A new study finds the Chevy Volt and electric vehicles like it stack up differently on carbon emissions depending on how and where they are charged.
Image: Flickr/MSVG
More In This Article
When it comes to cost and global warming emissions, electric vehicles in the United States lead double lives, according to a new study by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).
An all-electric Nissan Leaf in Buffalo, N.Y., emits relatively few greenhouse gases, equal to the amount produced by a gasoline-powered car getting 86 mpg. But in Denver, the same Leaf is equivalent to only a 33-mpg vehicle, such as a subcompact Ford Fiesta.
The degree to which electric vehicles, or EVs, affect the climate depends on the whether they're charged by power plants running on fossil fuels or cleaner energy sources, including solar, wind, nuclear and natural gas.
With many of these new, highly efficient cars now on the market, including the General Motors Co. Chevrolet Volt, Ford Focus Electric and Toyota Prius Plug-in Hybrid, consumers may want to know just how much they'll be saving in fuel and carbon dioxide emissions by driving an EV in their area.
In breaking down the United States region by region, the group concluded that 45 percent of Americans live in areas where EVs emit lower levels of greenhouse gases than a conventional 50 mpg vehicle. That puts them ahead of even the most efficient gasoline-powered hybrids.
Another 37 percent of the U.S. population lives in areas where EVs have emissions similar to those of a vehicle with a 41- to 50-mpg rating, such as the popular Toyota Prius.
"This report shows drivers should feel confident that owning an electric vehicle is a good choice for reducing global warming pollution, cutting fuel costs and slashing oil consumption," said Don Anair, the report's author and senior engineer for UCS's Clean Vehicles Program.
"Those in the market for a new car may have been uncertain how the global warming emissions and fuel costs of EVs stack up to gasoline-powered vehicles. Now, drivers can for the first time see just how much driving an electric vehicle in their hometown will lower global warming emissions and save them money on fuel costs," he said.
Even in parts of the country where coal makes up most of the electricity supply, EVs produce the same amount of greenhouse gases as the best gasoline-powered nonhybrid vehicles that get about 33 mpg.
Cost savings of EVs don't come quickly
Unlike an internal combustion engine vehicle, "an EV purchased today can have lower global warming emissions as it gets older," said Anair.
As the nation's aging power grid is upgraded with cleaner energy sources -- spurred by federal and state-level regulations on air pollution, renewable portfolio standards and tax credits -- the emissions profiles of EVs across the country are expected to improve.
The study finds that by 2020, the greenhouse gas emissions intensity of electricity generation in certain areas will have improved by as much as 30 percent over 2010 levels.
Like fuel efficiency, the cost of electric cars is also tied to the grid.
Based on electricity rates in 50 cities across the United States, UCS researchers found that EV owners could save $750 to $1,200 per year compared with operating the average new gas-powered car with fuel at $3.50 per gallon.
But saving enough to overcome the upfront cost of an EV takes time. The automotive research website Edmunds.com found that even if gas prices hit $5 per gallon, the payback period for the Chevrolet Volt would take nine years compared with a same-size gas-powered vehicle.
EVs good on emissions, cost and national security
For business and military leaders who met yesterday at the Hudson Institute, the real savings from EVs come at the national level.
See what we're tweeting about
20 Comments
Add CommentNot so good if you live downwind of the electric generating plant providing the juice for such batteries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI hope the folks at Climatewire haven't only now discovered that in most areas electric vehicles are effectively powered by coal incineration, but I fear this is not the case. I guess it's never too late to inform the unwashed masses...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot to mention the appalling polution from low standards used in China for the rare earths extraction necessary for the battery construction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a matter of fact you are NOT allowed to mention it. All that happens out of sight of the main stream media and so officially that does not happen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm amazed at the right wing crowd who can read this article and still be critical. It states 45% are BETTER than 50 mpg vehicles; another 37% are equal to 41 to 50 range. This only leaves 18% of the country where it in the 30+ mpg range, which even that is not bad.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat the article does not take into account is the electric vehicles normally charge overnight. The power companies waste electricity at night since power stations cannot be shut down. Enough energy is wasted at night to power 3 times the amount of cars in this country if every car was electric. This should be factored in.
Also, it's much easier and efficient to clean pollution at a single source, such as a power plant, that it is at millions of points (cars).
Also, changing to electric cars is a step in the right direction towards cleaner energy sources. Though they may be charged by coal today, tomorrow they may be charged by solar or wind. Gas cars can't do that.
Environment aside, China and India economies are growing rapidly and adding millions of cars to the roads each year. Gas is only going up. Perhaps the right wing is happy being at the mercy of big oil and like to complain about gas prices. I prefer to chuckle as I drive past the gas stations every day.
A good case, although it remains to be seen how many cars will be charged during the day - I assume that the acknowledged requirement for public charging stations is driven primarily by expected daytime charging demand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't have the details, but since most electricity is remotely generated, most must be transmitted long distances, suffering power losses along the way. Of course, transportation of gasoline also requires energy, but it's not leaking all over the environment.
My main objection to your comment is, like so many others, you erroneously categorize any critical commentators as "right wing" or deniers, etc. Consider that this article is intended to explain that not all EV use is environmentally 'friendly'. As Carlyle points out, production of electric vehicles is hardly 'clean'.
The amount of carbon released by coal-fired electric plants to provide power to charge an electric car is just a tiny fraction of the carbon directly produced by a even a 4-cylinder combution engine in a comparable vehicle. ...And that doesn't include the considerable amount of polutants produced by gas refineries, oil exploration and pumping, transportation and distribution of oil, manufacturing and transportation of parts (way, WAY more parts required by combustion engines than electric motors) fluids, and other consumables that electric cars do not require.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyone who honestly believes that the carbon footprint of an electric car is even close to being equal to our dominant gas-monsters, is only looking at the most crude and (conveniently) superficial numbers...
By far the greatest thing that can be done for the environment is to push forward with nuclear power generation. This in turn would provide the practically unlimited clean energy that could be used for things like battery charging or induction coils embedded in roadways, electric trains, walkways, hydrogen gas & synthetic fuels, fertiliser & myriad other things.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, gasoline cars are not so good if you live near a busy intersection, highway or basically any road. Please think before spouting off pre-packaged talking points.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, so you only care about environmental issues when you can use use fake problems to bash solutions that don't agree with your beliefs, right? If you were REALLY concerned about mining waste, you'd realize that the tar Sands in Canada produce orders of magnitude more waste than rare earth metal mining. Or how about the Exxon Valdez-level oil spill happening continuously in the Niger River Delta? Or what about Deepwater Horizon messing up the Gulf of Mexico. Like I say, please think before regurgitating pre-packaged talking points.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNuclear plants are too expensive and the industry implosion in the 1980s is all the proof you should need. Even today, with the Price Anderson Act eliminating the need for the nuclear industry to get adequate liability insurance for the level of damage a meltdown could cause, and the technological legacy of the Manhattan Project providing much of the know-how for light water reactors, loan guarantees, production tax credits, streamlined permitting from the NRC and being able to bill utility customers Billion$ before reactors crank out even 1 electron, these reactors are $5B - $7B a pop. I don't even want to know what the unsubsidized price of these reactors are...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd before complaining about subsidies to renewable energy, the value they provide by preventing pollution in the first place is probably an order of magnitude or two greater than the paltry subsidies they receive. Since fossil fuels don't have to pay for the burden their pollution imposes on society, subsidizing clean energy is the LEAST we can do.
You (conveniently) didn't provide any numbers, either...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUsing information contained in the referenced web site, which focuses on the greenhouse emissions by electrical power plants for each state by population:
* 55% of the U.S. population lives in areas where EVs [indirectly] produce emissions comparable to the best gasoline hybrid or the most fuel-efficient non-hybrid gasoline vehicles (31 – 50 mpg).
These areas include the Midwest, central plains and most of the Southern states. Only electricity produced in the Northeastern corridor and the Western states (45% of the U.S. population) "produce lower global warming emissions than even the most fuel-efficient gasoline hybrids on the market today (greater than 50 mpg)."
However, these are only "the most crude and (conveniently) superficial numbers," as you say. State population is not the most critical factor in replacing miles driven (greenhouse emission production) by gasoline powered cars.
Much of the population in the Northeastern corridor do not own cars or use them infrequently, whereas the per capita number of miles drive in the central and Southern states is generally higher.
Since EVs are currently provide only a limited driving range, the greatest opportunity for maximizing the miles driven by the potential number of EVs likely to replace gasoline and hybrid cars in regions with low emission electrical power plants is most likely to be concentrated in California and the Northwest states. This should not be a revelation to even casual observers. The long distance commutes of many California drivers may require the largest investment in public charging stations and peak period daytime demand for electricity.
Personally, I'll minimize my greenhouse gas emissions by severely limiting my mileage driven, maintaining my current car and refusing to buy any newly manufactured car.
I have advocated the use of nuclear generated steam for oil extraction from tar sands instead of burning approx 30 percent of the fuel for the extraction process. Nothing is going to stop extraction of oil, coal & gas so lowering the use of these fuels where nuclear can substitute is a practical means of lowering waste & pollution. Touchy feely programmes are never going to work & worse, delay introduction of an energy source that is cleaner than any of them. You well know from previous posts that this is my position. Only when you ignore economic & environmental facts as well as applying huge subsidies do you come any where near a viable price for alternative energy. This will unleash your usual blizzard of false claims for the alternative energy industry but they never back up their projected costs with actual data once they spend our billions & their schemes do not deliver. The world is waking up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou've NEVER provided ANY proof that renewable energy isn't viable. I know your opinions are based on emotions when you project these "touchy feely" vibes onto technologies you do not agree with. If you want proof as to how viable renewable energy is, look at Germany. They generate over 20% of their electricity with renewable energy and they are one of the fastest-growing OECD countries. Shutting down their nukes will enable them to put even MORE clean energy on their grid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLook, if you can honestly say you've looked over the facts and came to your conclusions, then that's fine. If you can honestly say that you're open to new information that may cause you to reevaluate your positions, then that's better. However, please post some actual debatable FACTS that we can discuss instead of "touchy feely" assertions.
You are the advocate. Give us some figures. For example projected output as against actual output of any major solar or wind facility over say a five year period. Actual verifiable official peer reviewed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article is filled with falsified information taken from Faux News and the Detroit's big three. First: An EV, all electric vehicle, does not have a gas tank or tailpipe and they do not PRODUCE pollution. That pollution, this article speaks about, has already been PRODUCED by the coal, oil, natural gas or nuclear power plants. Second: The Chevy Volt is not an EV, it is a hybrid that has a gas tank and tailpipe and that gas engine PRODUCES pollution. Third: Nuclear is not a clean energy source, if it was, then you would not have to store radioactive waste anywhere; radioactive waste is a pollution, and a very dangerous one at that. Fourth: Before GM (General Motors) jacked the price of the Volt up to $45,000.00, all EVs (all electric vehicles) were priced under $25,000.00 (do some research on Green Cars.com and Hybrids.com) because it takes a lot less to build an EV than it does a hybrid or all ICE vehicles. Fifth: EVs (all electric vehicles) do not have to be charged from the grid. General Electric, check on this website, has a solar park that has 40 solar powered super charge stations that can quick charge 13 electric cars at a time in less than 30 minutes and the remainder of the electricity goes back into the grid, so EVs are actually beneficial to the grid in returning unused electricity to the grid when they are not charging, thus lessening the need for fossil fuel burning power plants, thus, lowering pollution. Sixth: Republicans are incredible stupid people when it comes to the environment or anything that benefits the American people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat I do not understand is why there are no options to buy an eco-friendly charging system when you buy the car. If you are going to charge it all night, a wind powered system would lower the dependance on the grid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you have to park in the sun at work, solar cells imbedded in the roof, hood and trunk tops could add charge to the battery without the need to connect to the grid. That may not be enough to fully charge the car during the day but it should extend the range somewhat.
I do think having the option to buy alternative charging options would help further the industry.
Once again sault spouting the same drive over and over again. No matter how many times his arguments are destroyed he just ignores that and keeps repeating the same proven false garbage. The man doesn't have an honest bone in his entire body. The environmentalist George Monbiot has been complaining about just those Sault type Greenies - the enemies of Science - you can't reason with such individuals, they just ignore all arguments and keep repeating falsehoods in a hope that people will be gullible enough to believe - truth by repetition. Kinda like Big Oil's non-stop, irritating commercials - basically saying Be Happy, Don't Worry, Everything is fine, Oil & Gas are wonderful, we will never run out, believe us, we wouldn't lie, no not us, we only tell the truth. Sault has a job in Big Oil's disinformation dept, anytime he wants one, if he ain't working there already.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNatural gas is not a fossil fuel?. It may be cleaner in burning, and somehow cheaper, but using it emits CO2 too. The problem in nuclear energy is that nuclear weapons can be a byproduct of it, and many are still fearing and thinking of a nazi or fascist, or fundamentalist or dictatorial regime having them, just the good old democratic nations, that never declared a war to anybody, such as Russia, China, UK, France have a right to produce and store them, and only the USA has considered itself a nation perfect enough as deserving dropping the A-bomb on somebody.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"..problem in nuclear energy is that nuclear weapons can be a byproduct of it.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem with chemical energy is that chemical weapons ARE a byproduct of it - nerve gas, bioweapons, AK47's, fuel-air explosives, napalm, cluster bombs, artillery, IED's, suicide bombers, 9-11, you name it. Foresake fossil fuels and foresake all of the above.
Same deal with Nuclear, and same problem. You can ban Nuclear/Fossil Fuels all you want, but with many Nations - Military Strength is #1 so THEY WILL GET the weapons they WANT, whether Nuclear or Fossil Fuel, and THE ONLY THING banning Nuclear or Fossil Fuel achieves is peaceful, beneficial & humane applications are banned, the military effectiveness & utility becomes EVEN STRONGER!
So FACT: Any Nation State that wants Nuclear Weapons can get them, commercial Nuclear Power is not necessary.