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

I'll only correct

to: EVs will use dirty energy until clean energy is available in excess.

I think your argument that fossil fuels are just getting dirtier has merit, but how much dirtier is liquid coal in a car than pulverized coal in an electric plant ? Or NG burned in a car compared to NG burned at a power plant ?

Now for your requested deeper analysis: The US has very limited resources; heck most of them are being spent just to keep the country out of a massive recession. I argue that it makes a lot more sense for the country aka the 'government' to invest in clean infrastructure and basic research than to subsidize appliance manufacturers. The market economy will produce EVs just fine with or without corrupting and inefficient subsidy when consumer prices drive large scale EV adoption. Until then the subsidy is just money flushed.

I will be delighted to find that my arguments are understood by the greater EV lobby, but judging by the number of posts that state that EVs are cleaner today than a Prius, or a localized grid average carbon intensity defines EV pollution I am ... doubtful.

You may have noticed I argue with both sides of this debate. It most stems from my opinion that subsidies and ignored externalized costs is idiotic, no matter which side they support. I still am bummed from the gwBush era that sent a penny to the conservation lobby for every $10 dollars to the oil system. Bah humbug.

Cheers!

 

I do not, which is why I wrote carbon intensity for both coal and NG. What is true though is that EVs sourced from the grid run on fossil fuels until excess clean energy is available from the grid.

I am trying to answer your original question why I state that complete decarbonisation of the grid is required before EVs improve GHG or pollution. It seems like EV promoters routinely mix up consumption with supply. Increased consumption is not the driver for a cleaner supply.

 

Haven't read all the threads but I'm sure some research outfit has done a comprehensive well to wheels analysis of a Leaf vs. comparable gasoline car.

Nothing wrong with having more diverse types of vehicles. We need them.

 

You bet, many from our national energy labs. The LEAF looks sweet compared to a POS 25 mpg GM car, and on average worse than a Prius.

 

What do you mean on average worse than a Prius?

 

Post #97 in this thread.

 

In case of the Leaf you mean "plant-to-wheel"?

Any comprehensive study should be based on life-cycle emissions, as for an EV vehicle emissions in battery production and disposal of non-recycled portion can be substantial chunk of life-cycle emissions (6-8% is my recollection).

Giora.

 

^^ Fair point. 'Plant" in this context usually means powerplant. You are talking about a "cradle to grave" analysis.

 

A PHV will be greener for me because it will slash my cold starts from ~4/day to maybe 5 or 10 per month. Most trips are very short, but when I do exceed AER it is usually by a wide margin. From 120 to 10 cold starts per month is a 92% reduction in low mpg high pollution events. Instead of struggling to hold 50 mpg with a short commute and cold snowy winter, we should get 55 to 60 mpg in hybrid mode and use our 9 cent/kw electricity (granted with a lot of coal) to save the ICE from the many shorts trips it stinks at (pun intended).

A really low end EV would be a good 2nd car for us, but the Leaf is overkill for the few miles our 2nd car incurs.

 

No, you didn't. My intent was not to promote EVs and bash gas/diesel. I am just tired of hearing the word pollution and the only pollutant mentioned is carbon dioxide.

 

IIRC, Well to wheels would be oil well to wheels efficiency. EV's 'well' is wherever the energy source originates from - coal mine, solar array, wind farm, etc ...or the combination. (I'm not going to read the analysis).

 

You should jump on the iMiev!

 

Sometimes, I get lost with your abbreviations...
What is IIRC? what is lol?

 

If I remember correctly and laugh out loud, well iifc! lol

 

That's what I meant.

You don't have to read the analysis, it's not compulsory.

 

Yep. Where's all the throngs of outraged mobs protesting (50%) coal powered 50" flat screens!

Instead, we focus on transportation . . . . that either burns fossil fuel, that in TURN was made from electricity, of which 50% ish of that electricity is made from fossil fuel ... OR ... in an EV we simply burn the 50% electricity made from fossil fuel.

 

Good question. Now, if only somebody would write a FUD article suggesting petroleum-powered TVs would be better for the environment.

 

As a representative of the outraged mob, I'll answer

I am very aware that my house runs on a mixture of solar, NG and coal, so I put in a fair amount of effort and money to decrease consumption of fossils and increase solar use. And in fact, the money NOT spent on an EV has decreased emissions of my house a LOT more than any alternative car to the Prius.

I think of it as 'green' bucks, but this is just simple opportunity cost analysis. It can also be expressed as a green dollar ROI, where the return is decreased emissions.
Solar heating before PV
Home conservation before (PV+EV)

 

Hill and Hyo Silver,

Its a matter of alternatives IMO.
In the transportation sector - a new source of energy is being introduced, it will be only natural to judge it compared the existing. Agree - all aspects should be weighed.
TV sets run on electricity, no other choice, so new technology (say Led lit LCD) can only be judged by its consumption compared to, say, CRT (and there is a vast improvement).

Giora.

 

After I've done those, it is THEN reasonable for me to power my car with sunshine instead of my Prius with gasoline?