The Study I've Been Waiting For: UCS on EV Costs, Emissions

[Boomer23]

We've talked a lot here about EV charging costs and emissions versus hybrids and ICEs across US regions. Finally here is a study from the Union of Concerned Scientists that appears to be definitive on the topic. I also found it fun to read because it specifically looks at costs and emissions to drive a LEAF, a Volt and a Mitsubishi i in each region and with each utility, and it focuses on advice for consumers in choosing vehicles and electric rate plans.

The UCS titled the study "State of Charge: Electric Vehicles' Global Warming Emissions and Fuel Cost Savings Across the United States".

The ABG story about the study: http://green.autoblog.com/2012/04/16/ucs-no-matter-where-you-live-driving-electric-saves-money-emi/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The UCS story about the study: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/technologies_and_fuels/hybrid_fuelcell_and_electric_vehicles/emissions-and-charging-costs-electric-cars.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The UCS pdf of the study itself: http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/electric-car-global-warming-emissions-report.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nearly half (45 percent) of Americans live in BEST regions—where an EV has lower
global warming emissions than a 50 mpg gasoline-powered vehicle, topping even the
best gasoline hybrids on the market. Charging an EV in the cleanest electricity regions,
which include California, New York (excluding Long Island), the Pacific Northwest, and
parts of Alaska, yields global warming emissions equivalent to a gasoline-powered vehicle
achieving over 70 mpg.

 

[surfingslovak]

Thank you for starting the thread Boomer. I posted a NY Times article earlier, which made a reference to the report. To keep this on topic, here is a related news story:

Renewable sources of energy such as solar and wind have been outstripping the electricity supply of traditional baseload (coal, nuclear, and some natural gas) power plants during daytime, especially afternoons, in some renewable-leading countries of late. One reason for this is: electricity demand tends to increase during the sunniest (the hottest) hours, and solar power plants generate more electricity when it is sunnier, which is right on cue.

http://bit.ly/zeroenergycost" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[Boomer23]

Ah, thanks. I didn't see a new posting with this topic. Well, the more widely discussed, the better, I guess.

 

[Hedge74]

Thank you for starting the thread Boomer. I posted a NY Times article earlier, which made a reference to the report. To keep this on topic, here is a related news story:

Renewable sources of energy such as solar and wind have been outstripping the electricity supply of traditional baseload (coal, nuclear, and some natural gas) power plants during daytime, especially afternoons, in some renewable-leading countries of late. One reason for this is: electricity demand tends to increase during the sunniest (the hottest) hours, and solar power plants generate more electricity when it is sunnier, which is right on cue.

http://bit.ly/zeroenergycost" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Except your link in that topic points you to the second page of the article the reference is made on the first page. I didn't notice it was a 2 page article the first time I read it.


Hedge

 

[NYLEAF]

"Excluding Long Island"? What'd we do wrong?

 

[surfingslovak]

Except your link in that topic points you to the second page of the article the reference is made on the first page. I didn't notice it was a 2 page article the first time I read it.

Indeed! I fixed the link, thank you for pointing it out.

 

[planet4ever]

"Excluding Long Island"? What'd we do wrong?

You tell us. According to the report, you are pumping out about twice as much CO2 per kWh as the rest of the state. Burn a lot of coal out there, do you? Or maybe refuse to import "radioactive" electrons?

 

[Smidge204]

"Excluding Long Island"? What'd we do wrong?

You tell us. According to the report, you are pumping out about twice as much CO2 per kWh as the rest of the state. Burn a lot of coal out there, do you? Or maybe refuse to import "radioactive" electrons?

Natural gas, actually. The NIMBYs on the north shore didn't let the Shoreham nuke plant go online despite already paying $6B for it back in the 80's, and those same asshats are (or were?) trying to get Connecticut's plant shut down because it's right across the sound. Same people are preventing the offshore wind power too.

In other words, what we did wrong was not lynching all the multimillionaire pricks who live on the north shore.
=Smidge=
/Slightly bitter Long Island resident...

 

[defiancecp]

Wha??? My part of Arkansas is in the "best" part? that's pretty shocking... Trying to understand why; I thought my area was driven by a lot of coal. Guess the cng boom is improving things from a global warming pollutant perspective? If that's the upswing, still not sure it's worth all the negatives...

*edit* - just looked it up again, ~52% coal, 20% nuclear, 20% natural gas, and a smattering of other...

 

[DaveEV]

Wha??? My part of Arkansas is in the "best" part? that's pretty shocking... Trying to understand why; I thought my area was driven by a lot of coal. Guess the cng boom is improving things from a global warming pollutant perspective? If that's the upswing, still not sure it's worth all the negatives...

*edit* - just looked it up again, ~52% coal, 20% nuclear, 20% natural gas, and a smattering of other...

Since the report uses data from 2007, the effects of the natural gas fracking boom aren't in the report. Emissions across the board are likely lower. Coal is down about 5% across the US from 2007 to 2011, IIRC, in certain high coal areas I'm sure the percentage is down even more.

 

[edatoakrun]

Haven't had the time to read the pdf report yet.

But the summary report below, in the SF Chronicle (of all places!)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/04/16/BU5L1O44PP.DTL" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Seems a pretty good article, for the newly-formed SCEVO to hand out at:

http://wholeearthandwatershedfestival.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm planning to blow up the map, as a poster.

 

[dznit]

West Texas wind has scooted us along 10,000+ miles on our Leaf!

 

[Hedge74]

Look at how they can spin it. While what they say is true, they down play the facts that many of the best areas can beat out cars with well over 55 MPG. they Also do not post a link to the study so readers can find out what it actually says.





http://autos.yahoo.com/news/hybrids-can-be-less-polluting-than-coal-powered-evs.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[Boomer23]

Look at how they can spin it. While what they say is true, they down play the facts that many of the best areas can beat out cars with well over 55 MPG. they Also do not post a link to the study so readers can find out what it actually says.





http://autos.yahoo.com/news/hybrids-can-be-less-polluting-than-coal-powered-evs.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's a nice quote from an email responder to that Yahoo article. Very well reasoned, I thought: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Actually, Diesel is cleaner than Hybrids or EVs same with gasoline, sure it permits CO2 but it's not 35,000 volts in the vehicle battery that can emit acid or cells and use up a ton of coal in the battery when taken apart. Plus you don't have to go to the dealership to get your oil changed if your a mechanic and the fact that you do with a hybrid or electric. I'll stick with Gas and Natural Gas thank you very much. And the fact of owning a hybrid, you are still using as much gas as everyone else.

 

[kubel]

I'm not an expert in this, so correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't most coal plants considered base load power plants (thus their CO2 production doesn't fluctuate a whole lot whether on peak or off peak)? It was my understanding that it's because of this excess capacity that utilities are able to offer low "off peak" rates (to encourage the use of electricity when they have extra capacity). But during the day when businesses and factories are running and people turn on their AC, the demand exceeds the capacity of these base load plants, so they crank up their peak / load balance plants (like the natural gas plant they build 4 miles from my house specifically for development of my subdivision)- which costs quite a bit more money.

If this is all true, did this study take into account the fact that most EVs charge on off-peak hours, and thus use up the excess capacity that would otherwise be wasted?

Again, I'm not a power plant engineer, so maybe my understanding of their fundamental operation is total BS. But if it's not, wouldn't this further increase the efficiency of electric vehicles- in a way they sort of act as regenerative braking to the grid- making efficient use of what is otherwise wasted energy.

 

[lpickup]

Again, I'm not a power plant engineer, so maybe my understanding of their fundamental operation is total BS. But if it's not, wouldn't this further increase the efficiency of electric vehicles- in a way they sort of act as regenerative braking to the grid- making efficient use of what is otherwise wasted energy.

I'm not either, so same caveat applies.

I think you have it right though, but I arrive at the opposite conclusion you do.

Because coal power is the base, that's what will be supplying the power off-peak, so if anything the overall energy mix is going to be even MORE coal dominated during the off-peak hours.

Now maybe what you're saying is that the coal base exactly equalled the pre-EV off-peak demand (or maybe was slightly under) so that post-EV additional peaking plants (including the expensive NG plant you mentioned) need to be brought online to charge our cars. I have no idea if this is the actual scenario.

On the other hand, I also don't think it's valid to start making assumptions about the "post-EV" time period (defined as when there are significant numbers of EVs on the road producing a significant amount of power draw) using TODAY's electrical generation portfolio mix. We ARE headed towards a greener mix, so as more EVs come on line, hopefully the grid is getting cleaner at the same time.

 

[kubel]

Agreed, but I think until EV adoption fills the off-peak dip in the sine wave of demand, my guess is that even if 100% of baseload plants are coal, EVs still primarily rely on that off-peak electricity (which I understand as and read as "otherwise wasted electricity").

In other words, if the coal power plant that powers my LEAF is going to be shoveling in the same amount of coal and pumping out the same amount of CO2 every night regardless of whether or not my LEAF and dozens of other EV owners are plugged in, how can we count that against EVs? We really can't unless our demand requires them to actually produce more CO2, which isn't likely to happen until there are many more electric cars on the roads.

But with all that said, I never intended to buy a LEAF for environmental reasons (I guess I'm sort of unique here). My gas car gets 17MPG average and I honestly have very little guilt about my massive carbon foot print. The only guilt I feel is that I'm sponsoring the oil industry and foreign wars of aggression. But mostly it's the guilt of knowing that I'm spending the same amount of money being a late conformer than being an early adopter. My current car doesn't even have cruise control, so it's not exactly technologically advanced. :shock:

 

[Stoaty]

But with all that said, I never intended to buy a LEAF for environmental reasons (I guess I'm sort of unique here). My gas car gets 17MPG average and I honestly have very little guilt about my massive carbon foot print. The only guilt I feel is that I'm sponsoring the oil industry and foreign wars of aggression.

It doesn't matter whether you feel "guilty" or not. It only matters if you take action to decrease your carbon footprint (the Leaf certainly qualifies, especially if you power it with renewable energy) and vote for candidates/policies to decrease the carbon footprint of your state/nation.

 

[LEAFguy]

Agreed, but I think until EV adoption fills the off-peak dip in the sine wave of demand, my guess is that even if 100% of baseload plants are coal, EVs still primarily rely on that off-peak electricity (which I understand as and read as "otherwise wasted electricity").

kubel, the flaw in your thinking is that it is "otherwise wasted electricity". Even base load plants do not operate continually at 100%. Power is produced based on need, which is why peaking power plants are needed. They come on line when demand is greater than supply of the base load plant. But if demand is less than what the base load plant can produce, it produces only that amount. Unneeded electricity is not produced and "dumped".

 

[padamson1]

<big snip>...
But if demand is less than what the base load plant can produce, it produces only that amount. Unneeded electricity is not produced and "dumped".

True. However in the case of nuclear power plants (as noted in other threads) the reaction rate change has a long latency, so either excess electricity is put in the grid or the steam bypasses the generators and is vented. So with nuclear power there is significant excess energy of some sort that could be used to charge EV's basically for free.