Plug-In Hybrids Use Over 17 Times More Water Than Regular Cars, Researchers Say
While plug-in hybrids offer great increases in fuel efficiency, they may come at a surprising cost: water. A recent study from Environmental Science & Technology found that plug-ins require the consumption of 3 times more water, and the withdrawal of 17 times more water, than their gasoline counterparts. As Popular Mechanics pointed out last week:
A 30-mile commute in a gasoline-powered car would require the withdrawal of 18.9 gallons of water… The same commute in a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV), meanwhile, would take a whopping 318 gallons…
So what accounts for the increase in water usage? PHEV’s don’t require water directly, but the power plants that power them do:
Any power plant that runs steam turbines uses water, whether fired by coal, natural gas, or nuclear energy, says King, a mechanical engineer at the Bureau of Economic Geology at UT. Many plants consume water by running it through cooling towers where it evaporates away. Plants can also tie up water resources via withdrawal, in which plants recycle water that is drawn from a reservoir.
This is enough of an increase to warrant consideration by public policy-makers, especially in arid climates. If 25% of the nation’s fleet converted to plug-in vehicles it would require an additional 1 billion gallons of water for electricity generation. For comparison, that’s almost half the total urban water used by the state of California in one year.
But no one, including the study authors, is saying that plug-in hybrids should be blacklisted. It just adds an important consideration for water-stressed areas that have plans for a grid-based automotive fleet. It also highlights the importance of using sustainable (wind, solar) sources of electricity for electric vehicles.
And as far as the alternatives go: PM pointed out that growing a bushel of corn requires 2200 gallons of water, which only makes 2.7 gallons of ethanol. I would take a fleet of plug-ins over a fleet of Flex-Fuel vehicles any day.
Related Posts:
Get 120 MPG Out of Your Prius (Plug It In)
Sick of Gas?: Convert Your Car To Run On Electricity
Will Plug-In Hybrids Become the Standard?
Source:
See the study here.
ES&T (Feb. 20, 08): Plugging in to more water use
Popular Mechanics (Mar. 7, 08): Plug-in Cars Could Drain U.S. Water Supply, Researcher Says
It’s not like the water is annihilated; it just evaporates and goes into the water cycle in the environment. Might cause excess thermal pollution, might make for more rain down in central Cali.
And remember, it’s not just about doing the best per mile, it’s also about lessening the dependence on non-renewable fossil fuels, which might come at a slightly higher cost.
Think about that for a second though. The water we drink isn’t annihilated either, but it’s not available for anyone else for a while…
It’s definitely about reducing dependence on fossil fuels, and I think that overall, electric vehicles probably do a better job than their alternatives.
The higher usage of water is quite an important problem seeing as how many people forget that freshwater is a scarce resource. Just because it evaporates doesn’t mean it’s ok to use more.
I won’t admit that I understand how power-plants are designed, but wouldn’t you think that they could just recycle the high pressure steam used to turn the turbines and wouldn’t it be more efficient to reuse this already hot water to revaporize it again as steam. Though the higher usage of water will become a moot point once more of the grid is based off of wind and solar (PV not thermal).
This is so bogus. The cars will mainly charge at night, using excess electricity from the grid. Unless we suddenly could exchange most of our fleet for plug ins, there probably wouldn’t be any need at all for excess generation. Not only that, there are promising studies around vehicle to grid flows during peak hours that could actually stabilize the grid and reduce the need for day time power generation.
Finally, people can charge their cars with solar power from their own roofs–a direction we need to be heading in.
It doesn’t surprise me that this bullshit comes out of Popular Mechanics. There’s tremendous resistance to change in certain industrial sectors. PM seems to be a mouth piece for the old guard.
Wow- what a waste of a read and valuable article real estate! Of course using electricity is a problem: coal and oil are used as the source, and that is the issue. That’s why the best solution for the source is solar parks, wind, wave and tide.
Focus! The root of the problem is the source of the energy- oil and coal. This article should be removed- are you people serious? The problem is coal and oil, change the source, and you solve the issue. We shouldn’t waste time by writing or reading about what is already known. Everyone is skirting the root- it is so simple, and we should all focus on it like a laser beam- coal and oil companies must die (so must ethonal and biofuels because they are false solutions even worse than fossil fuels), and these companies will not go away unless we organize and stand up to them. Disassemble BigOil and BigCoal – tell them to take their sick profits and go away.
Here’s an article that explains how a 10 X 10 mile plot of solar can power the entire US. The cost? $400 billion. After it’s built though, the cost of your energy… well think about it, sunshine is free. Solar grid + electric car. Spread the word. This is the vision.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan&page=1
We should march on Washington to make this happen. Washington is oil and coal, so it’s a huge effort to get them to stop.
Please comment!
Pass it on!
This article shows me one thing: The author is not following the developments in Green technologies. There is no mention of the rendering of ethanol alcohol from any cellulose vs. corn nor those concerning the new technologies in the making of hydrogen gas from an “on board” unit for transportation. The author and PM should keep up or shut up.
Brent: Anytime you want to guest post on that, you just let me know…
Clayton, I won’t to apologize for the harsh response in my last post here… it’s just that I get so frustrated by how much information is out there yet we seem to not be focusing on the people and the products involved in steering us in the wrong direction. I would love to see an article listing (again and again) the evils of oil and coal and exposing the people (oil and coal CEOs, lobbyists and senators who respond to them), as well as the praises for the best chance / best solutions like solar, water, and wind energies. I believe that America is not nearly angry enough at these Oil and Coal big wigs who are to blame for slowing progress toward cheaper cleaner fuels. I believe that shinning the light on them is just as important as shining the light on the best solutions. These execs and senators need to know that we are angry that they are holding us back- and America needs to know that they are doing so by backhanded behind closed door deals. The past 3 energy bills were blocked because they included repeals of the $13.5 BILLION TAX DOLLARS that we GAVE to OIL and COAL here- your tax dollars!!! They are stealing from us left and right, before the pump in our taxes and wars, at the pump, and after the pump in smog. Oil and coal are the root of so much evil and we cannot be angry enough at them… we cannot afford to not be scathing mad at them, screw the jobs and profits in their industry- they are ripping us all off so so badly and the more we pity them the more they rip us off, they are sick and ruthless and they have been ripping us off and lying to us for a 100 years (1919 we started subsiding them with our tax dollars) and it’s their turn to pay…
AMERICA, GET VERY MAD AT OIL and COAL!!! They are the cause, focus on them like a LASER BEAM!!!
Clayton, Thank you for your time. Best of luck and I wish you best at Gas 2.0… you have so much power there, to choose the best power and lead us all to it!
Patrick
Regarding Patrick’s first post, for the most part I agree and don’t see any need for him to apologize, but that is his business.
Where I disagree is his call to march on Washington. We don’t need a 10 by 10 solar array. The sun is a decentralized source of power, so why centralize it and have to keep paying someone for it? Besides, on average about 19% of electrical energy is lost in transmission. And then there is the construction and/or maintenance of the transmission lines, not to mention the people living near them being bombarded with potentially harmful EMF’s.
You want solar, put it on your roof. Don’t wait for Washington.
For what it is worth, I have put my hard-earned money where my mouth is. Since July 2002, I have been driving an all electric - not a hybrid - Rav4 EV that is powered by the solar panels on the roof of my home. The pay-back period for the panels is estimated to be 7 years. Considering that both the price of electricity and the price of gasoline have risen, they are probably paid for already. That should give me another 18 years (expected life of panels is 25 years, but not sure if anyone really knows)of free electricity. In all fairness, I need to disclose that I live in sunny southern California, but that was not by accident.
[...] Posts: Plug-In Hybrids Could Require 160 New Power Plants By 2030 (Or None At All) Plug-In Hybrids Use Over 17 Times More Water Than Regular Cars, Researchers Say Could Hybrid Vehicles Hinder Development of More Sustainable [...]