Leaf C02 versus Prius C02

This is the main concern I've had about going completely to electric sources. Most of the country is powered by coal based generators: that makes sense ecconomically since the US has a large reserve of coal. I can never seem to find accurate sources on what CO2 levels might be with traditional coal based plants vs "clean" "scrubber" plants. Right now, I think the solution is for different alternatives: see what kind of power demand there is in areas that have alternative electricity generation sources. And a hybrid is still viable for now. I'm sure anti-Prius folks will say there's a lot of emmisions generated for its production (for its battery and for shipping the finished car via cargo ship). When hybrids become more popular, I'm sure more will be made in North America.

 

Here in WA, my electricity comes entirely from renewables: Nearly all hydro, with a tiny bit of wind power in the mix. Elsewhere, people have the option of paying a bit extra for wind power.

Further, CO2 is not the only pollutant. Surprising as it may seem, most coal-fired power plants are less dirty than even an AT-PZEV car.

And finally, moving the national fleet towards electric opens the possibility of moving more towards sustainable energy: It's possible but very expensive and complicated to synthesize liquid fuel from electricity, but an electric fleet can use the electricity directly from sustainable sources: PV and wind.

And this does not even begin to speak to the balance of trade issues: foreign vs domestic energy, or the "terrorism tax" related to the fact that a big chunk of the world's oil comes from the people who are the principal financiers of al Qaeda.

Framing the Prius vs Leaf discussion solely in terms of CO2 is so far off the mark it's silly.

 

Not silly; it points up that converting to non-fossil electricity is usually the most effective thing that one can do to reduce fossil CO2 emissions. A Leaf powered by coal is no benefit.

There are no coal-fired power plants in the US that capture any significant fraction of their CO2 output. Newer plants are more efficient others, but from a global warming standpoint all coal plants are pretty dirty.

 

CO2 is not the only issue to consider, but it is a huge one. It would be quite the irony if the US spent its resources on electrification and had little left over to combat AGW.

 

Enter your zip code in this site and it will tell you CO2 (and other) emission to produce electricity from your utility company.

Since it reports in lbs/MWh and Leaf gets about 3 miles per kWh, divide your regional number by 3,000. This will give you CO2 emission per mile to compare it to OP's numbers.

For me, driving Leaf would give me 0.272 lbs/mi. About 42% lower than Prius. That's because 44% of my electricity was generated by Nuclear powerplant.

 

You are still ignoring all the folks (Washington state, for example, or Darell and others with PVs) who run EVs from clean, renewable energy. You are ignoring the disastrous economics of importing our energy. And you are ignoring the potential for all electricity to be clean.

In the end, however, the thing that's going to make gasoline cars (including the Prius) obsolete, is the rising cost of gas related to skyrocketing demand and falling supply. And of course our corrupt politicians will probably deal with it by burning even more coal and building nukes and leaving a sterile planet for future generations. Because I agree with you that coal is a disaster. It's just not the only way we can get electricity.

 

My zip's CO2 is .497 lbs per mile: slightly more then the national average. Since Georgia also doesn't recognize hybrids for the HOV lane, I figured the Prius was ecological here.

 

In the US, that's going to take a pretty long time. I'm always floored by how much cheaper gas is here then other parts of the world (my relatives in Austria, for example, get about 3 Euros per liter of gas there). Americans bitched when gas prices went above 3 dollars per gallon, but they still didn't change their lifestyle much. Apart from the expensive electric cars that are hitting the market now, the only other alternative is biodiesel...which is expensive in itself. Milk is about $3.80 per gallon, Coke is $8.20...Evian is $6.40...while even cheap as snot Budwieser is $8.88 (I'm a beer snob, so I'd rather brew good beer or even pay more for good craft beers...which are way more then Bud).

 

Note that this site reports regional averages, not specific to any utility company. For example, it claims that 45% of my energy is fossil fueled, whereas the local utility claims 2% fossil fuel and 91% hydro.

And when I plug in zip codes across the state, and even one and two states to the east, the reported numbers don't change.

 

very true, but then again those using gas from canada's oil sands don't have on the stickers how much wildlife was killed in the strip mining. It is key to understand pollutants that make us sick and create ozone and particulate matter versus electricity.

And bugs bunny is arguably this countries greatest president But lets not get into those silly arguments. Say we took 2 million escalade type vehicles off the road and replaced them with prii. That would make a big impact to global warming right? An escalade should put a little less than 8 tons of co2 more than the prius. That makes 2 million of them put out 16 megatons, it sounds like that might help global warming. That is until you realize that China puts out that much co2 in a minute. Is the amount of co2 the next five million evs contribute really that important or even measurable in the grand scheme of things?

sure and how much more mercury will we put out with each new ev? Its not measurable.

Since NOx and SO2 are capped for electricity the net effect of BeV and PHEV is 0. Methane is released with petroleum too, and we need to do a better job with both. The pollution from BEVs

But what in the world does that have to do with BEVs? Do you think they will tear down the coal power plants if we don't build them? Its a false argument. Clean up coal plants sure. But don't slow down BEV production because you are confused and think CO2 from coal is destroying america.

Finally how do you pay for modernizing the grid? Do you get confused by the europeans and say its all about CO2? How about riding some of the drain on the economy of a huge trade deficit going to purchase a scarce resource that are enimies have used in the past to harm our economy. Reducing oil use, reducing particulate pollution and ozone levels is definitely more important than a false argument about CO2. By the way, like daniel, I live in a place where plugging in will produce less co2 than driving my efficient prius. They just are not producing the PHEV that I want yet.

 

You are basing your calculations on one number though. This is based on the EPA average range for the Leaf of 73(?) miles (please correct me if I am wrong). If some gets an average of 100 mile range, that affects the CO2 use significantly. Also, I question the 34Kwh number. It appears that is a simple adjustment of the 24Kwh pack of the leaf multiplied by about 1.4 to get 34Kwh. I don't believe the full 24Kwh of the pack is accessible/used to get the full range.

All of these numbers also depend heavily on how the people drive. The numbers you use are very close to 3 miles per Kwh. The stated range by Nissan gets you better than 4Kwh/mile.
In my EV, I get very close to 4Kwh/mile.

So basically, the amount of co2 use goes up the more aggressively you drive or the more inefficient the driving conditions.
This is true driving an EV, PHEV, Gas burner, Fuel cell vehicle or bicycle.

Not really. I agree it is not an accurate picture of all the energy used, but it is the same as they treat oil.
The EPA sticker always showed the fuel that the vehicle uses. If you want to include the impact caused at the plant (coal, NG, hydro, etc) for EVs, also include the impact of the refinery and transportation of the gasoline.
If you want to also show the pollution of mining the coal, drilling for NG, etc, also include the pollution from drilling for oil, fraking the shale, etc.

 

These numbers are averages, while EV use typically uses sources at the margin of demand.

Portland, OR is a good example of how these two can differ. While about half of electricity consumed in Portland is hydro based, 100% of marginal demand is supplied by coal.

 

Do you remember the pictures of Rav EV's towing a generator that burned petrol for the car's electricity ?

I wonder how the EPA would rate that setup.

When close to all cars consumed petrol, the well-tank information was the same; only the car differed. Now with EV the energy cycle is different from the "well" onwards, and ignoring well-tank or ground-battery just gives stoopid numbers that do not reflect reality, or physics, or underlying pollution or energy questions.

By now we should all be able to agree that EV is not in general an advance over Prius in terms of CO2 emissions for most grid users.

I'll keep saying the same thing: we should focus on cleaning up the grid, not adding appliances to it when it is dirty.

 

There's another pollution issue we have not brought up yet: Depleted uranium.

In order to secure our access to and control of foreign oil, which we will need as long as we drive gasoline or diesel cars (other than bio-diesel) we keep having to fight wars against people who want to control their own oil. Present war fighting tactics involve the use of obscene quantities of depleted uranium munitions, which leave low-level radioactivity spread out all over the countries we fight in. This stuff is virtually impossible to clean up, and the devastated countries have no resources for clean-up anyway.

Depleted uranium munitions are a can of worms we really should not be opening. (The stuff is used because it's heavier than other stuff. When you want to wreak destruction, heaver is better. And the generals don't give a rat's nice person about pollution, as demonstrated when they had open house at the Grand Forks air base in North Dakota and they were burning used motor oil in an open pit, something anybody else would be jailed for doing.)

And of course there's a lot of conventional pollution every time you drop a bomb and set something on fire. Wars over oil are another very good reason to switch from foreign to domestic energy.

 

In a nutshell, given a choice between something that is smokey and noisy, and something that is quiet and clean, I'll choose the latter. And so would most people I imagine. Sometimes you have to concentrate on the simple marketing of things....the way people who don't think think. The CO2 of a Prius, which we are all endeared to, and a Leaf is of little enough consequence that the conversation for most people intuitively moves on to the more subtle and hidden aspects of the EV vs ICE choice such as adoption of a more future-forward policy involving energy independence.

And frankly, some people are just geeky and like the idea of owning an EV for the gadget factor. These people too should be encouraged.

 

Is central plant Nox really capped ?

http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20100805-new-power-plant-emissions-rules