Due to the fact that our current energy grid is roughly 51% coal-powered, electric cars and plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) have taken some heat as being more polluting than their manufacturers claim, and as we get closer to the release of actual mass-market electric cars, the debate seems to get more intense. Although studies have shown that electric cars and PHEVs are cleaner than pure gas cars even when run off of mostly coal power, the debate still goes on—ad nauseum.
But from my perspective, that debate is a completely irrelevant smokescreen.
Over the years tons of research and development has been done on the electric car platform. Hell, they’ve been around for the better part of a century. Yet even so, they represent a largely untested product on the mass market—which leaves them open to rampant speculation. All that speculation has tended to focus our attention on topics that really don’t have any bearing on the world of the future.
The coal pollution critique falls into that category. The amount and type of pollution coming from power plants is only a small part of the picture. And in my opinion, it’s the least important part. Here’s why:
- Electric cars have no tail pipe and produce zero emissions while moving. By separating your pollution from your transportation, you eliminate widespread pollution over large areas and concentrate your pollution to one point source—the power plant.
- Now that you have concentrated your pollution to one point source, whenever new technology comes along that makes that power source cleaner, you only need to upgrade a few thousand power plants, rather than a few hundred million cars. It is much easier to change one coal plant out for one wind farm, for example, than it is to bring millions of cars back in to install some new kind of pollution control device. It takes decades for cars to cycle out of the system.
- Regulating that one point source and making sure it’s not spewing out more pollution than it’s allowed to is much easier than making sure a few hundred million cars are doing the same thing. From a government spending perspective, it’s a vastly more efficient and cost-effective model. It will save tax payers money.
- An electric car runs off of a power source that can be made from a multitude of different things. From coal, to natural gas, to biomass, to wind, to solar, to wave, to nuclear, to hydro, to oil, to anything else that might come down the pipe in the future (fusion?). It’s “infinitely” dynamic. This does two things: it makes your energy supply more secure and it means your car just became infinitely more versatile. A gas car can only run off of gas or some other form of gas-like fuel.
Sure we could argue about whether or not electric cars are more polluting than gas cars. But that’s an unimportant and fruitless argument. It ignores the fact that things change over time. An electric car will never create pollution where it is used and it becomes cleaner as time goes on and our energy supplies get cleaner. A gas car will always run off of gas or some gas-like substance.
Even when powered by biofuels, a gas car is still heavily dependent on one power source and still produces pollution where it is used. Sure, biofuels—especially second and third generation ones—are carbon neutral, but that doesn’t get around the fact that when my kid is standing near a tailpipe, he’s still sucking up carcinogens.
Don’t get me wrong, I think biofuels are an important stop gap between now and when we can cycle all the gas-powered cars off the road. Certainly, trains, semis, and airplanes will be liquid fuel powered for quite some time to come and biofuels can help in those realms. But biofuels are only a stop gap for passenger cars.
Electric cars and PHEVs have a long way to go to prove they are reliable and, in the case of pure electric cars, increase their driving ranges. But these are minor engineering issues really. When you look at the big picture, EVs and PHEVs are clearly superior from all perspectives.
And that argument about coal, don’t let yourself be drawn into it. It’s a waste of your energy.
Image Credit: Nick Chambers
PDF 
Your argument depends on the use of coal declining. In some countries, like China, this is absolutely not the case. China’s plan to build 550 coal-fired power stations to reduce their oil imports, at the rate of one a fortnight, and to encourage the development of electric cars for the same reason, is a strategic move. It is not to be taken lightly by anyone concerned with the environment. They have billions of tonnes of coal, which they are going to burn. So in this example, of one of the world’s biggest markets for electric cars, coal pollution will increase because of them.
Your argument depends on the use of coal declining. In some countries, like China, this is absolutely not the case. China’s plan to build 550 coal-fired power stations to reduce their oil imports, at the rate of one a fortnight, and to encourage the development of electric cars for the same reason, is a strategic move. It is not to be taken lightly by anyone concerned with the environment. They have billions of tonnes of coal, which they are going to burn. So in this example, of one of the world’s biggest markets for electric cars, coal pollution will increase because of them.
Graham,
Firstly, as I said at the beginning of the post, the truly thorough studies show that even with a high percentage of coal power, EVs are cleaner than gas cars. Plus, nobody has done studies to compare coal power in China (or elsewhere) to the US to see if it is a worse polluter in China (due to relaxed regulations, etc.). Without in depth analysis of the situation, I don’t see how you can make those claims.
Secondly, my argument certainly does not depend on the use of coal declining. In fact, I would say it is valid irrespective of the use of coal declining.
Getting millions of people out of private autos and onto bicycles for a majority of the trips we take (under 2 miles) would be a much greener solution than even coal-powered EVs.
EV traffic jams will still be as mind-numbing and space-wasting as the old fashioned petrol-fueled traffic jams.
Auto-dependence is the main enemy of environmental progress in my mind.
Getting millions of people out of private autos and onto bicycles for a majority of the trips we take (under 2 miles) would be a much greener solution than even coal-powered EVs.
EV traffic jams will still be as mind-numbing and space-wasting as the old fashioned petrol-fueled traffic jams.
Auto-dependence is the main enemy of environmental progress in my mind.
Good post, however you missed one of THE most important facts in this argument.
Gasoline powered cars are (according to the government website http://www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/atv.shtml) only 15% energy efficient. Even after 100 years of ICE powered motoring, the actual energy efficiency of these engines is still a very well kept secret, shrouded by the motor industry’s use of totally unrelated ratings like ‘fuel efficiency’ (ie. making a car more fuel efficient has little to do with the engines energy efficiency.. which is essentially a fixed figure)
There isn’t a coal fired power plant in the world that uses a high friction reciprocating engine similar to a car engine. They all use steam turbines and as a result are on average between 40 – 60% energy efficient… up to 90% if co-generation is used.
Good post, however you missed one of THE most important facts in this argument.
Gasoline powered cars are (according to the government website http://www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/atv.shtml) only 15% energy efficient. Even after 100 years of ICE powered motoring, the actual energy efficiency of these engines is still a very well kept secret, shrouded by the motor industry’s use of totally unrelated ratings like ‘fuel efficiency’ (ie. making a car more fuel efficient has little to do with the engines energy efficiency.. which is essentially a fixed figure)
There isn’t a coal fired power plant in the world that uses a high friction reciprocating engine similar to a car engine. They all use steam turbines and as a result are on average between 40 – 60% energy efficient… up to 90% if co-generation is used.
Paul,
Thanks and you’re right, that is a very important point. But I didn’t miss it. I didn’t include it because, in my mind, that point is part of the argument about whether or not coal powered EVs are cleaner than gas powered cars—the argument that I think is pointless to have in the first place.
I prefer the following argument:
Growth of both wind and solar power is greatly outpacing electrification of transport, which also facilitates the replacement of oil for transport.
I think the word “pollution” is not clearly defined here. CO2 is not a health hazard and is not listed as a pollutant and is not controlled at this time by the EPA as a health hazard. When it comes to controlled pollutants, electric cars are better even with coal.
If you are talking about CO2, then they are not. But it is a moot point. To reduce CO2 enough to make a difference all coal has to be phased out. Phasing out half of coal use won’t help. It all has to go.
http://biodiversivist.blogspot.com/2009/10/wwf-study-puts-global-warming-into.html
I prefer the following argument:
Growth of both wind and solar power is greatly outpacing electrification of transport, which also facilitates the replacement of oil for transport.
I think the word “pollution” is not clearly defined here. CO2 is not a health hazard and is not listed as a pollutant and is not controlled at this time by the EPA as a health hazard. When it comes to controlled pollutants, electric cars are better even with coal.
If you are talking about CO2, then they are not. But it is a moot point. To reduce CO2 enough to make a difference all coal has to be phased out. Phasing out half of coal use won’t help. It all has to go.
http://biodiversivist.blogspot.com/2009/10/wwf-study-puts-global-warming-into.html
I think you’re argument is 100% correct, but I’d like to suggest one addition: energy security. By using coal to generate electricity to power our vehicles, we can cut back on or eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.
No more oil dollars to prop up corrupt governments that don’t value human rights and foster terrorism. See Venezuela, Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia.
Electric cars also mean lower oil demand, which means reduced volatility in energy prices, which means lower costs for everyone because of reduced market speculation.
Reduced dependence on gasoline also means that we’re not going to be counting on a limited number of refineries that could be attacked or knocked out by a hurricane. More security.
I could go on and on, but the energy security argument has a lot of legs in my book. It’s a great way to get conservatives on board.
I think you’re argument is 100% correct, but I’d like to suggest one addition: energy security. By using coal to generate electricity to power our vehicles, we can cut back on or eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.
No more oil dollars to prop up corrupt governments that don’t value human rights and foster terrorism. See Venezuela, Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia.
Electric cars also mean lower oil demand, which means reduced volatility in energy prices, which means lower costs for everyone because of reduced market speculation.
Reduced dependence on gasoline also means that we’re not going to be counting on a limited number of refineries that could be attacked or knocked out by a hurricane. More security.
I could go on and on, but the energy security argument has a lot of legs in my book. It’s a great way to get conservatives on board.
Primary Problem – Wether ICE – or EV – is the Communting Distance. If we could all live a 15 minute walk from work – and then actually walked, instead of making a 2-3 minute Drive, we would have more parking spots at work, less pollution created along the way, and more money to take far more enjoyable trips for camping, etc.!
Beyond that – a recent discover made by me – Using Lithium Batteries in the same vehicle as using Lead-Acid Batteries – as an Electric Vehicle – also uses about a third less energy to get the same mile driven!
So – as Batteries become more effective – not just the range of EV’s will improve – but the Energy Effectiveness (Fuel Efficiency?), or Wh per Mile Driven will become less, as battery packs are lighter for a given kWh or Range Requirement.
But here is a question – How many Watt Hours of Energy (Wh), are actually consumed in the refining and in the delivering to your car – a gallon (or a litre) of Gasoline? This is one Argument that should be taken up, researched, and reported on. Since – it could then tell wether it is better to use that energy to refine crude for gasoline – or to just power Electric Vehicles with it.
As we stand now – we use energy from Electricity in the Refinement processes – to power the Refinery, and in the delivery processes – right up to pumping gas into your car! Could this same energy be more efficent and less poluting – charging your EV Batteries? Once We know this answer – then we have a real decision to make! (I suspect – an EV will go farther on the inserted electrical energy in a gallon of gasoline, than and ICE Vehicle will go on that same gallon of Gas! (May that is – Gas3.0?)
Primary Problem – Wether ICE – or EV – is the Communting Distance. If we could all live a 15 minute walk from work – and then actually walked, instead of making a 2-3 minute Drive, we would have more parking spots at work, less pollution created along the way, and more money to take far more enjoyable trips for camping, etc.!
Beyond that – a recent discover made by me – Using Lithium Batteries in the same vehicle as using Lead-Acid Batteries – as an Electric Vehicle – also uses about a third less energy to get the same mile driven!
So – as Batteries become more effective – not just the range of EV’s will improve – but the Energy Effectiveness (Fuel Efficiency?), or Wh per Mile Driven will become less, as battery packs are lighter for a given kWh or Range Requirement.
But here is a question – How many Watt Hours of Energy (Wh), are actually consumed in the refining and in the delivering to your car – a gallon (or a litre) of Gasoline? This is one Argument that should be taken up, researched, and reported on. Since – it could then tell wether it is better to use that energy to refine crude for gasoline – or to just power Electric Vehicles with it.
As we stand now – we use energy from Electricity in the Refinement processes – to power the Refinery, and in the delivery processes – right up to pumping gas into your car! Could this same energy be more efficent and less poluting – charging your EV Batteries? Once We know this answer – then we have a real decision to make! (I suspect – an EV will go farther on the inserted electrical energy in a gallon of gasoline, than and ICE Vehicle will go on that same gallon of Gas! (May that is – Gas3.0?)
Interesting post once again.
I would like to note that according to Renault officials, an electric car with French electricity would emit only 12 grams of CO2 per kilometer. (compared to 120 grams for current ICE cars)
This extra low figure can be explained by the fact that France gets the quasi totality of its electricity by nuclear and hydro.
Still to Renault, an electric car powered by 100 percent coal would get 120 grams of CO2 / km, but as they noted no country is 100% coal…
I now believe that electric engines are the next step for cars, not biofuel, not hydrogen.
Interesting post once again.
I would like to note that according to Renault officials, an electric car with French electricity would emit only 12 grams of CO2 per kilometer. (compared to 120 grams for current ICE cars)
This extra low figure can be explained by the fact that France gets the quasi totality of its electricity by nuclear and hydro.
Still to Renault, an electric car powered by 100 percent coal would get 120 grams of CO2 / km, but as they noted no country is 100% coal…
I now believe that electric engines are the next step for cars, not biofuel, not hydrogen.