Longer tailpipe emissions argument for PHEV's...

Even a Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) with no link to a power source that produces emissions, has emissions. Tires rolling along a dirt or backtop roadway kicks up particulate matter (2.5 micrometers in size), but not to the extent of ICEs.

A more constructive and long-term effective alternative is to provide convenient, affordable light rail connections intra- and inter-city. Use heavy rail for freight and eliminate diesel to the extent possible. Begin modifying and building cities that are human-centered (vs. sprawl and autocentric).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(skruse @ Jan 19 2007, 06:25 PM) [snapback]378013[/snapback]</div>

I agree, but until we become more accepting of each other's differences, it'll NEVER happen. [sigh] The way we build our communities is reflective of ourselves, after all. And, right now, it seems that we're trying to escape to artificially created worlds where everyone is like ourselves...instead of embracing diversity.

 

We have a local developer that is building w/ the environment in mind and utilizes a human centered model. The name is Prairie Crossing. I drove through here and it's a beautiful area. They even made a lot of the side streets small to acommodate only one car. They developed the area w/ water conservation/filtration in mind by retaining native vegetation (hence the name) and utilizing swales. They have hiking trails, an organic garden that supplies the residents with their food, have a public school, constructed the homes with 50% more energy efficiency in mind and centered the construction around train routes. All of the houses have native prarie communities in their front yards with very small areas of introduced turf grass. Only 20% of the almost 700 acres was devoted to home sites. The rest is now protected land.

Ironically, I would typically get upset about that last part because I feel like even though they're preserving open space, they're plopping a bunch of houses on open land that could've otherwise been preserved in it's original state. In this particular case, this land was slated for development with 2,400 homes scheduled. The community came together to buy the land to halt this massive development project and they did this with preservation in mind. It's a great example of what can be accomplished on a collective level.

But back to the original thread topic, darrelldd already addressed this question in another thread and debunked this. I didn't see any holes in his reasoning.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jan 19 2007, 03:51 PM) [snapback]378001[/snapback]</div>

You have to be careful how you construct this argument. First off, keep in mind that you need to compare inputs to inputs and outputs to outputs. If you compare the outputs of EV vs ICE it's pretty obvious who the winner is. Consider the inputs however...

EV powered by wind/solar/geothermal/tidal/wave have minimal CO2 emissions (mostly related to the production of the power plant and its constituent parts). Nuke and hydro have some emissions based on their ongoing activities (mining and transporting the fuel in the case of nuke and methane for biodegrading organic matter in the case of hydro), in addition to the emissions associated with their creation (and probably more because both of these generally involve the use of a LOT of concrete). A coal powered EV has more emissions (the amount of course depends on the kind of power plant) than the others for sure. However, the energy that the EV does consume is used very efficiently (older coal plants are around 38% efficient, IGCC are considerable more efficient and a lot cleaner. Distance from the plant also has to be considered for transmission losses to be factored in).

Now lets look at ICEs. Right now they mostly consume gasoline produced from light sweet crude I believe. The energy balance of gasoline is 0.87, meaning that for every 1 BTU of energy in you get 0.87 out. The energy to produce that gasoline has to come from somewhere. Exactly where the energy comes from will determine how "dirty" the gasoline is.

Considering that ICE automobiles are at best 20% efficient I don't see how this argument could ever come out in favor of the ICE. This is assuming that the ICE is combusting gasoline produced from fossil petro products, of course. If you were comparing a coal fired EV against a do it yourself biodiesel brewer (biodiesel from veggie oil) then the results would probably be different.

 

When in doubt, visit EVnut.com. That guy knows EVERYTHING! Ok... seriously, this is dealt with in the general FAQ, and on the docs/emissions page.

Many studies have been done on this very subject, and each one of them comes to the same conclusion: EV wins. I have some of these studies linked on my site (bad connection here, or I'd provide a link).

To very quickly settle this without much more effort or head scratching... realize that we can drive an EV 20-30 miles on only the electricity needed to create and distribute a gallon of gas. Most people ignore the pollution from the oil refining process even before the gasoline is burned! So you have a bunch of electricity (dirty or clean). What would you like to do with it? Charge batteries and drive clean? Or create gasoline and drive dirty? Well to wheels, EVs will win (almost) every time. Then when you consider that an EV CAN be powered with 100% renewable energy, then it becomes a slam-dunk. Electricity is the ultimate flex-fuel. You can make it from anything. Gasoline... not so much.

You make a great point at the end there. Why don't we all have nicely-muffled little gasoline generators to power our homes? Then you could be free from that nasty "plug" business! The only folks who still use the "long tailpipe" argument are those mis-guided souls who can't imagine life without internal combustion and gasoline.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jan 19 2007, 05:51 PM) [snapback]378001[/snapback]</div>

To answer the question you asked, yes, numerous credible sources have done the calculation and have found that EV/PHEV transport results in significantly lower GHG emissions than gasoline-based transport, based on the US average electrical grid. As far as I can recall, estimates cluster fairly tighly in the 50-60% range -- that EV transport produces about half the GHGs of ICE/gasoline transport, at the US national grid mix. Only for an all-coal grid was the number even close.

Now, as to references, it's a little late in the day to be finding them all but I'll give it a try to find at least some.

CalCars is an advocacy organizatiion for PHEVs, but here's their analysis:
http://www.calcars.org/vehicles.html#2


That ought to be good enough, as they cite Argonne Labs with PHEVs at 64% of the emissions of the comparable straight-gas vehicle, based on a 50% coal grid (US national mix).

I admit I didn't read the Argonne Labs report itself, but the discussion makes it sound like a fairly definitive work. They (CalCars) cite other studies showing greater reductions.

If you need more than that, let me know and I'll find more. My recollection, from having looked into this earlier, is that everyone who takes a serious look at the issue comes back with some variation on "yes, GHGs are reduced". The only people who say no appear to be raising the theoretical objection without having actually run the numbers.

Also, if you want some "common sense" reality checks, I can dig up some other calculations. For example, the cost per mile (baased, for example, on the EPA mileage website www.fueleconomy.gov) shows electric propulsion costs one-quarter of gas, per mile. (Look up the RAV4 EV versus the same year gas RAV4). Even granting that coal is cheap per BTU, and granting that it produces more carbon per BTU, it's tough to believe that in total its more than 4x cheaper-and-dirtier than gasoline. Similarly, even though electric genration + grid is not that efficient in terms of the fraction of calories in the fuel that end up being used, the average straight gas car uses just 20% of the energy in the gasoline.

Anyway, if you need more ask, otherwise, my asnwer is, CalCars says that Argonne says so.

 

Here is some more:
http://pluginamerica.com/faq.shtml

Summaries of various studies:
http://pluginamerica.com/images/EmissionsSummary.pdf

A bit from Tesla Motors:
http://teslamotors.com/learn_more/energy_efficiency.php

And my FAQ entry:
http://evnut.com/ev_faq.htm#ev_pollute (I see my Tesla link is broken )

Any of this helping?