Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumUT researchers find China's pollution related to E-cars may be more harmful than gasoline cars
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-02/uota-urf021012.phpContact: Whitney Heins
wheins@utk.edu
865-974-5460
University of Tennessee at Knoxville
[font size=5]UT researchers find China's pollution related to E-cars may be more harmful than gasoline cars[/font]
[font size=4]Electric cars have been heralded as environmentally friendly, but findings from University of Tennessee researchers show that electric cars in China have an overall impact on pollution that could be more harmful to health than gasoline vehicles[/font]
[font size=3]
Chris Cherry, assistant professor in civil and environmental engineering, and graduate student Shuguang Ji, analyzed the emissions and environmental health impacts of five vehicle technologies in 34 major Chinese cities, focusing on dangerous fine particles. What Cherry and his team found defies conventional logic: electric cars cause much more overall harmful particulate matter pollution than gasoline cars.
For electric vehicles, combustion emissions occur where electricity is generated rather than where the vehicle is used. In China, 85 percent of electricity production is from fossil fuels, about 90 percent of that is from coal. The authors discovered that the power generated in China to operate electric vehicles emit fine particles at a much higher rate than gasoline vehicles. However, because the emissions related to the electric vehicles often come from power plants located away from population centers, people breathe in the emissions a lower rate than they do emissions from conventional vehicles.
Still, the rate isn't low enough to level the playing field between the vehicles. In terms of air pollution impacts, electric cars are more harmful to public health per kilometer traveled in China than conventional vehicles.
"The study emphasizes that electric vehicles are attractive if they are powered by a clean energy source," Cherry said."In China and elsewhere, it is important to focus on deploying electric vehicles in cities with cleaner electricity generation and focusing on improving emissions controls in higher polluting power sectors."
[/font][/font]
qb
(5,924 posts)source"
Too bad the headline doesn't follow suit.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,937 posts)I think the headline is accurate enough.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)Quote says China is 85% fossil, 90% of that coal
This means they are 76.5% coal. The US is 49% coal. By far the greatest number of EVs have been sold in the conurbations of Southern CA, which uses only 7.6% coal. The emissions regulations are also "just a bit" different. Therefore of questionable importance to China, none to the US
(As an aside I wonder if they included upstream pollution of petroleum extraction, transportation and refinement to be fair. Usually not).
OKIsItJustMe
(19,937 posts)California electricity sources break down like this:
While the national average breaks down like this:
The CO[font size="1"]2[/font] emissions in California are quite favorable for an EV (of course, this evaluation may change significantly, since natural gas emissions appear to be much worse than previously estimated.):
Theyre not as favorable for the national average:
For Missouri, its rather depressing, with a gasoline hybrid actually being better than an EV:
Of course, this study is talking about particulates, not CO[font size="1"]2[/font]. So, Missouri may resemble China in this regard.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)and the overwhelming majority of Chinese plants aren't scrubbed this is hardly a surprise.
"Expanding coal production and consumption has improved incomes and living standards for hundreds of millions of Chinese. These gains have come at great cost as coal mine safety has been lax, especially in small remote mines. Thousands die each year in explosions, cave-ins, and other disasters. Beyond this, the overwhelming majority of coal-fired power plants do not use advanced scrubbing technologies and emit enormous amounts of sulfur, carbon dioxide, and other pollutants. This pollution is damaging the air, water, and soil and is causing hundreds of thousands of early deaths."
http://china.usc.edu/ShowArticle.aspx?articleID=590&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
I suppose EVs powered by unscrubbed wood generation would be more harmful too, as would EVs built from asbestos.
Nihil
(13,508 posts)> I suppose EVs powered by unscrubbed wood generation would be more
> harmful too, as would EVs built from asbestos.
Hit piece against EVs (i.e., "against EVs in a first world country" .
OKIsItJustMe
(19,937 posts)(
unless portraying EVs as anything other than a panacea qualifies as a hit piece.)
As I demonstrated (above) EVs may be great for California but not for Missouri.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)Do you believe power generation in Missouri will always be dirty, or that electric ovens/air conditioners are also bad for Missouri?
Which vehicle will be cleaner in 10 years - the EV bought at a Missouri dealership in 2012, or the diesel?
You have the wrong target in your sights.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,937 posts)Id love that to be the case, but I dont believe it for one minute.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)and the remaining ones will be far cleaner than China's are now:
"Missouri governor says new coal plant may be state's last
<>
The Iatan 2 plant, by slashing emissions of nitrous oxide and sulfur dioxide, will be among the cleanest-burning coal-fired power plants in operation. It will also produce less carbon dioxide than an average U.S. plant, but it will still be a large contributor of the global-warming gas."
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/12/08/104958/missouri-governor-says-iatan-coal.html#storylink=cpy
OKIsItJustMe
(19,937 posts)You left out this paragraph:
Nixon said he would never say never to another coal-fired plant in Missouri. But he pointed out that the regulatory uncertainty regarding future efforts to curb carbon dioxide makes the future of such plants questionable.
http://www.sierraclub.org/environmentallaw/coal/victories.aspx
[font size=3]March 20, 2007
In a groundbreaking agreement that can serve as a model for environmental groups and utilities working together, the Sierra Club, Kansas City Power & Light (KCP&L), and the Concerned Citizens of Platte County (CCPC) have agreed on a set of initiatives to offset carbon dioxide (CO2) and reduce other emissions for the Kansas City-based utility. Under the agreement announced, KCP&L agreed to pursue offsets for all of the global warming emissions associated with its new plant through significant investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy, and cut pollution from its existing plants in order to improve air quality in the Greater Kansas City metro area.
The agreement proposes other investments in clean energy, significant decreases in emissions and resolves four appeals pending between the Sierra Club, CCPC, and KCP&L. The most significant element of the agreement is the unprecedented commitment by KCP&L to pursue the offset of carbon emissions from its proposed Iatan 2 generating station, located near Weston, Missouri. The estimated 6,000,000 tons of annual carbon dioxide emissions are targeted to be offset by adding 400 megawatts (MW) of wind power; 300 MW of energy efficiency; and a yet to be determined combination of wind, efficiency, or the closing, altering, re-powering or efficiency improvements at any of its generating units. These proposed offsets will be partially implemented by 2010 and fully implemented by 2012. The parties are also agreeing to work together on a series of regulatory and legislative initiatives to achieve an overall reduction in KCP&L's carbon dioxide emissions of 20 percent by 2020.[/font][/font]
http://www.sierraclub.org/environmentallaw/coal/getBlurb.aspx?case=mo-iatan.aspx
[font size=3]The Missouri Public Service Commission has voted 5-0 to approve Kansas City Power & Lights (KCP&L) request for a $34.8 million rate increase. KCP&L initially sought an increase of $92.1 million, stating higher than expected running costs of the new Iatan 2 plant as the primary reason for the increase request.
Under the new agreement, which will go into effect May 4, roughly 350,000 customers in Kansas City will see an estimated increase in their monthly bill of $4.85 (5.23%). Starting in June, customers once served by Aquila Inc.s Missouri Public Service and St. Joseph Light and Power will also pay higher annual rates. This is the fourth rate increase KCP&L has been granted since 2005.[/font][/font]
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)As always, the devil is in the details.
Why do you insist on viewing things in black/white?
OKIsItJustMe
(19,937 posts)You know, the wtmusic who used to use this avatar?
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)Because it's a slow work day I'll humor you.
Does recognizing that some coal generation is cleaner than other mean that any is ultimately acceptable?
Of course not. Capisce?
OKIsItJustMe
(19,937 posts)I can tell from the use of the crazy face!
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)Weather it is better to burn gasoline or diesel or coal fired Electric for personal transportation. Really depends upon the regulatory environment in which you are situated. The typical coal fired KWHr is going to have different values of pollutants emitted in China as opposed to the EU or US. The gasoline or diesel engine it is offsetting will also have different emissions levels depending upon where it is intended to operate.