Plug-in hybrids could increase air pollution
Plug-ins lead to some serious grid questionsI'm a huge fan of plug-in hybrid vehicles, yet I'm equally critical of plug-ins as well. Ultimately, even without plug-ins, the US is facing a crisis when it comes to the US electric grid, and converting a significant percent of the US fleet into plug-in hybrids could result in many, many billions of dollars of extra grid updates.
Then there is the question of where does grid electricity come from?
All of this has led me to believe that many on the right now advocate for plug-in hybrids as cover for nuclear power. Now, I'm not fully against nuclear power, but I do believe there should be a healthy debate about whether nuclear power is the best option forward, but let's get back to the grid.
According to two recent studies, plug-in hybrid cars, feeding off today's electric grid, such as the Chevy Volt, could essentially become coal-burning vehicles in many parts of the US, leading to potentially significant increases of soot particles, mercury and acid rain-causing sulfur dioxide.
Ultimately, just as with conventional hybrids cars, such as the Toyota Prius, plug-in hybrid vehicles are not THE solution to America's energy problems.
A massive, future-focused energy policy is desperately required here in the US, maybe the world. Unfortunately, America doesn't even seem capable of having or leading such a discussion.
Labels: chevy., Hybrid Vehicles, plug-in hybrid vehicles, toyota prius
posted by Dahcredyns at
10:53 AM
6 Comments:
Hi!
From everything I've read, the added pollution caused by burning coal required to charge electric cars, would be less than the pollution put out by the gasoline vehicles they replace.
Part of this reasoning, is that electric cars could mostly charge at night, when the generating units are running and developing excess electrical energy that otherwise would be wasted.
When electrical demand calls for 100 units of power at 1500 hrs local, the generators can't just downgrade to 10 units of power at 0300 local. They still have to run and produce the majority of their max electrical production all the time.
Regardless, if LARGE numbers of electric/hybrid-electric plug-in vehicles are added to the grid, it will need more power and a smarter system to regulate the flow and storage of energy.
Nuclear power WILL be needed in the short term to tide us over until renewable energy can take up the slack of what will be required.
cliff
YIP
I think it's much easier to control fuel consumption and pollution one LARGE unit such as a powerplant versus thousands and millions of cars.
There are techniques and pollution control devices that already exist today to drastically reduce coal plant emissions. These can be coupled by solar, wind, etc...to help assist for now until a revolutionary material of discovery comes along..if ever.
The answers are around us in nature itself...we're just to blind to see it as a species.
These reports are ridiculous and lead one to believe that the authors are simply shills for the Big Oil companies.
As Nozferatu states, are we to believe that the EPA controlled smokestacks at a coal plant are going to pollute worse than thousands of individual autos? How many plug in cars are there going to be? Right now the number stands at 150 according to CalCars. How many plug in cars in the future will be driven in areas that rely predominantly upon coal for electricity? Half of them?
These arguments are rife with holes and I feel it is best to look at them for what they are...propaganda.
The studies, for example, point out that many coal plants in the US use antiquated technology, thus an excess of plug-in hybrids in those areas could be very detrimental.
Additionally, in terms of carbon sequestration, there are many in the environmental community that call such a notion propoganda by the government and the coal industry, so the propaganda argument can be thrown around in both directions.
Additionally, I think the idea that most will fill up at night is a big sticking point. Such an ability will obviously require smart grid technology. When the US government investigated smart grid technology to better manage air conditioning on the grid, such a system was estimated to cost as much as $26 billion.
That's a pork fest waiting to happen, and that spells trouble in my mind.
Still, my worry with nuclear power, for example, is the massive amount of start-up money most believe it will take to make it happen. Nuclear, in the short term, is cash intensive with a decades long recovery period. Thus, a major focus on nuclear could squash many renewable segments.
Moreover, let's remember it's not what is technologically feasible that should be in question.
As Jabroni points out quite often on this blog, plug-in vehicles, such as the RAV electric, have proven what is possible. Yet, where are they?
Lest we forget, the future of energy is largely going to be determined by the same people now running the government and business - and their past record isn't very encouraging.
So, while many 'problems' of the electrification of the automobile exist, and all can be solved technologically,expecting Congress to make this happen seems a little fool-hardy.
Anyway, I don't think studies such as these should be used to argue against plug-in hybrids, and I don't think that's what the studies intended. I think they were meant to make everyone realize that just converting America's fleet to Chevy Volts is going to lead to many other issues and that we should have a more wholistic approach to solving our fossil fuel dependence.
We're too busy pissing away $800, $900, a trillion dollars to worry about a measly $26 billion.
Let's think about that for a moment. For the cost of this current war, we have flushed almost a trillion dollars of money in 5 years time.
Don't you think we could have changed the world's energy grid in 5 years for even half that amount?
Why don't you just get the facts from someone who has driven a PHEV for the last year or so?
Cheap!
Post a Comment
<< Home