Are coal-powered electric cars really better for the environment?

Although the Leaf and Versa are similar is not a more meaningful comparison honestly comparing it to a Prius (since the Leaf is a natural "progression" from hybrid)? 100 miles is two gallons so basically *dead on* same carbon output.

I know coal is huge, but I wonder how this comparison would look with oil-burning power plants (worse? better?) or nuclear.

 

Personally I wouldn't own a full electric unless I could also afford the personal infrastructure of wind or solar power to charge it.

 

Don't forget that extracting, refining, and distributing gasoline has a similar overhead.

Tom

 

You did, right here:

Tom

 

The article appears to be mixing up pounds of carbon with pounds of CO2. CO2 is 44/12 heavier than C on a mole equivalent basis. Petrol cars emit 19.2 pounds of CO2 (not carbon) per combusted gallon.

From a Google search:

Coal power plants are about 32% efficient as a national average, and
3413 btu = 1 kwh.

Do the math for confirmation, but the bottom line is that 100 miles in a Nissan Versa emits about half the CO2 than 100 miles in a Nissan LEAF using the Tampa electric figures.

 

To add to the confusion, I don't imagine there is a single location which is using coal exclusively in their electricity mix.

The Leaf and the Prius are probably near the same CO2 output on average. The advantage the Leaf has is that if the grid is cleaned up, the Leaf is cleaned up right along with it; while gasoline in the Prius is always going to be producing CO2 when burned.

 

Okay, fair enough. Don't forget to knock off a few points for gas storage at the station and pumping costs for refueling. We should probably also consider consumable parts such as fuel filters on pumps, and the cost of maintaining mechanical pumps. This will be offset by the costs associated with chargers, but being electronic devices, wear and replacement should be much less.

Tom

 

The answer to that question is to build more sustainable power plants, and reduce the use of fossil fuels. Ignoring the 'teach the controversy' crap in the news would probably help, too.

 

Actually I read the book by one of the surviving Solar Panel Miners. "A Sunny Day In Hell. 31 days Trapped in a Solar Panel Mine." Riveting.

 

Well I will agree here completely. The amount of people that will buy EV and PHEV cars are very small. If you compare the ghg savings versus a conventional small car or hybrid it is tiny. The case for electrification must be on something other than ghg. And to start out let's remove that little false statement in this paragraph, cars don't have coal chuts like steam locomotives. We are not building new steam engines to get these things moving.

Well I disagree that the car is running on coal, but let's not ignore the NOx, SOx, and other harmful substances. This discussion also just pertains to the united states. NOx and SOx are capped, so additional demand does not release more into the environment. Mercury has cap proposals and should be implemented. NOx and particulates are point sources of pollution. These can be controlled much easier at power plants than in mobile things like cars that concentrate these ill effects in many big cities. The prius does really well here but not many buy prii, ev and phev provide more choices. The other environmental disaster for gas involves with the measures needed to get more of a resource running out. We already have plants trying to make more synthetic with natural gas, and I'm sure this will turn to coal. You can not discount the gulf oil spill, the Persian gulf oil fires, or even the little things of a fuel truck crashing and spilling a great deal before it was loaded into another truck. Add that oil is the majority of the trade deficit, or part of the reason we spend so much treasure and lives with our military.

The easiest way to reduce the costs to the environment of coal is to kill the gradfather clause of the clean air act. TVA just was finnally brought to justice for illegally using this clause on modified plants and will remove a large number.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/science/earth/15tva.html

95% of the new plants constructed in the last decade were gas not coal, and if you include renewables and closing of coal plants the grid is getting cleaner. Adding more EV and PHEV versus gasoline, along with the independent greening of the grid is a net economic and environmental winner.

 

Where I come from, electricity is nearly 100% hydro. There's room for more, and vast potential for geothermal we've only begun to explore. There's no way the residents will ever use it all. So, instead of whining that things will never change, run some wires this direction.

Or put up some solar panels. Surely Florida has enough sunshine to charge a few cars? Why are you still burning coal?

edit: Or gasoline?!

 

No.

First of all, the cap is proposed and yet to be enacted. Second, it only applies to part of the US. Texas, e.g. and the entire west coast, is not included. Third, as soon as republicans are in power the caps will increase or be scrapped completely. If you doubt their desire to do so you have not been paying attention to the federal budget wrangling.

 

Same here as well. In fact, we export quite a bit of CO2 free electricity to our US neighbors on a regular basis.

And I agree that while coal can't be easily displaced there's is too much potential in other sources to be had and the only thing lacking is a forward looking backbone on the part of some..

Cheers;

MSantos

 

I looked at the article again. Not only is the writer comparing C to CO2 unknowingly, he does not distinguish kw from kwh. Does this pass for journalism in Florida ? Or is the entire readership tea-baggers ?

 

We can drill down to individual cases if you like. There is wrangling as to the new CO2 regulations but not to increasing the amounts of NOx and SOx. There is talk of decreasing these caps, and if we remove grandfathered plants the caps can be decreased with no additional costs.

Now lets look at what is happening in your fear states Texas and California where many of the new electrified cars will go. ERCOT the texas grid that would have the ev car growth has always been treated differently. SO2 and NOx reduction have been done as part of regulation not the federal cap and trade program. As such these are being produced at less than half the level they were in 1995. The epa has tentatively approved an ercot only cap and trade program on these pollutants. Regulation or cap and trade can only reduce the amount of ERCOT NOx and SO2 pollution. If ercot had been part of federal cap and trade it is likely the coal states would be producing more of these pollutants and bought the credits from texas utilities. Phase 1 of cap and trade was done where the problems were the worst, not the best. ERCOT is adding more renewable energy than any of the rest of the countries grids. Next up is California, which has pledged to add no new coal plants, and is raising renewables to 33% in the next decade. Neither of these grids are going to get dirtier when these cars are added.

Clean the grid for its own sake. Add EV and PHEV cars to reduce gasoline usage.