Is coal a legitimate plug-in problem? I wish
The downside of EVs?
Coal – The reason Greenpeace opposes EVs
In the past few years numerous studies have suggested, despite the dirty nature of coal-powered electricity, off-peak charging for electric vehicles is still, generally and overall, cleaner than burning petroleum, at least in the US where cleaner and greener coal technologies have significantly replaced antiquated and far dirtier legacy systems.
So, why is the transportation expert at Greenpeace so opposed to electric cars?
According to Wolfgang Lohbeck, transportation expert at Greenpeace Germany, electric cars are not the key to individual mobility because they derive their power from coal and nuclear power and that is not good for the environment.
So, if not EVs, then what? We walk everywhere? Solar-powered, computer-driven mobile pod sharing?
Anyone following this blog knows that I often criticize plug-in vehicles. However, my contention against plug-ins is not at all based on worries of coal-powered electricity – I WISH that were a serious issue. Moreover, I absolutely believe fungible electricity is the key to the future, but it’s the implentation of EVs – the current trajectory – that chafes me most.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m no fan of coal power and in China, for instance, such coal concerns are well founded, as the coal technology in that country is far dirtier than that of America. More important, if most early adopters can be convinced to charge during non-peak hours – which I believe most American adopters will – then even coal power is far cleaner than petroleum power according to most evidence currently available, and it provides a huge step towards real energy independence.
Inevitably, my distrust of the plug-in vehicle is that it offers little ability to affect either overall global warming emissions or foreign oil dependence within the next few decades due to limitations with existing technologies and the implementation of those technologies. And, newer, more American consumer-appeasing technologies are decades away.
Thus, in the interim, we can do better than giving auomakers massive amounts of loans, grants, tax credits and incentives, etc. so that they’ll convert a few percent of their fleet into plug-in vehicles to appease hardcore greenies and early-adopters – as well as the government – while accomplishing little in terms of the problems electric cars were conceived to solve, such as global warming and energy independence.
Quite simply, I find government-funded greenwashing unimpressive. Certainly, it’s a step better than the past administration, but it’s still a small step that is driven more by perception than reality. Inevitably, greenwashing is a despicable practice regardless of whom is the painter.
Perhaps, if automakers were actually determined to be fully electric by 2020, or at least 2030, I might agree with Greenpeace that coal-powered EVs are not a legitimate solution to global warming. Unfortunately, automakers have no such intentions, which makes coal a very poor reason to oppose EVs.
Then again, however, Greenpeace does have a point. If spending billions – even trillions if super grids are funded – to achieve 10 percent EV penetration is our long term – the next 2 or 3 decades – goal, what kind of return on our investment are we accruing, if any? Because, sadly, such a venture seems a money-loser.
They can also appeal your case or have probation terminated early. And if you should ever find yourself on the wrong end of action taken by the government, you will find that the ability to resort to the law to defend yourself will be critical.
i don’t know if anybody except the greens is interested as well, and while the greens make up a politically powerful force, their numbers are relatively small. likewise, interest in issues like global warming is on the decline, although I’m sure this will eventually change.
nevertheless, in america, coal is not a problem for plug-in vehicles. millions of evs per year will have to be produced before coal emissions offer the potential to become a real negative issue. thus, until then, coal is not a legitimate plug-in problem and much can be done to clean up this problem in the interim.
we have to burn something to get energy- either petroleum or coal (or something). this is the essence of human technology since steam engine discovery, though a lot has changed. so the question will always be to harm more or harm less until this pattern changes. well i don’t know how far the scientists can go in this field and whether anybody except the greens is interested.
yeah, shecky, pain does seem to be our primary catalyst for change.
it’s just sad, though. we’re on the verge of a new industrial revolution that is keenly focused around energy, yet we’re so disinclined to embrace it, and even when embraced, it’s largely embraced in an inefficient matter.
somehow, it seems to me, if we could put the power of the purse – the real savings from efficiency – more directly into the hands of the people, perhaps a grassroots movement could be developed. otherwise, it seems it will all come down to pain.
Sorry, meant “You’re”, there.
Gotta getta Spellcheck…
Your on the ball with that one. When gas went through the roof, overall consumption of petroleum fell, both in the commercial and consumer sectors. According to research, that drop in usage was enough to extend the time frame of our “cheap oil scenario” about 2-3 years. Before the crash, 2012 was the beginning of the end.
If history proves anything, is we humans are a doggedly stupid group. The big crash of the last couple years served as a wake-up call on many levels. But once we go through one such crash, we tend to “tolerate” the next one, and so forth.
My gut tells me when oil prices start to rise, only a few will ask the hard questions and the rest will “ride it out.” Only they’re going to be surprised to find there is no more riding. Gas prices will continue upward and when the pain REALLY starts to hurt, only then will you find the general public getting truly involved for the Great Leap Forward.
Just today I read a report from a company that specializes in automotive battery applications and they are predicting no more than 1 percent market penetration for pure EVs by 2020. If we hit 10 percent by 2020 I’ll be happily surprised. My guess however is about 3 – 7 percent by 2020, largely dependent upon tax credits and other EV incentives.
Still, I hope you are right, but 20 percent by 2020 seems largely impossible to me. The price of battery supply chain commodities alone would skyrocket if demand went that high that quickly. That could actually increase EV costs even as they scale simply because of demand for rare metals, lithium, copper, etc. at the same time the economy is getting hammered by higher oil prices, which will push the costs of everything higher.
In 2008, for instance, during that energy spike, commodities pricing on many hybrid components started skyrocketing and was beginning to become a major issue until the crash hit.
In such conditions, which would actually be much worse in your scenario, according to the studies so far, consumers would seek to spend less on transportation, particularly up-front costs. I know that sounds almost oxymoronic, but that is what the current research suggests in both the US and Europe.
We really won’t have a choice but to go EV, once the cheap oil officially runs out. 10% may seem the highest forecast, but I see it going to 20-25% by 2020.
You may have noticed all these EV technologies slowly rising at the same time – smart grid deployments in the US and Europe; rising solar, wind and wave technology; ECOtality’s mass deployment of charging stations in the US, and the same happening in Europe, Asia, and South America; more automobile manufacturers slowly bring hybrid and EV’s to market; etc.
You see, it all has to happen at the same time. No one aspect of this “rising infrastructure” can get ahead of the others, or else the whole shebang gets stymied and stalled.
The major powers of the world are steadily bringing us into the era of EV transportation and alternative fuels. They’re not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, nor are they doing this for strong financial incentives, nor are they doing this because of public opinion. They are doing this because THEY HAVE NO CHOICE.
Cheap oil is gone. Wave ‘bye-’bye. We got about ten years to get our shit together on this planet and virtually nobody knows about it.
I’m not against coal-powered EVs, at least not in the US based on current forecasts. In China, such vehicles could be a pretty bad idea, but I’d need more evidence before making that claim.
At 10 percent penetration in the US I think EVs still could be CO2-reducing – with smart charging of course – but without smart charging, charging costs will make EVs less cost-effective. Thus, I think off-peak charging will be the norm. On the other hand, if 20 or 30 percent penetration could be achieved by 2020, then coal might start becoming a serious problem. I wish we could be having that kind of conversation. Even then I wouldn’t be against coal-powered EVs, but I’d want a more coherent plan as to how coal-powered emissions can be mitigated, especially over time.
Still, as you also point out, 10 percent penetration by 2020 – about the highest forecast out there compared to as low as 1 percent by other forecasters – still achieves very little. The legacy effects of our guzzlers will take decades to offset. That’s why I think Greenpeace has a point. If the plug-in vehicle is the only hope to reducing CO2 emissions and foreign oil dependency then we are 3 – 4 decades away from having a serious impact upon either CO2 or oil dependency.
Can we really wait that long?
That’s not an argument against plug-in vehicles. It’s just proof that we can’t put all our eggs in the EV basket just yet.
Generally I would agree with you but as I watch events unfold in the Gulf, maybe coal powered EV’s aren’t such a bad idea. Sadly, at 10% EV penetration, not much will change.