If the Fuel Source Ain't Clean, Your Electric Car Ain't Green

A host of factors determine the role of electric and hybrid cars in reducing greenhouse gas pollution, such as whether coal is their ultimate fuel source. David Biello reports

 

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


As Tesla prepares to begin selling its Model S in smog-ridden China, the question is: do electric cars reduce air pollution? And the answer is: it depends.
 
That on-the-one-hand-yes-but-on-the-other hand-no conclusion comes from a study predicting the impacts of electric cars in the U.S. to 2050. It's in the journal Environmental Science and Technology. [Samaneh Babaee, Ajay S. Nagpure, and Joseph F. DeCarolis, How Much Do Electric Drive Vehicles Matter to Future U.S. Emissions?]
 
The reason it depends is that we don't know the future. Will batteries be cheap? Will the U.S. have a law limiting carbon dioxide? Which will cost less: oil or natural gas?
 
Depending on the answers, electric vehicles and hybrids might not reduce air pollution at all. They could even make it worse.
 
Researchers ran 108 different computer models of how driving might change in the next few decades. And it turns out the key to reducing air pollution isn't how many electric cars there are. What matters is whether there are regulations in place to mandate reductions in CO2 and other pollutants.
 
As it stands, battery cars that run on electricity from burning coal can be more polluting than cars that get good mileage on gas. And that's why a Tesla in China, where most electricity comes from coal, is no zero-emissions vehicle.

—David Biello

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
 
 
 

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe