time pollution if the electricity cannot be sold or used. In comes an EV demand and some of that pollution can find a purpose because of the time-shaving nature of charging an EV at night. This is how an EV can be charged from a coal fired power plant producing no new pollution. I will start paying attention when EV night time demand requires more than 10% or 20% of Coal fired power plant electrical production. We have a long way to go.
Economic EV analysis may more accurately done by fleet owners. Like a pollution analysis there are many factors to consider. Using solar panels + an EV will increase the ROI as you offset the expense of gasoline as well as grid electricity. But when fleets begin to take serious notice so also should private drivers. This will happen when EV manufacturers can offer the same economic incentives to fleets as they do for ICE vehicles or when fuel becomes costly or difficulty to source.
Strategic reasons like the other three can be applied socially or individually. While we are pumping more petrochemicals it is not essentially a domestic resource. Electricity is. In both the the Japanese disaster and Sandy, it was the EV that was quickest to return to service when fuel was in short supply. In my area it was almost 3 weeks before vehicle fuel was not a constant concern. The electricity was off for 2 days. Some battery electric vehicles can be used as a power source. All could be adapted to the purpose.
Some mild hybrids are clearly knock-offs and some may even be not worth the money put into them, but this is another discussion.
Craig,
You’re right to make the point that understanding the energy mix for electricity is important. Know your location and power supply. However, don’t just look at those areas where electricity makes the EV look not so good for the environment. When you’re talking about California, the most populous state, there’s no doubt that an EV is the environmentally better choice. It also happens to be the less expensive choice. Coal is not a major factor in California energy production and private solar generation in CA has grown to the point that it has shifted the peak power usage from the afternoon to 7pm. Anecdotally, most homeowners requesting quotes for solar installations in Northern California are now asking to size the system to include a plug-in vehicle.
Electricity companies are beginning to realize that if they encourage EVs, they will get to sell electricity to a brand new market. Californians used about 13 billion gallons of motor fuel in 2012 so a transition from gas to electric means companies like PG&E have a new multi-billion dollar market to service.
I think we’ll find the transition happens sooner rather than later. The trends are all in the right direction, at least in California.
Glenn,
You state with great confidence “In many/most cases EV’s are worse than ICE vehicles of similar size and performance in almost all forms of pollution”. However, this is a very contentious point and nowhere near as definite as you make it sound. In reality, EV’s emit less Climate Change pollution than the majority of cars now on the American road (see UCS article “State of Charge: Electric Vehicles’ Global Warming Emissions and Fuel-Cost Savings Across the United States” at http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/smart-transportation-solutions/advanced-vehicle-technologies/electric-cars/emissions-and-charging-costs-electric-cars.html.
It is true that an EV may produce similar Climate Change emissions to a very efficient ICE car like a Toyota Prius, in areas where electricity is primarily generated with coal, but the average American car emits far more of these emissions than does a Prius.
Electric Vehicles don’t produce climate changing emissions. Drivers who drive their EV on fossil fueled charges do. One thing we should keep in mind is that an Ev battery will take on a charge that comes from renewables just as easily as it will take on a fossil fuel powered charge.
Solar is not really a good match for the overnight charge.
However, solar would be excellent for those at work for 8 hours.
Thus, two opposing concepts equally beneficial. The other is closed cycle nuclear for night time as baseload should be expected to increase as the EV market begins.
Furthermore, as the tech progresses, cars will fast charge enabling the smart grid to be load following by charging cars somewhat selectively, minimizing utility scale storage. Closed cycle nuclear will still be needed to balance out the ups and downs, especially once the renewables reach “max Grid” because we HAVE to quit coal and because the world is growing……………
Coal kills more than nuclear ever did.
The wastes from nuclear is a million times less in volume than that of coal. Add in another order of magnitude or two less for the closed cycle (because it’s just fission products, the 1% in spent fuel).
Let it be renewables and nuclear, not renewables backed by coal to power electric cars 🙂
Craig,
You usually do a more thorough job of laying out the facts.
But your statement “And I chose coal deliberately, as, especially in that part of the country (Dearborn, Michigan), an incremental load on the grid normally means burning more coal, which is far worse for the environment and human health, not only in terms of CO2, but also NOx, SOx, heavy metals, radioactive isotopes, etc., than the oil that the EV displaced. ”
Is just a mistake.
A driver in Dearborn of a Nissan Leaf EV who uses 275 kwh/mth to go 12,000 miles/year produces 5,689 # of CO2, 18 pounds of SO2 and 6# of NO. (http://oaspub.epa.gov/powpro/ept_pack.charts#result)
If the Leaf replaced an above avg efficient ICE vehicle of 25 mpg over 12,000 miles. 480 gal consumed produces: 9,427 # of CO2 (19.64#/gal) http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=307&t=11
Plus the CO2 from the electricity used in refining the gasoline.
Also the waste from the ICE vehicle is in your face and includes: CH4, N2O and HFC
So even on the ‘dirty’ Dearborn grid the CO2 produced from the EV is 40% less than from the gasoline to ICE vehicle.
Even with ‘daily fluctuations’ the energy mix for the EV is significantly less polluting than the most efficient ICE vehicle. This is true even on the ‘dirty’ Michigan grid. Other grids in the USA show even more significant emissions improvement for EVs. You can calculate your own data at: http://oaspub.epa.gov/powpro/ept_pack.charts and be amused at people who say it’s too complicated to calculate.
Here’s the problem with that calculator: it’s based on the average grid mix that is used to provide electricity to that zip code on a given day. Sadly, that’s irrelevant. The only relevant fact is this: what’s the source of an incremental load on the grid at the time the car is charged? And the answer to that question is: it’s almost always coal, since coal is the cheapest form of baseload.
In many cases it is natural gas, or nuclear. And I disagree, the calculator is very relevant especially given the fact that a majority of EV charging is done in the evening when the grids with wind turbines are providing energy. On the grid I am on the baseload is 38% coal and switching to an Ev has lowered my CO2 by four tons per year. This experience is shared by thousands of EV PHEV drivers around the country.
I appreciate your comments. Please see me response here: http://2greenenergy.com/2014/03/25/advocacy-electric-transportation/.