Subscription Center
This Web-only article is a special rich-media presentation of the feature, "The Dirty Truth about Plug-in Hybrids," which appears in the July 2010 issue of Scientific American. The presentation was created by Zemi Media. Find all our other interactive offerings here.
June 22, 2010 | 134
See what we're tweeting about
David_Bressan #icanhazpdf ? on biogeo http://t.co/qXcRqRNzYl & http://t.co/WPfsXr7Mz0 david_bressan@yahoo.it
FlyingTrilobite Running thru Skydome. #jays https://t.co/Ibg4EmyUk5
BoraZ New cat is arriving on Monday night and I can't find his special food or special litter anywhere in the Triangle! Ugh!
Deadline: Jul 25 2013
Reward: Varies
This challenge provides an opportunity for Solvers to build a web-based or mobile “app” to explore data relationships in scholarly conte
Deadline: Jun 30 2013
Reward: $1,000,000 USD
This is a Reduction-to-Practice Challenge that requires written documentation and&
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
134 Comments
Add CommentBut from an engineering point of view it's easier to fix pollution and power production in one place (the plant) as opposed to 50,000 places (the cars).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is why we all need to switch to electric immediately. Then we can let the braintrust figure out how to actually solve the problem of clean energy at the centralized point of failure.
Also, they don't sit idling in stalled traffic with their enginees running.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've seen studies showing that even if you power an electric vehicle from the dirtiest sources (i.e. coal-fired plants), they are still significantly cleaner than staying with an internal combustion engine. Not to mention that plug-ins have the opportunity to work off of true zero emission technologies like solar and wind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with the overall conclusion that electric or hybrid vehicles are not nearly as "green" as they have been advertised to be. However, looking at region 13 (NW US), there is no mention of hydro or wind power, which now provides a significant portion of electrical energy for the region. It is also a region of great distances between points of interest and low population density, thus further limiting the usefulness of electric vehicles and forcing hybrids to run primarily on their gasoline engines.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting, but rather expected to all but the simplest minded. . really. Does anyone THINK it is ZERO? The energy has to come from somewhere?!? and most electricity generated is hardly "green".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBUT there IS a massive difference in Magnitude that can't be denied. So why quibble about more then but much lower normal grid power generation then the standard rather nasty , spread out and numerous emissions from normal gas guzzlers. . ..
Just like it is more important to move people to more modern cars with good gas mileage then move people that already have them to great gas mileage . . the change is greater on the low end.
On a nice day in Washington DC like today if all vehicles were plug in the electric grid would go deep black. I have a hybrid that does not idle when in sprawl traffic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn an H^3 day like today in DC the electric grid would go deep black if all vehicles were electric powered.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd Hybrids don't idle the engine when stopped.
I agree with the tenor of the comments so far. This reporting has a rather surprising naivete compared to what I am used to in SciAm. As taerog says, no one other than the marketing department at GM thinks that plug-ins are zero emissions. But past life cycle analyses of electric vehicles have demonstrated a significant net savings due mainly to the factor msp observed: concentration of resources offer economies and efficiencies of scale that outweigh the possible trade-off towards higher CO2 emissions from coal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps more alarming is what is missing. This is an "all other things the same" economic analysis. But of course they're not: adoption of plug-in cars would shift demand towards electricity and in any number of ways this would be expected to drive towards cleaner sources. 2% of electricity is generated from renewable sources today -- do we expect this to change? And of course there may be undesirable outcomes as well as prices shift to accommodate demand.
Finally, life cycle analysis has also considered factors beyond energy use and environmental impact while cars are running -- battery technology replies on materials that are pretty nasty, hard to get, and create their own ecological (and even geopolitical) issues.
So are electric cars perfect -- of course not. Are they better or worse? The answer is not as easily known as this somewhat fluffy piece implies. SciAm can do better!
That's a pretty pointless hypothetical. If magically every car in the DC area were replaced with an electric overnight, but no one bothered to also magically update your power infrastructure, then yes, your grid would go black.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder if rich people said this when there were ten cars in town and everyone else was still riding horses.
Make an electric car. Now don't use any dirty methods or polluting means to originate, fuse, and shape them. It can't be done. So this factor must be part of the equation of the green illusion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMake an electric car without using dirty power.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaterials -aluminum, plastic, cables, grease, steel, glass, all must come from dirty sources, and be melded by polluting means. Please factor this in to the dirty costs of making an electric or even hybrid vehicle.
Excellent job on bring up those questions no-one wants to be asked. The public has no clue. NPR just had a guy brag about not stopping at a gas station for years. I’d like to know his life cycle cost on his replacement batteries and the hazardous waste and its impact on the environment overall against other forms of transportation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have been involved with 40’ Diesel Electric Hybrid buses, including emissions testing. Watching and listening to all the promotions of reducing emissions/ increase of mpg /greener since 1999. My first thought about all electric vehicles was the batteries and basic physics. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed! Just changed! SO, I asked the question of how much pollution in life cycle is generated for an all electric battery powered cars or bus? That was a question that fell on deaf ears. Everyone is running out of the starting gate with their “green idea” without cradle to grave calculations.
Just with not getting an answer on that question, no need to go any further. The assistant general manager I worked for always stated, “we are marching into the future and experimenting with new technology”. So when you look at the latest hybrid coming out it is nothing more than another experiment at the cost of the consumer. Some technology that is discovered never hits the road because of practicality, life cycle cost or logistics. Yes we are advancing, but at the mentality of capitalism. Sorry to mention politics, but it’s the truth.
One last note, mandate all oil fired heating equipment whether residential, commercial or industrial to be fueled by ultra-low sulfur with particulate filters, that will put a dent in pollution. And squeeze every mpg out of our existing gasoline fueled vehicles.
PS I’m for the environment, but let’s be smart about it.
Interesting, but rather expected to all but the simplest minded. . really. Does anyone THINK it is ZERO? The energy has to come from somewhere?!? and most electricity generated is hardly "green".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBUT there IS a massive difference in Magnitude that can't be denied. So why quibble about more then but much lower normal grid power generation then the standard rather nasty , spread out and numerous emissions from normal gas guzzlers.
just like it is more important to move people to more modern cars with good gas mileage then move people that already have them to great gas mileage . . the change is greater on the low end.
Green is just a nice word that sells even the dirtiest stuff to gullible well intending consumers who want to feel good about themselves and their choices.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGO HYBRID GO, and make all electricity from renewables. Bye bye oil. hello future here we go.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTaught Environmental Science for over 40 years, hardest thing for students to learn was to solve a problem thinking like nature--in cycles and adding up the real cost of the cycles. We will never come close to balanced, sustainable living until all of our human activities are based on nature's cycles. Electric cars, carbon foot prints, composting toilets, etc. must be evaluated in how well they fit the cycles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNothing is pollution free. We don't have perpetual motion yet. The point is that electric cars can be a lot less polluting than their gasoline cousins. Of course there is also the compressed air car like the new Tata Motors unit soon to be available. And since we are talking about the future of mankind, would it be such a bad idea to introduce a car that lasts 50 to 100 years instead of 10 to 20? Perhaps a few laws that say you cannot live more than walking or biking distance from where you work, or that a car cannot be driven for private use, or that it must have all seats full? Ridiculous? Yah, ridiculous when the alternative is to simply kiss the species goodbye. Some very prominent scientists are saying it is already too late.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe dirty truth is gasoline engines in hybrids, that dont allow you to plug-in to clean renewable energy. OIL COMPANIES want you to believe this foolishness about dirty plug-in hybrids!!! How about just full electric cars instead? Review the commentary movie, Who killed the electric car. Large plants reduce pollution, and electric wind turbines, and other renewable, non-polluting power is more available on an electric grid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe dirty truth is gasoline engines in hybrids, that don’t allow you to plug-in to clean renewable energy. OIL COMPANIES want you to believe this foolishness about dirty plug-in hybrids!!! How about just full electric cars instead? Review the commentary movie, “Who killed the electric car.” Large plants reduce pollution, and electric wind turbines, and other renewable, non-polluting power is more available on an electric grid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLarge oil companies have created a corporation, they fund, and that corporation then creates its own Environmental Groups. The oil companies did this to fight and end California’s initiative on clean 0% pollution emissions for auto makers selling cars in California during the 1990’s. All auto makers had to produce an electric or hydrogen fueled car. They all opted for electric cars, see the document movie, “Who killed the electric car.” The Toyota RAV4 was originally all electric. These cars were on lease, and forcefully taken back from their owners and, some less than a year old, were stored, then when exposed, the cars were crushed and then ground up, leaving no clear evidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe can meet all our future energy needs through 2040 including all estimated grouwth with wind, solar, and other renewable non-polluting energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd then, there's Hawaii. Almost all of our electricity is generated by imported oil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTech-man, you are so wrong, and foolish, you need to look for the solutions to your problems!!! You sound like big oil companies. Listen up…..We get plenty of clean renewable energy from the Sun. And, we can use that energy to manufacture more pollution free devices, and to recycle old car batteries etc. Better yet, we can use electricity and water to produce hydrogen and oxygen for use in fuel cells and today’s combustible engines, the exhaust is water or water in the form of steam, no pollution, and use renewable pollution free energy to recycle and clean up our planet. And, I have good answers for all your energy problems, go for it, and oil is not the solution or banning cars, etc. You should talk to someone that knows like my husband who was a nuclear engineer, fast reactors are safer and better, and a temporary solution. And, he is educated in Astro-Stellar Physics as well. And, the P-P fusion is not the best answer, CNO catalyst fusion is the answer for the future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust need to expand the electric grid capacity and power production, look for the answers to your problems, oil is not it, and hybrids that burn oil products are not either!!! All electric, hydrogen fuels cell cars and hydrogen for your internal combustion (same technology as for natural gas) cars today. Renewable cheap electricity and water to prude hydrogen anywhere!!! Home or at a gas station. No more large gasoline tankers on the road.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe need distributed generation. Every electric or hybrid car should be sold with a home roof-top photo-voltaic array and a converter/regulator. When a car is plugged in, it can contribute to load balancing, and every array can contribute to the grid whenever the sun is out. Cars in their garages at night can be used to supplement reduced generation, and from a national security standpoint, decentralized generation reduces the possibility of power plant attacks. I wish the administration had taken the however many billion and done this first!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo these numbers compensate for the amount of energy no longer expended to manufacture (and transport) vehicle components that are not required for electric vehicles?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo these numbers consider future shifts in power sources? That is, while coal supplies 50% of US energy needs in 2010, what is its projected usage for 2020?
Transitioning to renewable-energy power plants needs to happen in conjunction with trading gas guzzlers for pure electric plug-ins.
Do these numbers compensate for the amount of energy no longer expended to manufacture (and transport) vehicle components that are not required for electric vehicles?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo these numbers consider future shifts in power sources? That is, while coal supplies 50% of US energy needs in 2010, what is its projected usage for 2020?
Transitioning to renewable-energy power plants needs to happen in conjunction with trading gas guzzlers for pure electric plug-ins.
Gawd, if we could be rid of the NOISE and the STINK and the FILTH we should go go it. Immediately.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave you added in to these statistics: all the Xtra trips for repairs, all the street cleaning from the fuel leaks and particulate matter?
The extra car washes, the junk food habits and driver habits?
Drivers of electric will be more conscientious, it could be supposed.The car habits are stupid and focusing on this without bringing in innovative transit solutions at the same time makes this article and its arguments and data unsustainable.
Where I live an older gentleman converted his chev sprint to electric a decade ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen I asked what he has spent on repairs since doing so, he said :Nothing.
Waiting about for GM and others to come up with high powered electric wastes our time.
Electric conversion kits are already available.
With conversion, you have the added bonus of recycled automobiles.
We are gearing up to gt government subsidies for these, and as a community, doing a bulk purchase.
Think inside and outside the box,eh!?
Another point about overloading the electric grid - the time of day when most of these vehicles would be plugged in is at night, when there is existing surplus generating capacity due to decreased demand from air conditioning when the sun goes down.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you really want to see how green these vehicles might be, you have to take multiple factors into account, including centralized power generation, life cycle issues (creation and disposal of batteries, for example), and comparison with the alternatives (like more ICE cars).
We could demand that oil companies offset their carbon footprint by subsidizing the manufacturers of electric or compressed air cars. Now couldn't we do that? It would give the oil companies an 'all warm and fuzzy feeling' to be contributing to the clean up of our environment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPoor article, below what should be published in SciAm, but no longer surprising, since I find myself wondering if SciAm has been captured by its advertisers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll mpg figures should be in gasoline equivalents. Freeways need a 45 mph lane ferociously enforced. We need a wartime level effort to get off fossil fuels. Freeways could be electrified for medium haul trucks. Short haul trucks should be hydraulic hybrid (already in production, and used in the military.
Rust Belt industries can make PV panels, windmills, hydro turbines, hot sulfur batteries for load leveling, transmission towers for a new grid, on and on.
What we have is nothing more or less than a failure of will. When things get desperate enough, we won't need to invent anything except bribery laws for corporate vampires bleeding our economic and political systems.
Where do you stand? With Palin? Drill, baby, drill? Global warming demands, by physical law, that we conserve and use renewables.
Comment
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisElectric cars can have a symbiotic relationship with distributed roof-top solar-cells.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe cells need bateries to supply power after hours and the baterries can use a local power source rather than coal.
Folks might not want to pay for large high performance batteries for their home power, but if it was part of a zero-carbon car, then the economics of both change.
Electronics can ensure the house won't run the battery completely flat, especially if a big drive is planned.
There will still be a lot of materials, energy and pollution making all those solar panels and batteries and cars and roads, but at least the carbon emissions are reduced. Walking and Cycling would still have a lower impact.
My EV gets 600mpg equivalent, my last and my future one got, will get 250mpge. Both cost to run well under 25% of a similar ICE including battery, electricity, ect costs. To get them I've had to build my own but they are inexpensive if a good designer and use available forklift EV drive parts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy Harley size EV trike MC uses a MC front end married to a hot rodded golfcart transaxle that gets 50mph and 600mpge. My cost is about $1/week for battery, electricity. Such a EV with a cabin could easily be built for under $6k if mass produced and get 80mph and 100 mile range on lead batteries. They can be recharged in 15 minutes.
Only 48% of US electricity is now by coal, a 20% drop from a few yrs ago and that is dropping fast. Soon little electricity will be from coal by the time any real numbers of EV's are online.
Oil only has another 20-30 yrs as a transport fuel, likely to be $8-10/gal in 5 yrs so we need EV's now or we are toast economically.
NG is good for semi's, but if used in a NG cogen powerplant an EV will go 6x's as far as it would running an ICE car on the same NG.
The EPA says even running on coal EV's are far more eff and cleaner than ICE's and on RE, hydro, nuke far cleaner.
As far as EVs leading to a "deep blackout", not when recharged at night when the grid's got huge surplus capacity. During the day they'd typically do the opposite of causing blackouts by providing grid load-leveling service via Vehicle-to-Grid, generating income for the owners in the process.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only thing "Green" are the ideas that Green is an "absolute" and that the idea that millions upon millions of gas guzzling cars that plug up the streets of NYC fouling the air we breath along with polluting us with tire, brake lining, dust and oil and grease residue can be compared favorably with the subway, that moves beneath them, uninterrupted almost pollution free in comparison.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thislet's talk "dirty"... OIL, COAL, now, those are dirty. SCIAM is so ridiculous, but, SHELL, BP, AND CHEVRON ADVERTISE with them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt took nearly a decade to come up with this obvious scientific truth. It looks that it would take another decade to highlight another truth that the batteries discarded from the AEVs pose a new environmental disaster. There are countries like India where any additional demand is to be met with thermal power, some activity is abuzz to popularize EVs that use lead-acid batteries. Normally it takes two decades for India to realize what others have already gone through. Some argue that electricity generated in high efficiency thermal power plants results in lower carbon emission compared to that of automobile engines. This is also false because when you factor in the Transmission and distribution efficiency and the battery charge-discharge efficiencies the overall thermal efficiency of the electric power used by the AEV and the gasoline power used by the conventional automobile would be the same.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaving said all this I must also say that use of AEVs results in shifting of pollution from thickly populated urban zones to un or sparsely populated zones which may be an advantage.
I have been unable to locate the DOE study referenced in the article and would be very grateful for a reference link. Complete contact information is on my contributor's page on Seeking Alpha
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFound it!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis whole argument is strange. There has to be a starting point. People seem to be trying to say, "it won't work" or "you're over estimating". Start by creating the cars that need electricity. We will get people used to the concept. Then, move the grid to cleaner fuel supplies to meet with growing demand. There is no way for the change to be made all at once and debating over which should come first, clean grid or electric car, is pointless. We need to start, not debate over the short term benefits.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUltimately a clean energy strategy needs to move away from fossil fuels. Step 1 - reduce cars dependence on fossil fuels. Step 1A - clean up the grid. Put them in any order or parallel, everything else is just electronic wind.
Many of the comments here seem to be based on the belief that the article is comparing Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles against regular gas powered cars. It is not. It is comparing them against base-line Hybrids. The argument made is that Hybrids can be mode efficient users of oil or lower emitters of CO2 than the mix of non-nuke and non-renewable sources of power on your grid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNor does it assume that all else stays the same. Click on your region and you will see an analysis of the source of grid power out to 2030.
The article seems reasonable to me and, as cool as an electric would be, this, if it remains unchallenged and unchanged would lead me to get a Hybrid for my next car - I live in "Greater Illinois".
The areas with the highest negative impact are suitable for wind generated energy. For these regions I propose a series of new, wind generated, electric grids, with an output DC voltage as required by these cars. Each grid would reach the garage of every household in its area, and would be partly and long term financed by each car buyer simultaneously with the purchase of each car.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy must we always assume that population will keep growing? Our dirtiest secret as a developed economy is still revolving around cheap labor and cheap energy. If, as a world leading culture we decided to reduce population, would not that almost automatically reduce energy needs and pollution?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@crankycello
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDitto.
The problem is the batteries stupid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSolution.... Use Capacitors.
The anwer is devloping the promising aqeuous fuel technology (I have patents on that) and then taking aqeuous fuel engines running 90% aqueous - ten perdcent methane or 90% aqeous - 10% heating oil.... to mass produce and
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisinstall on - site - in building, coupled co-generative power generation - heat and hot water systems.
VW has already teamed up with a North German utility< to replace heating units with coupled co-generative in single family buildings using a 4 yclinder rabbit engine - diesel or spark plug - running either heating oil - or methane - smart grid co-ordinated and installing it on a € 5000 euro leasing fee down payment to home owners.
By going aqueous, it gets even more interesting.
Aqueous systems are "the dark horse" in the current clean energy race but will emerge in full by 2012 at the latest.
We considered all the drawbacks of hybrid, plug in hybrid, and e-car in developing aqueous. (Aqueous systems are actually much cheaper to build, and very much cheaper to operate, thank you. Our systems are winterproofed.)
Thanks again for showing how hybrid, plug in hybrid, and e-car really are not that enviromentally friendly. (And they are much more expensive to build with a higher carbon footprint in production.)
TOO NARROW A VIEW
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a retired engineer with many years experience in the electric power industry and related manufacturing and construction businesses, I was very pleased to read Michael Moyer's article “The Dirty Truth About Plug-in Hybrids” (Scientific American July, 2010). It is time someone stated the real facts instead of just touting low pollution. However, it is my view that even this article is too narrow in its view of the whole “clean auto” conversation.
To be fully accurate it is necessary to develop the impact on energy, resources and pollution on a cradle-to-grave basis, or as I believe it is now referred to as “life cycle”. By this I mean to go back to raw material extraction, refining, production of basic materials, transportation, final manufacturing of all components as well as the actual operation and final disposal of any one vehicle. While I have no means to do this, I would venture that everything up to placing a vehicle on a showroom floor would outweigh the energy consumption and pollution for the rest of the vehicle's life!
If anyone has the ability to develop such an analysis, I would very much like to see the results.
John Ellyson
Rapid City, SD
The article is both sensationalist and confusing. I think there's some grain of truth in it but it's a mess to get at it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou who delight in how cheap your EV is to run: you aren't paying tax on your fuel; who will going to pay for the roads? There must be a new look at how you will pay your share.
There appears to be a blatant error in the author's assessment of energy sources. Here in California there is substantial power generation from renewal sources, including geothermal (profiled in the very same SciAm issue!), hydroelectric power, and some of the largest wind turbine fields in the country. Yet the author states that 99% of CA power is from natural gas. What is the explanation for this discrepancy?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe major error in this story is that there is no analysis of the carbon release of the gas refinement and transportation process for the fuel that powers the hybrids. Its a false comparison. If you are going to take it back to emissions of the fuel source creation for EV's then take it back to the fuel source for Hybrids (the gasoline part) too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExtent vehicles on the road have already used up their energy in the process of being manufactured. Build a green - power plant to drop into my machine while allowing me to keep my rolling parts & interior and all else.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's not that technically difficult to create a diesel hybrid or electric motor for the large auto makers - but it's not profitable. At some point soon profit will equal death wish.
j.quasimodo...i would love to see the real price of gas reflected at the pump...probably $5 plus a gallon....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince 'where you plug in' depends upon local sources of electricity, all that the map really shows is which states have the cleanest or dirtiest sources of existing electricity: Used already, for example, to heat and cool buildings. Wouldn't it make more sense to clean up the sources AND switch to electric vehicles?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWill somebody tell Andy Burnham that it's nuclear, not nuculer? PLEASE!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIF (and it is a big if) we can go towards a non-carbon based energy production, the all electric car will be much better than the plug-in or classic hybrids. What is a non-carbon electricity source? Solar, wind, and (drum roll) nuclear. We cannot ignore the benefits of nuclear any more. It will become a great source of independence from carbon - but only if we allow it to be.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen comparing internal combustion engines to 100% electric vehicles, the life expectancy of the car's engine versus an electric motor should also be factored in (i.e. oil & compression ring wear, intake & exhaust valve wear) as well as no oil changes, no catalytic converters (platinum metal refining), no transmission fluid (ATF-assuming 4 wheel drive configuration), and other factors. SciAm should have included an algorithm of many factors that differentiate internal combustion engines with electric vehicles. You should see the statistical analysis of determining the efficacy of a fertilizer or insecticide - it is one of the longest equations I have seen. SciAm readers appreciate more in depth knowledge - enlighten us please!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLooks like some parts of the U.S. need to start cleaning up their act huh?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe journey of 1000 miles begins with the first step. Should we stop looking at electric vehicle technology because the power plants are dirty today? If one places an artificial requirement that a new technology must be clean, top to bottom, on day 1 of its introduction, then we'll never make progress.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that plug in cars will be better in small cities like mountains cities in Switzerland. But in big cities like in New York grid may have too stress while plug in cars will be recharge.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy hobby is the study of energy since I worked in that field for 20 years before retiring. First lets discuss the type of vehicles we might see in the future and then our energy resources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't think it is really going to make much difference what we as individuals may want when it comes to vehicle types. When [not if] peak oil occurs and it will occur sometime in the not to distant future, then hybrids and electric vehicle will become the norm. When we can no longer keep up with demand for gasoline and diesel then automotive manufacturers will have to find other ways to keep our society moving.
I don't see anything on the horizon other than maybe some natural gas and/or bio-fuels which we could use for our transportation sector. It is true that we currently have a surplus of natural gas but that surplus could evaporate quickly once the trucking industry starts to convert from diesel fuel. Bio-fuels; the next logical choice; are being developed but we are probably at least 10 years away from being able to produce 100,000,000,000 [100 billion]gallons of that every year. Even if we could produce that much, is that really our best choice? I see bio-fuels as the next step for airlines.
So the only thing I can see left is electricity. Where I live which is a small town in Arizona, a car like the Nissan Leaf would meet 99% of my transportation needs. I can drive to any point in town and it would be less than 40 miles round trip. I will of course need something like a Chevy Volt, Toyota Prius or something like that for longer trips but even then these are what I call transition vehicles to an all electric future. I guess for longer trips I could easily just rent something for those annual vacations or longer trips I take 3 or 4 times a year. I will of course plug in to an existing outlet in my garage for all my transportation fuel.
One of these days we are gong to figure out that burning coal to produce electricity is barbaric. For heavens sakes, this is what we were doing in the stone age. If we are looking for ways to kill coal miners or give people black lung then I can recommend many more simple methods. But if this isn't our plan then what IS our plan?
Cap and Trade/Tax is not an energy plan. Nuclear power is not an energy plan. Wind and solar are not energy plans either. All of these are parts or pieces but none are a plan. We have had at least 6 presidents now saying we need an energy plan - have you seen one yet?
tomgarven@hotmail..com
]Tom G.
I demand to see the author's sources, especially the source of this statement: "In regions powered mostly by coal - a much dirtier fuel - electric vehicles will lead to an increase in the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI came to the opposite conclusion regarding coal-powered EV's. I collected data from the DOE and used AC Propulsion's T-Zero as a model for the EV due to the amount of data available. I concluded that an EV would emit 19% less CO2 than a 32MPG passenger car. I included losses for grid distribution and battery charging inefficiencies into my calculation. I would be happy to submit my paper to anyone who would like to check my work. I cited my sources properly, unlike the author of this slideshow. Clicking "Source" on the final slide leads to a "page not found error."
Fascinating. I think Union of Concerned Scientists and Consumer's Union lauded plug-ins because they come out ahead (even assuming the grid uses the dirtiest power source) versus regular engines. But pitting hybrids versus plug-ins and all-electric seems to be a different story. At the very least the push for hybrids is beyond reproach. That, and hefty carbon tax.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCorrection: Use of HIGH MPG hybrids ought to be beyond approach.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnion of Concerned Scientists need to revise their unequivocal endorsement of Battery Electric Vehicles. Indeed their comparisons are based on conventional engines: "Notably, even if BEVs are recharged with electricity from power plants that use fossil fuels, they are up to 99 percent cleaner than conventional vehicles and can cut global warming emissions by as much as 70 percent. "
I wonder who funded this overt attempt at distracting from the issue? Nissan have produced a car that runs on electricity. This is a good thing and hopefully will pave the way to many more such vehicles. The fact that those generating the electricity are not doing so cleanly is an entirely different issue. It CAN be done so why isn't it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPainting the Nissan Leaf as hiding a 'Dirty Truth' is irresponsible journalism. What we are looking at is a jigsaw puzzle. Nissan have replaced their 'green' bit, now its up to the power companies to follow suit.
Pedantic journalist idiots.
Note that the original article poses this question:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If I already drive a conventional hybrid, should I replace it with a plug-in electric?"
And provides the response:
"It depends on how the grid in your area generates its electricity."
If you, like the vast majority of drivers, drive a non-hybrid, gasoline powered car, this article tells you nothing.
Michael Moyer says: "...Let us hope that additional renewable supply will come online to power these next gen vehicles, but current inaction does not inspire confidence..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRenewable Energy won't do ZIP, 100's of $billions down the sewer , but Nuclear Fusion would cheaply supply the clean, green energy for Electric Vehicles. Too bad, we have Fossil Fuel Shills who like to downplay the potential of Fusion, since it sends shivers up the spine of their Fossil Fuel Masters.
The reason we don't have Commercial Nuclear Fusion, now is that practical Fast-Track-to-Fusion projects have received ZIP to NIL in funding. Instead money is misdirected to Giant International Boondoggles, like ITER, which will take decades, and likely never be practical. And NIF is well known to be strictly for Military Research.
Robert Bussard, actually described how to achieve practical fusion within a 5-10 yr timeframe, in a letter to Congress:
http://www.askmar.com/Robert%20Bussard/1995-6-6%20Letter%20to%20Congress.pdf
Fast-Track to Fusion options that get NIL Gov't funding:
Bussard's IEC Fusion:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/03/new-pictures-and-updated-goals-for-emc2.html
Focus Fusion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVif4hUAJ8c
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1518007279479871760&q=Google+tech+talks+lerner&pr=goog-sl
Super Marx Deuterium & Laser Fusion-Fission Hybrid:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/10/winterberg-compares-super-marx.html
Reversed Field Pinch Fusion:
http://www.sciencecodex.com/upping_the_power_triggers_an_ordered_helical_plasma
General Fusion (Shockwave Fusion):
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/09/general-fusion-will-leverage-computer.html
DARPA's Handheld Nuclear Fusion Reactor:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/07/darpas-handheld-nuclear-fusion-reactor/
Muon Catalyzed Fusion:
http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2009/10/05/the-new-cold-fusion/
LENR ( once called Cold Fusion) :
http://nextbigfuture.com/search/label/cold%20fusion
Kolic Spherical Plasma Fusion:
http://www.prometheus2.net/
Tri-Alpha Energy's Aneutronic Colliding Beam Fusion:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/06/tri-alpha-energy-nuclear-fusion-patent.html
Similar to Tri-Alpha, Helion Energy:
http://www.helionenergy.com/
The Crossfire Magnetic & Electrostatic Aneutronic Fusion Reactor:
http://www.crossfirefusor.com/nuclear-fusion-reactor/overview.html
Another Dense Plasma Focus Fusion System:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/01/another-large-dense-plasma-focus.htm
"In it, the authors attempted to model what effects a fleet of plug-in vehicles would have on regional power generation in the years 2020 and 2030."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave the researchers taken into account the possible future reduction in power generation from oil, natural gas and coal? If supplies of these sources are dwindling isn't it logical to think that the grid will be forced to use other fuel sources (eg. nuclear and renewable)?
The recycling aspects are not meantioned: lithium battery compared to the missing parts like the motor.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs usual in life the best temporary solution stays with compromises. The best to have for now would be an internal combustion engine(ICE) cum hydraulic-accumulator vehicle configured either in series, or in parallel. Hydraulics came of age this new millennium, and offer low-weight, high power accumulating-densities that are quite near the Li-ion battery, but at an incomparable longer useful-life, clean of electric-induced radiation, and cheaper. Such power-trains are compatible with over-night charging, do not need battery-exchange stations, are not they power-grid bound. Running at their least-pollution, highest-efficiency level their ICE could be of much smaller cubic-capacity than would have been necessary for an ordinary vehicle of like performances, thus less fuel-thirsty. And what's more; the technology is available now at a much lesser investment than necessary for pure electrics, or electric-battery backed hybrids. I suggest that SA would dedicate some space reporting on this old-new solution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article is seriously flawed! The author states that "nuclear and renewables are "always on sources whose "energy gets used up quickly for routine tasks, leaving little to no green energy left over to help charge a burgeoning fleet of electric vehicles." The author's point is renedered moot by the fact that most US states have renewable portfolio standards that require electric utilities to supply a certain percentage of their electricity from renewable sources. So, utilities will have to add a certain percentage of more renewables to their supply to account for the incremental electricity demand from electric cars
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI also think there are serious problems with this article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Even the worst coal plants in use today are 35% efficient, gas turbine plants are 65% efficient. Car engines are less than 20% efficient in converting fuel to mechanical energy. Electrical processes can be as high as 95% efficient. So making electricity in a power plant and driving electric cars (for any portion of their driving) has to be more efficient in terms of energy used (more than 30% well to wheels for electric cars versus less than 20% for gasoline). Coal produces about 15% more carbon emission per energy delivered than petroleum but coal only supplies half the current electricity (which varies by region, as the authors claim). So nation wide supplementing cars with electric energy comes out ahead. The authors would lead you to believe that this is not the case.
2. A plugin hybrid's performance is highly dependent on how it is driven. If the electric range is say 40 miles per charge and the owner only drives 40 miles per day, the car is essentially and all electric car. If instead it is driven 150 miles a day it is much more like a gasoline car. The author does not make this distinction (or some data is hidden).
3. If you want some help doing these types of calculations for yourself, Argonne National Laboratory has a free, downloadable spreadsheet that does well to wheels calculations for various types of fuel/engine combinations where you can change the parameters (how electricity is generated, etc.). Check it out.
The other factor is the design of the "cars" themselves. Weight is a huge problem. We need a single person transportation device that is weatherproof and light enough to maximize the range between charges - an electric trike in a bubble. Maybe 500 pounds max.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe GREET studies by Argonne National Lab provide overall well-to-wheel generating efficiencies for the US grid mix. The grid is 38% efficient, and the amount of renewable sources in that mix is a drop in the bucket. The DOE expects that coal will be a larger part of the total grid mix in 2030 than it is today, disturbing though that may be.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe often quoted 20% efficiency of the ICE is out of date. The Prius engine is 38% efficient at peak, meaning that it is somewhat more efficient than (and cleaner) than a coal-fired power plant. Granted, the Prius does not run at peak efficiency all the time, but it is much closer to that goal than a typical car. The engine in a GM Volt-like car ( range extender AKA plug-in series hybrid) can run at very near peak efficiency all the time that it runs (and is shut off when not running at peak efficiency). Such a car is comparably green when running on either gasoline or the grid mix, in term of CO2 emissions as well as traditional criteria emissions. There is not a lot of difference, environmentally, between the first 40 miles on grid-charged batteries, and the second 40 on gasoline.
The article is correct that electric cars are any thing but zero emission when viewed from well to wheels. Although some argue that it is easier or better to control pollutants at a power plant, this is in practice of little consequence: cars are remarkable clean in the traditional criteria pollutants, and the technology is well-proven and reasonable in cost. For CO2 emissions, the location of the pollution source does not matter global warming will occur equally with rural or urban, coal or gasoline generated CO2.
Electric cars are not a panacea, and are often marketed as being far greener than they really are. They are are a good next step, but we have a very long way to go before significant amounts of electricity are produced cleanly.
From: John Cragin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs unpopular as it can get, yet as logical as it can get , let's adopt the WW II slogan: "Is this trip really necessary." "Going" is partly Social and partly essential. I suspect we ' d do better to reduce usage in favor of absolute necessity -- Plus walking, bicycles, and tricyles for coincidental fittness.
FROM: John Cragin, July 5, 2010, Happy Independence !!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs unpopular but logical as this will sound: Cut down on travel. Most motoring and travel is Social and frequently not necessary. Adopt the WW II slogan: "Is this trip really necessary?" Think walking, Bicycling, Tricycling -- and enjoy the health benefits. Use the least auto at the least cost. Socialize with neighbors, Kith and Kin by USPS (mail), internet, or computer networking.
California is supposed to have 20% of its electricity from renewable resources now and 33% in 2020. Nuclear plants and wind farms generate electricity at night when nobody is using much energy - which is perfect for plug-ins. If it leads to a 50 to 60 percent reduction in polution (probably much more with new technologies).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is a huge plus - when you consider reduced imports (which helps our economy), less money to countries that fund terrorists and less oil production needed (for a cleaner environment). We are running out of oil and need to switch anyway. As the price of oil goes up, the savings from plug-ins will go up too.
Let's not forget that the efficiency of fossil fuel generating cars is damaged by having to mine, refine, transport the fuel. Electricity for a car can be transmitted via power lines.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyhow, there's a study that shows that even with "mostly coal" plug in hybrids beat combustion cars. As we transition to more renewables that figure improves a lot.
Pure Electric cars are better again.
Sponsored by Big Oil, who reminds you to check your oil, fuel with gas, and forget the EV1.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen consuming the energy from one central point, you save a lot of energy on transporting the fuel to all the gas stations, to fuel million of individual cars.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd eventually, since power plants are centralized, it should be fairly easier to replace them with nuclear plants rather than replacing millions of cars.
I designed three sustainable entries for the Create the Future NASA Design Contest that relate to your articel. Your readers might like to hear about them, as it deals with electric vehicles and energy conservation. Some groups think the USA may have electrical infrastructure problems this summer, these products could help alleviate some of the load on the grid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCheck out my entries, all can vote for a sustainable future, once registered.
http://contest.techbriefs.com/sustainable-technologies-2010/270
http://contest.techbriefs.com/consumer-products-2010/241
http://contest.techbriefs.com/transportation-2010/385
Thank you for your consideration.
Tom Miller
I think the stats in the map are skewed. I'm in PA and can drive to several nuclear plants... 36% of our state is powered by it. But NO mention above. Makes me question the rest of the numbers. http://www.energy.gov/pennsylvania.htm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy hybrid (2005 Civic) turns off in traffic, and in the drive thru! I bet thats where most of my gas savings comes from :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think in Europe they have (or had) a button to stop/start the gas engine and run solely electric at any time but due to emissions laws they could not include that button in the US. Things like that should change.
I agree with your comments about irresponsible journalism, and I, too, wonder who paid for this article. The title certainly is biased and misleading.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSource?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBasically, this article points out the obvious, but did it ever mention my (likely grossly incorrect) estimates of 70% efficiency in coal plants as opposed to the 20-30% efficiency of internal combustion engines?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI had never read anything alike. I used to think Plug-in Hybrids were the 100% perfect solution to emmissions and energy efficiency.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article is far from pointless. It may have its flaws, but it is the other side of the page, that will prove any of either sides right/best.
If we cling ourselves on one nice and comforting idea/solution, then how can we ever judge? If this article looks pretty bad, look for another one, and another one. If all of them look pretty bad, then it's probably a pretty bad argument. But you'll never know until then.
What about nuclear energy production in IL? Doesn't IL have a lot of nuclear power generating electricity? And the generation of which produces no green house gases. It seems that a very large source of energy is not even included in this analysis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you have Solar PV like I do it is as close to zero emission as one can get. "As close to" meaning I know there was some emission when my Solar modules were built and when those men came in them trucks to install my modules. At least it is better then doing NOTHING!!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUmmm... The car will sit 'idling' in traffic during cold weather (the heater) and hot weather (the Air Conditioning). Both are very inefficient uses of electricity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf is funny, but electric cars only seem to be thought about the same way a convertible is: as a toy not as real transportation in real weather or real traffic.
Upgrading the Electrical is another factor that is completely overlooked.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost homes in the DC area are wired for 100A service. The only current general production car, the Tesla, requires 70A just for recharging! The wiring inside your home would cost thousands. If every home has 2 cars you have increased the electric load from 100A per home to 240A per home! The entire electrical grid will need to triple in capacity, new buried cables, 3 times as many substations, etc.
"But they will only charge at night", which means that if you have a dead battery you cannot take your children to soccer or the Emergency Room or.... Won't happen.
Plug in cars are a cute idea, but laughable as they now exist.
Plug in Hybrids are more likely.
Relevant to my own research on electric powered "vehicles," I purchased the SciAm magazine (July issue) because of the very catalytic premise of this article... Also based on information from my contacts at Argonne Nat Lab (re batteries for cars), and at the National Renewable Energy Lab in Boulder, CO (hydrogen from windmills) this article is grossly misleading...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) It is obvious that for this entire nation to be totally converted from petroleum fueled surface transportation, the ONLY source of energy, in the long run, will have to be some form of breeder reactor generated electricity that more efficiently and securely consumes the atomic energy with the atom. Putting the carbon emission problem of coal as a relevant issue for the "Dirty Truth" argument which would/could prevent rapid adoption of plug-in hybrids is totally non-scientific. This article was way below SciAm's standards... shame
2) In the mid-term... research on generating environmental energy (solar/wind) to be stored in some form of battery (or chemical working medium like hydrogen) is looking very promising. Plug-in Hybrids will be purchased (leased more-likely) by "early adopters", who will be very environmentally focused.. with a STRONG probability of also investing in solar
energy capture systems (new forms of windmills/collectors). Hence, payback for their massive individual investments is likely to be based on FREE (environmental) electricity, rather than purchasing many gigajoules of AC from some remote power plant no matter what energy source is used. Specifically, locally converting wind to electricity for storage by individuals for subsequent use in a surface vehicle is the right way to view a total systems solution.
3) Coal is our most abundant and available real fuel, and hence it's used for supplying energy in the upper midwest where open pit mining is practical. We do NOT use Natural Gas here precisely because it is NOT as economical. The rest of the country uses Natural Gas because of its greater availability to those regions, and the cost of trans-shipping low sulfur coal to those regions is prohibitive. COAL however most likely will have carbon sequestering applied to existing power plants LONG before the majority of automobiles can be powered by batteries... (due to the high cost of electric propulsion and battery costs).
4) In the very short term, hybrids (of all flavors) will be subsidzed with cheaper electric rates for over-night re-charging. Increased electricity demand will pay for new energy solutions. It is that simple.
Appears to be a case of GIGO data, and therefore worthless. For instance, the chart shows the northwest as "84% natural gas," when in fact it is more than 80% hydroelectric power. (The Oregon governor has re-defined hydroelectric sources as "fossil fuels" to make his propaganda numbers come out the way he wants.) Also, the "interactive features" are pretty lame. The story would have read 10 times faster and more clearly as plain text.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe limitations on posting length makes me add the following to my own comments about the Article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is suicidal to think that the solution to this energy/economic/environmental crisis lies with more government regulation and/or research. Do you really want the politicians who brought you the banking and health care disasters to design a National Energy Policy which will kill the USA petroleum/coal/gas industries? Gimmeabreak.
As for the GM (the company now owned by the government and run by the unions) VOLT... they will sell as many as they can make (and that will certainly NOT be enough cars to make one molecule of change in atmospheric carbon emissions). I once wrote to then Co-Chairman Lutz, since I met him once, and explained that the initial "VOLT" design is flawed.. and he should put all GM/Government energies into VOLT- 2.o.. which would NOT look, or drive, or cost like a typical petroleum based car. RATHER, with strong DOE intervention/leadership, the proper use of tax dollars would be to design and build a hybrid (public/private) city transportation SYSTEM based on privately owned tiny two passenger electric vehicles (ok, call it a golf-cart or sub-Smart-car) that would drive from a residence/work to a local pickup station where the pod would be then connected to, or driven onto, a "TRUCK" like device that would be powered by any one of several hybrid power systems: be that Nat-gas to electric power if done tomorrow, bio-diesel to electric, or in the distant future Hydrogen/fuelcell to electric... powering the little street-train of comfortable, personal electric vehicles. Why try to drive a BIG "car" to a train station or light rail parking lot and then sit next to some public transportation drunken bum as you go to work? Basically, electric personal transportation must be approached from the ground up, because its cheaper, hence the first viable vehicles will be a form of battery powered scooters and carts. The "VOLT" is NOT the answer... Lutz heard that from me, and from other serious solution providers. (sorry for my typos)
Tell me how you are going to get heat on winter days, to even defrost the windshields, or Air conditioning on days of 100 + degrees in part of America? When that totally battery run car dies from a discharged battery, they what? How far will you go with headlights on. Wake up Americans, you are being sold a disaster, unless you will only use this $40,000 car to go to market for a 5 minute drive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article doesn't seem to factor in that plug-ins would plug-in at night when many generators are otherwise set at idle speed. Maybe I'm missing something in terms of grid distribution. I do know that in the Chicago, Il area, power companies have optional plans that provide lower rates when electricity is used late at night. Perhaps someone could speak to this seeming factor.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey Mr. president.. so we use the technique developed for Hitler's "people car"... (which had an air cooled motor in back of the bug)... they used a little gas-burning heater to warm the car... Better, an all-electric car could have a small campfire propane bottle for really cold nights... that sure works for tree-hugging, nature-loving environmental campers.. And on really HOT days.. the roof of the car will have photo-voltaics recharging the car as it sits in the parking lot at work. A trickle of that DC would be used to vent hot air from the car.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for defrosters... a much more efficient solution would be to have on the front window those little defroster wires we have on the back window.. instant heat to only the glass.. .works every time...
By the time we have a cheap all-electric car, we will have super-bright LEDs for headlamps.. they are orders of magnitude more efficient than old incandesents. Besides, who is going to be driving at night, if that is when they all will be recharging their batteries?
BUT you are right... the vast majority of electrics will NOT be priced at $40K... much more likely will be a $5K E-car from Tata motors of India... that is a two or three wheeled enclosed scooter (as seen on videos from impoverished Asia operating TODAY) for a single passenger (commute-to-work car)... the GREATEST energy waster in California is to have 30 million SUV cars on the "FREEway" to carry only 30 million people to/from work for 2 hrs per day. We can literally GIVE them E-scooters that go fast "enough" to keep up with rush hour traffic jams...and add the rental/lease costs to their electricity tax-bill. Also, instead of 401K retirement benefits, or healthcare benefits (including dental) the State of California can give its unionized employees FREE electricity to re-charge their e-dune buggies while working for the Governator... can't you see it now? 1984 plus 30.
See... Americans are not that stupid or asleep... the real problem is that the automotive industry is nolonger in DEEEtroit... and most of the lithium is found in China or South America.... we live in interesting times. Teach your kids the Mandrin language... to get a real job this century.
In a perfect world electric cars would be fueled by solar or wind plants , and no dirty plants would be needed. but since that isn't the case, and the power grid isn't up to the demands that would be needed i don't see any chance for this in the near future.. I agree that the one item that no one wants to talk about is the disposal of the battery's and the effect on the enviorment that all the greenies want to save, as stated by tomharrisonjy states above
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's nearly inevitable that the electric cars will drive investment in hyper-efficient solar paneling (cf current issue of Science, profile of Rogers).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRenewable energy that rides along with the cars, even if it only serves to replenish some small amount like 5-10% of the battery, is a massive energy savings that has no parallel in gasoline-power.
Besides which, there are any number of other systems in and on a the car that could be used to replenish battery power, with some technical ingenuity. Electric batteries are far more dynamic as energy reservoirs than gas tanks, and so their comparative 'green' properties cannot be underestimated.
This article should have been titled "The Dirty Truth about our Power Generation". Blaming the hybrids and plug-in technology is just barking at the wrong tree. Our daily household usage of electricity is order of magnitudes greater than the power used by all the plug-ins. And the article does not even mention this point! I would love to know the motivations (or affiliations) of the author of this article. I am disappointed to see such a lack of vision and such a level of narrow-mindedness (read lack of intellectual honesty) in such a great magazine. I wish the editors would screen this kind of entry!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article should have been titled "The Dirty Truth about our Power Generation". Although the facts presented seem to be correct, blaming the hybrids and plug-in technology is just barking at the wrong tree. Our daily household usage of electricity is order of magnitudes greater than the power used by all the plug-ins. And the article does not even mention this point! I would love to know the motivations (or affiliations) of the author of this article. I am disappointed to see such a lack of vision in such a great magazine. I wish the editors would screen this kind of entry!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is amazing to see how many of the comments in this discussion are based on feelings, impressions, and unverified statements. Please remember, if you cannot support your position using independent and verifiable data, this is just an opinion. You will NOT convince others with your opinions only: we need SUBSTANCE (read independent, verifiable data)! The amount of disinformation and distortion in the comments above does a real disservice to scientific integrity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThinkAhead... good points.. but I am sure you are aware of the ton of bogus science that has been going on for the last 40 years... Reminds me of what "art" is... if you call yourself an artist, and you did something.. then its called "art"... The guy who ticks me off the most is that Stephen Hawking dude and his latest bogus science written for the general public... The man was more wrong than right.. but he is promoted as a genius by his cult... sheesh.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlmost all science is now done with government or corporate money (including what goes on at most major universities) so the research results have to keep happy those who are paying for the grant submissions.. so there are almost no "independent" facts to debate on anything. As for scientific integrity, that is a very very rare unobtanium... you can't get published, and/or invited to deliver papers at your profession's annual meeting without playing the PhD personality game and one-upsmanship. Publishing that you verified the work of others might get you an award at your retirement party, but certainly no special dinners with the president.
For example, I have yet to read one credible scientific paper about the "good" side of global warming... certainly there must be some benefits to mankind of having Canada/ Russia/ Siberia/ Mongolia experience a dozen degrees warmer climate for their yearly average. Global warming's greatest effect is to vaporize more ocean water, increase the average moisture content of global air currents, which in most cases comes back down as rain (and yes snow) when trade winds hit land... The REAL global problem is a shortage of clean water. What better benefit can there be than to use global solar energy to desalinate the water of our oceans and move trillions of tons of pure water deep into remote continental land masses . Could not the Outback of Australia benefit from a serious rainy season due to changes in weather patterns? Sure, a few lowlands and islands will get flooded, those people could always move to higher ground and get a real job which they don't have because too much land on this planet does NOT have sufficient clean water... Science is now more political than the politics in Washington... Sad but true. Even SciAm is showing its political bias (don't remember that a few decades ago)... at times I like that bias, at times it makes me want to turn to folks who are not groveling for popularity.. I sure wish I worked for SciAm... they had so much potential for what the world needs, now that we have new mediums of communication
FWIW - This report is somewhat problematic. I live in NY and know that we get a significant amount of electricity from hydro. This is not included in the 'article'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Electric cars don't idle."..."Electric cars don't idle."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeems to be a fairly regular reply.
You know, cars with gas engines can be made to not idle when you take your foot off the gas. Gas powered golf carts have done it for years.
Just to note, they are not comparing to ICE cars, but rather hybrid-electric cars (not plug-in) ... they may be using 45mpg as their metric. Does this alter your calculations to their findings? I am truly interested & was also surprised to read their findings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs far as Canada getting warmer and supposedly that increasing more rain from the oceans ... Alberta (bordering Montana) has been in a drought situation for years, and I can tell you that in the Toronto area we have been noticing an increase in deluges followed by long stretches of no rain. So essentially, you may get an average of more rain, but more where you don't need it and at a rate that you can't capture/utilize it (causing more issues such as accelerated erosion, floods, etc). There really isn't that much to feel good about when it comes to global warming/CC
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne additional benefit to all-electric vehicles I would like to point out is the overall health benefit of not exhausting unburnt petroleum and other noxious gases in our cities streets. The quality of life benefit and the long term cost benefits I would wager, are more than a little significant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGoogle "healthcare costs associated with vehicle exhaust" to find a number of studies linking vehicle exhaust to health issues.
Is anyone familiar with any studies citing the costs of fueling our vehicles with petroleum?
Agree wholeheartedly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA new car: 420 kW 317km/h 20 lt/100km consumption.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat everyone need: 100 kW 100 km/h 5 lt/100 consumption.
Tecnolgy is here now, to reduce at 1/5 emissions of all gasoline car in no more than 2 years. It will be enough cut off speed limits, not indulge in edonistic high performances or SUV (car crash kills more people than cigarettes, what of the two is prohibited?).
Direct our efforts in insulating buildings, high efficiency in industry and economic plans to use roof based photoelectric and domestic wind generation. Electric / photoelectric is not ready for vehicles but is developed enough for static use. This may reduce energy needs by 20% using limited resources and investments.
I forgot: ban remote control and use REAL off / on switches in home electronics. About 1% energy saved.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCostco sells a solar panel with battery for $300. I'm not saying it will work for these cars but I'm sure someone will fill the need. Stop thinking the old way of buying power and collect your own. Maybe workplaces could provide a free charge when at work. Maybe when you park, you pay to park and charge your car. Be creative.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about the environmental impact of the manufacture and disposal of the batteries in these cars? Mining of lithium and other toxic substances required in battery manufacture has an enormous impact on the environment, not to mention the factories that process the substances and actually make the batteries. As far as disposal, I've heard figures as low as 3 years for battery life in these vehicles, then your battery needs to be disassembled properly and buried under the ground. How many batteries are in these cars? you can do the calculation. It adds up to a hell of a lot of dumped batteries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBoycott hybrids and push for water power ASAP, the technology is available, we will end up there eventually, I fail to see why we can't do it NOW and skip another environmentally dangerous technology.
The assumption that we can't count the contribution of nuclear and renewable energy, because their "energy is already spoken for", seems mathematically naive and logically duplicitous. If wind farm, solar and nuclear energy is already contracted out as soon as produced, that simply means less demand on the old non-green sources. Since renewable energy goes into the grid like any other source, powering cities like LA, how is it OK to say renewable is greener, except when pumped into electric cars?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdB... I fully agree... there is NOT much to feel good about, and that also applies to almost anything... having a job or not, foreclosures on you home, urban gunfire in almost every major city, etc etc. I am NOT promoting the idea that we SHOULD heat up the world via human activity... rather, is is very hard to do climate modeling that can prove definitively that there are positive effects (hence the topics absence from the technical record).. My comment was rhetorical to illuminate the scientific difficulty to nail it all down absolutely.. AND my point is that MAN, when he learned how to tame fire, and use his thumb, and run, he migrated all over the globe to find better weather and more food and resources to exploit (no matter what they are, be they diamonds, gold, or copper etc). As man modifies his environment, if the rain comes too quick and then disappears (as on the Nile river and in much of India etc)... technology is within his grasp to build resevoirs and pipes and canals (would there be a Hollywood/California if there was not Colorado Rockies water canaled to the west coast?)... We can do THAT, but we cannot put sufficient clean water in parched lands and all those deserts of the middle east... The trouble between the Israelis and their neighbors is not just political issues.. its about who gets the limited amount of water of theJordan... If global warming (made by man or by vibrations of our orbits about our sun or the galaxy's black hole) generated billions of trillions of tons of more fresh water to fills the skys, then some places will be more habitable than others (and visa-versa)... Simply stated.. we live in VERY INTERESTING TIMES (as proven monthly by SciAm.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's why anyone who thinks we should power elecric vehicals via fossil fuel plants is just a plain moron, or a stooge for big oil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNuclear is the only viable base load alternative, and it's far better than all fossil in every way. Far better for the environment, far better for profits. Renewables could make up the rest.
What if I grew the plant (which breathes CO2), harvested and cured it (using the sun), chopped and baled it (store energy), burned it when I needed it to create heat to make electricity, distributed that electricity to surrounding community to power homes and charge batteries, and repeated this process 24/7, continuously? What if we took that one step further and converted any Mixed Solid Waste including yours through our clean bio-mass conversion system in partner communities around the country. What if we also absorbed any excess CO2 in Hydro Farms raising fresh vegetables locally, year round, which reduces the biggest source of CO2 emissions i.e. tail pipe emissions transporting commodities to market. Just wondering.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe call it Evergreen Farms. You will call it Lower Cost Clean.
Sci. America - What If? 7.16.10
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat if I grew the plant (which breathes CO2), harvested and cured it (using the sun), chopped and baled it (store energy), burned it when I needed it to create heat to make electricity, distributed that electricity to surrounding community to power homes and charge batteries, and repeated this process 24/7, continuously? What if we took that one step further and converted any Mixed Solid Waste including yours through our clean bio-mass conversion system in partner communities around the country. What if we also absorbed any excess CO2 in Hydro Farms raising fresh vegetables locally, year round, which reduces the biggest source of CO2 emissions i.e. tail pipe emissions transporting commodities to market. Just wondering.
We call it Evergreen Farms. You will call it Lower Cost Clean.
It's quite obvious that the "doom-sayers" that are keen to dismiss the evolution of the Hybrid or plug-in generation, in the the statements and biased "reports" they create are, in no uncertain terms, in cahoots with the (now panicking) Oil and Gas suppliers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot so long ago, there was a clean, efficient Eco-Car that was mass produced, and quickly killed off for just such a reason. i speak, of course of the EV1 - created, and killed, by GM themselves.
This is an interesting analysis. But, wow, it's not fine-grained enough, it really should done at least on a state-by-state level. For instance, 90% of the electricity in Idaho is generated by hydro and other renewables, the percentage in Washington is about 80% for hydro plus renewables. In Wyoming ,it's 95% coal, and Utah's got a ton of coal too (so Wyoming, Utah, Montana, Nevada (oddly grouped in the NW, bring down the very high renewable energy totals in Washington, Idaho and Oregon)! Basically, your grouping isn't very helpful, and downright misleading in some ways because an Idaho reader might think, wrongly, that most of the electricity powering his or her plug-in comes from non-renewable sources. In fact, you really need to go all the way down to the individual utility level to find out exactly what you're plugging into with an EV.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisevery 250 miles to plug it in to wait for a recharge?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishow about using the braking system to create a constant charge system? First you need a decient battery system.
You also need a good guarentee. I you will createw this do it right! do not let honda or toyota or anyones else beat it out!
each year fix problems with the car. Most people buy forign
since usa forgot how to create a superior product.
mcoolj, you're spot on. Rarely is it mentioned what non-green methods are used to create all the battery power necessary to power the electric car. Add in the costs of mining nickel, copper, and lithium to make these giant batteries. And, finally, recycling them also uses up quite a bit of those precious carbon credits. They're also heavier than a car of similar size. And ultimately we're going to probably have to double our capacity to make electricity. Given the aversion to oil drilling, coal mining, and nuclear plants . . .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut what about the cost? Cost per mile to drive? The cost of the vehicles? Those batteries will not last forever. And don't forget the landfill costs of those dead batteries. Let's see a larger piece of this picture.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTheir logic is greatly flawed. First off we could use gasoline instead of coal to generate power if that is truly cleaner in producing energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecond, with smart vehicles we can use them to supplement peak demand in the middle of the day. Second, the utilities have to maintain a minimum current on the grid at all times. This energy is wasted if there is no use for it at a given time. The all electric vehicles would use this current that would otherwise be wasted (again assuming smart vehicles). Third cars are parked 90% of the time.
The bottom line is the utilities get more capacity without investment in infrastructure and they get to sell the base current that otherwise would be wasted.
As for the batteries, the technology is developing and will improve.
And like stated above it is more efficent to clean up a large power plant then a car. Plus even oil or gasoline powered electric generators are more efficient than the car because they can be continuosly operated at their most efficient speed unlike a car.
Sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute - Grin.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'll have our nuclear power plant offline so we can conform to the dirty coal without scrubber etc model the API scientists 'analyzed'. The Emirs, Fox News, and Rupert are pleased. Next up SA does the case for intelligent design. Clean oil burners for all - skimmed free via the Gulf.
How about the Tesla invention of transmitting electrical energy with out wire, all you would need is a antenna . this would make plug ins obsolete of course this would wipe out the wire industry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSolar thermal panels, wind farms, and hydroelectric generators all produce electricity during the night (which is exactly when most of these cars will be charged). The research in this article took these sources entirely out of the equation which is, at the very least, somewhat dishonest. I understand the rationale behind it (i.e. The marginal power needed in order to charge these new batteries will have to come from sources that can be throttled up or down depending on electrical demand). But that doesn't mean that the power that goes into the vehicle is coming from only those sources. This also puts these vehicles at a permanent disadvantage because as more wind and solar farms are implemented, by their rationale, electric cars will still be only powered by the marginal electricity produced (mostly) by coal and gas powered plants.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA solar panel on my roof takes 18 years to pay off in savings on my electric bill. Maybe longer if the installer creates a leak in my roof.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut if my electric car costs $0.75 / "gallon", it would effectively pay off the solar panel much faster. (Assuming other things are equal; lower maintenance paying for battery replacement, etc.)
It still wouldn't make economic sense for me to do so, because the electricity is still cheaper without the panel. But if you could figure that out and get everyone to buy a panel, then the only remaining problem would be storing the electricity somewhere (pump water uphill?) for car charging at night.
I hope the conversion to electric cars is slow, so the gasoline ones can reach their lifespan. As someone pointed out, it took energy to make the car in the first place. It pains me to see the CRT TV's going into landfills before their time because everyone wants a flat screen right now.
Can't read it on my ipad
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find a number of things troubling about the podcast and graphic (I don't subscribe to SciAm, so I didn't see the whole article).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1st, as many people have mentioned, everyone knows that "zero emissions" only means from the tailpipe, not zero pollution anywhere. But, even if the old saw about "just shifting pollution from the tailpipe to the smoke stack" were completely true in this case (and it's not), this would still greatly reduce NOx, o-zone, and smog in the most densely populated areas, and only marginally increase pollutants in areas where they already have power plants.
2nd, by comparing plug-in hybrid (PHEVs) to hybrids (HEVs), this creates a rather unfair comparison over today's vehicles. SciAm acknowledges, as a brief side remark, that PHEVs are better than non-hybrids, but as a nation that probably has only 5-10% HEVs, at most, it is misleading to talk about how PHEVs would be the same or dirtier than an alternative (HEVs), which almost nobody has yet. Further, most PHEVs do NOT REQUIRE that you plug them in. It is optional. So, if you live in a place with a lot of coal, don't use that option. However, you might sell the car to someone who lives in an area with cleaner power, and it would make sense for them to use that option. So, the car is more sellable for consumers, and it is more sensible for automakers to make one car that is marketable to many different people, even if not all of them use the plug-in option. The Nissan Leaf is not a PHEV, it is a battery electric vehicle, and doesn't belong in any of these comparisons.
3rd, I really question the model used that determined that all additional power for PHEVs must come only from fully dispatchable gas or coal plants at night. Even though wind power is mainly produced at night, they just shrugged that off and said "it is already spoken for" somewhere else. In other words, this is an accounting system that insists renewable just don't count. Even if a wind farm started up the second I was charging my PHEV, they say, that doesn't count because you didn't schedule it specifically to come on to charge your car. Their model is flawed.
What a disappointing article and group of comments. It continues to amaze me how people are constantly overlooking the essential destruction caused by personal vehicles. Regardless of how many MPGs you get, or what type of fuel it uses, cars REQUIRE labor, parts, roads, parking lots, and more. And how are these requirements provided? Energy captured from the flutter of butterfly wings? No. With lots of tax dollars, energy, and exploitation (environment, animals, labor rights...). What else have cars done? They have destroyed communities, alienated neighborhoods, torn down historic buildings, killed people and animals, contributed to sprawl, and monopolized people's income (you may not even realize it). Furthermore, not everyone can afford cars (particularly those fancy ones that save energy), so having a car is furthering class divisions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, saving some CO2 when driving your car is nice, but not that effective in the overall scheme of things. Actually, if you are saving that little bit of CO2 with an electric, hybrid, or other "fuel efficient" vehicle, you may be doing more harm than good: you are purchasing less gas, therefore avoiding the gas tax at the pump that funds highways and other road projects. But you still use those highways and road projects, so other program budgets are negatively effected to supplant your lost fees. Since your precious little road projects are "necessary," the "solution" is usually to strain public transportation programs. Like increase fares or reduce service (bus, LRT, etc), which is NOT good for people who don't have cars and depend on these services. Bike and pedestrian programs also get the short end of the stick, as these components are not deemed as important as private car needs.
Sure, energy efficient cars are creating a demand for more sustainable products in the market I'll give you that. But before you pat yourself on the back for plugging in your car, think long and hard about what it means to be sustainable in terms of transportation. Call it what you want, and power it with what you have, but a car is a car is a car.
When calculating the advantages of plug-in electric vehicles nobody seems to look at the other impacts of our use of gasoline. Asthma, soot, oil runoff, oil spills, construction costs of pipelines. A Japanese study from over 20 years ago concluded that people who live near intersections die sooner of emissions impacted illnesses than people who live mid-block, which increases our overall medical costs as a nation. There are microbes that live in wetlands near roads that have evolved to eat oil runoff from vehicles, which tells me a whole lot of it is flowing into our water. What do we pay to clean that up just to get the water drinkable? Or are we even doing that enough to prevent impacts to your health? Ever go into a parking lot or park along a road and see the spots of oil that drip from cars? Where does that stuff go, and how much of it would be there if the number of plug-ins increased?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you are doing a simplistic calculation based only on carbon emissions then you might think that they are not good for the environment. But simplistic calculations applied to our transportation system always come up with the wrong conclusions. From an environmental impact perspective, electric vehicles win hands down in my book.
Then you have to consider the impact of our wars for oil. Lives lost, entire countries bombed, families separated and destroyed. People exploited in developing countries for the elite to reap all the profits. So also from a social justice and the welfare of our species, they win hands down too.
Getting off oil is far more important than just as a way to reduce carbon emissions.
Even though Illinois has the dirtiest electricity in the nation, we have the option, and I take advantage of it, to get electricity from anywhere in the country (within limitations). I get mine from Texas and its green from windmills. Texas! Texas! The place where they can't count to three has some of the greenest electricity on the planet. So, when I get an electric car, theoretically I'll be green. I guess this makes the chart pretty much invalid, at least for Illinois.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this