GAO report: Electric Cars Will do Little to Reduce CO2 Emissions

[JohnWxy]

This must be a top secret classified report cause I can't find it anywhere on the internet. ONly articles about it.

Do you think somebody wants it buried?

Now I know why my calculations for PHEG's (considering the electricity used to charge them up) weren't coming out all that great! I thought my calculations must be off. But this report seems to confirm what my calculations were showing (though they weren't this bad).


http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/ArticlePrint.aspx?id=481690


A government report says reliance on electric cars will do little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and may merely shift our dependence on foreign sources from one set of dictators to another.

It's a beautiful theory — highways full of electric cars emitting no greenhouse gases or pollutants after being plugged into an outlet in our garages overnight. The problem, according to a new Government Accountability Office report, is that the effort may only shift the problem somewhere else.

"If you are using coal-fired power plants, and half the country's electricity comes from coal-powered plants, are you just trading one greenhouse gas emitter for another?" asks Mark Gaffigan, co-author of the GAO report. The report itself notes: "Reductions in CO2 emissions depend on generating electricity used to charge the vehicles from lower-emission sources of energy."

The GAO report says a plug-in compact car, if recharged at an outlet drawing its power from coal, provides a carbon dioxide savings of only 4% to 5%. If the feeling of saving the environment from driving an electric car causes people to drive more, that small amount of savings vanishes entirely.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I don't think having an electric car will cause people to drive more. but, still these findings are disconcerting.

Wow, let the raving begin.

[lapfog_1]

1. I think they left out a few things

plug ins, at least at first and maybe for generations to come, are still going to have regenerative capabilities, plus in town driving is so much more efficient with an electric motor compared to a gasoline.

And, of course, it depends on where you get your electricity.

[Ron Green]

2. The bigger issue, I think, is that private conveyances are not as sustainable as

mass transit. That's where the effort must go, along with land-use changes to make it feasible.

[Jane Austin]

3. They could do something to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, though.

Wouldn't they?

[JohnWxy]

5. Yes. Full report says that. I have found it. link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x203017#203022

[Jane Austin]

10. Thanks. That seems like

a worthy goal, too.

[JohnWxy]

26. It is, but you have to have PHEGs on the road to accomplish that. According to Google's

investigation into PHEG usse they estimate about a 24% reduction in gasoline consumption in 20 years. GHG emissions reduction will be proportional, probably about 20% due to Coal and Nat gas mix for power plants. Unfortunately we do not have 20 years to do something about GHG emissons. We need to get some appreciable reductions going within, at the most, the next 10 years. (James Hansen says we've got 4 years)

[kristopher]

28. What a transparent manipulation of information.

Below is the link to Jeff Greenblat's (Google's point man on energy) web page on transportation.

See if you can find support for John's claim. If and when you find it, let us know how accurately John's statement reflects the body of information that Greenblat has pulled together.

http://knol.google.com/k/-/-/15x31uzlqeo5n/1#Personal_Vehicle_Sector

Posted by JohnWxy:
It is, but you have to have PHEGs on the road to accomplish that. According to Google's investigation into PHEG usse they estimate about a 24% reduction in gasoline consumption in 20 years. GHG emissions reduction will be proportional, probably about 20% due to Coal and Nat gas mix for power plants. Unfortunately we do not have 20 years to do something about GHG emissons. We need to get some appreciable reductions going within, at the most, the next 10 years. (James Hansen says we've got 4 years)

He likewise twists the import of Hansen's statement. That 4 years refers to *commencing* government initiatives to address climate change. It takes into account and is predicated on the various charts that you'll see at Greeblat's webpage on the pace of ramping up the technologies behind solutions. It IS NOT in any way an endorsement of the premise that technologies should be selected based on the criteria that John uses to promote ethanol.

[JohnWxy]

36. Why don't YOU tell us what Greenblatt's study shows? (More questions for you to answer.)

Some more questions for you to answer:

What is the final year in of the projection in the Google proposal (let's call that the 'target' year)?

How many years from 2009 is the Target year?

How many PHEGs and pure electrics does the Google proposal project to be on the road in the 'target' year?

How many gallons of gasoline are the PHEGs projected to consume in the 'target' year of the Google proposal?


Looking at Fig. 5 "US Vehicle Fuel Consumption", what is the "Savings from Plug-in hybrid vehicles" and "savings from elecric vehicles" (either as a percentage or absolute gallons) shown in the 'target' year of the google proposal?

The "Savings from Plug-in hybrid vehicles" and "savings from elecric vehicles" as indicated on the chart at Fig 5. is Fuel consumption for PHEGs compared to BAseline demand. What does Baseline demand represent?

[kristopher]

38. YOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUU made a flat out false assertion, John.

That isn't on me, it is on you.

[JohnWxy]

39. What basis do you have for saying it's false? Analysis or Belief? Do you know what the Google

proposal asserts? No. You don't. Can you show that you do know what the Google proposal asserts? No you can't.

[JohnWxy]

41. Don't leave it to others. If you think what I've said is innacurate tell us what Greenblat IS saying

You say you know what I have said is wrong. Well then tell everybody HOW YOU KNOW THAT!

GIVE US THE BASIS FOR THAT STATEMENT. OR WERE YOU JUST MOUTHING OFF AGAIN. MAKING STATEMENTS YOU CAN'T BACK UP!

It's time for you to produce something other than bullshit. Tell everybody how much gas consumption reduction Greenblatt is projecting for final year of the projection period - that is due to Hybrid and electric car use.


You don't know! Answer the questions I put to you, or shut up.

[kristopher]

43. LOL great straw man, dude.

Did you mommy fall for it when you stomped your foot and held your breath?

I don't either.

What a transparent *manipulation* of information.

Edited on Fri Jul-31-09 05:24 PM by kristopher
Below is the link to Jeff Greenblat's (Google's point man on energy) web page on transportation.

See if you can find support for John's claim. If and when you find it, let us know how accurately John's statement reflects the body of information that Greenblat has pulled together.

http://knol.google.com/k/-/-/15x31uzlqeo5n/1#Personal_Vehicle_Sector

Posted by JohnWxy:
It is, but you have to have PHEGs on the road to accomplish that. According to Google's investigation into PHEG usse they estimate about a 24% reduction in gasoline consumption in 20 years. GHG emissions reduction will be proportional, probably about 20% due to Coal and Nat gas mix for power plants. Unfortunately we do not have 20 years to do something about GHG emissons. We need to get some appreciable reductions going within, at the most, the next 10 years. (James Hansen says we've got 4 years)

He likewise twists the import of Hansen's statement. That 4 years refers to *commencing* government initiatives to address climate change. It takes into account and is predicated on the various charts that you'll see at Greeblat's webpage on the pace of ramping up the technologies behind solutions. It IS NOT in any way an endorsement of the premise that technologies should be selected based on the criteria that John uses to promote ethanol.

[JohnWxy]

44. all you have to do is back up your words. YOu said my statements were

distortions of Greenblatt's proposal.. all you got to do is show you weren't bullshitting again.

Of course, you can't.

To repeat:

You say you know what I have said is wrong. Well then tell everybody HOW YOU KNOW THAT!

GIVE US THE BASIS FOR THAT STATEMENT. OR WERE YOU JUST MOUTHING OFF AGAIN. MAKING STATEMENTS YOU CAN'T BACK UP!

It's time for you to produce something other than bullshit. Tell everybody how much gas consumption reduction Greenblatt is projecting for final year of the projection period - that is due to Hybrid and electric car use.


Just show us you know what you're talking about.

Answer the questions I put to you, or shut up.

[JohnWxy]

4. Okay, I think I found it. it's in a plain text file.

http://www.gao.gov/htext/d09493.html

(Note this is for PHEGs with 20 or 60 mile all electric ranges.


Table 1: Estimates of the Percentage Decrease in Carbon Dioxide
Emissions from Plug-in Hybrids with 20-or 60-mile All-Electric Range
Compared with Gasoline-Powered Vehicles:

Fuel source used to generate electricity to charge the vehicle: Plug-in
compact car vs. compact gasoline car;
Coal: 4-5;
Natural gas: 54;
Low carbon sources (e.g., nuclear or wind): 85-100.

Fuel source used to generate electricity to charge the vehicle: Plug-in
SUV vs. gasoline SUV;
Coal: 19-23;
Natural gas: 61-63;
Low carbon sources (e.g., nuclear or wind): 85-100.

Source: Kammen, Arons, Lemoine and Hummel (2008).


Note: Estimates are based on driving the plug-in hybrids within their
all-electric range.

(End of table)

As the table indicates, reductions in CO2 emissions depend on
generating electricity used to charge the vehicles from lower-emission
sources of energy. Natural gas is widely used for electricity
generation, though its emissions benefits are less than those of other
low-carbon sources. Energy sources with even lower emissions include
nuclear, hydropower, solar, wind, and, if the technology develops,
fossil fuel plants equipped to capture and sequester (store) CO2 before
it is emitted into the atmosphere. However, shifting to these sources
will require new power plants that can be expensive to build, as well
as investments to develop, test, and equip coal and other fossil fuel
plants with carbon sequestration technology. In addition, the
construction of new nuclear plants can be controversial because of
public concern about safety. Similarly, construction of some renewable
energy sources, such as wind turbines, can be controversial.

In addition, in regions of the country that are heavily reliant on coal
for power generation, conventional hybrids might offer greater CO2
reductions than plug-in hybrids. For example, a study by the Electric
Power Research Institute (EPRI) estimated that, with electricity
provided by current coal technology, a plug-in hybrid with a 20-mile
all-electric range had slightly higher CO2 emissions than a
conventional hybrid. Thus, in the immediate future, plug-ins could be
used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions--relative to conventional
hybrids--in regions of the country where electricity is already
generated from low-carbon energy sources. For example, a plug-in
vehicle charging in a coal-reliant state may not reduce greenhouse gas
emissions relative to a conventional hybrid. But a plug-in charging in
a state that relies heavily on hydropower would substantially reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. However, developing policy or incentives to
encourage consumers to buy plug-ins only in regions with low-carbon
energy sources could be difficult and may not correspond with
manufacturers' business plans.

Plug-ins could also reduce emissions that affect air quality. About 50
percent of Americans live in areas where levels of one or more air
pollutants are high enough to affect public health. Research we
reviewed indicated that plug-ins could shift air pollutant emissions
away from population centers even if there was no change in the fuel
used to generate electricity (e.g., if low-emitting renewable sources
were not substituted for higher-emitting sources). For example, a study
from the University of Texas modeled the potential impact plug-in
hybrids could have on the formation of smog in a region of the country
that relies heavily on coal for power generation.
Specifically, the study estimated that using plug-in hybrids
substantially reduced smog in major cities if they were charged at
night. These benefits remained even if nighttime power generation had
to be increased to full capacity to meet additional demand. One
potential downside the study identified was that rural areas near power
plants could experience an increase in the overall amount of airborne
emissions. However, since power generation would be increased at night,
pollutants would not be exposed to sunlight, which would limit the
production of smog. This benefit would depend on consumers adopting a
substantial number of plug-ins.

(more)

[Dead_Parrot]

6. Yeah, that report's, like, totally censored.

However, I've been able to gain a copy using my l33t h4x0r skillz. Here's how I did it:

1. Go to www.gao.gov
2. Click on the 'search' box
3. Type 'plug-in'
4. press enter.

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-493

Available as Highlights Page (PDF), Full Report (PDF, 53 pages), Accessible Text, & Recommendations (HTML). Take that, NSA!

[JohnWxy]

7. Hey, very good. For those who hate to click, here's the link to the report in PDF format.

top of the report: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09493.pdf

Table 1. summary table

[kristopher]

8. Another attempt to mislead John?

This is a very specific analysis. I haven't seen it before so I do thank you for the heads up.

The title of the OP, however, is a COMPLETE FABRICATION. Note the specificity of the aim as delineated in the title below. It is also worth pointing out that much of the benefit of PHEV is found in its role as an enabling technology for increasing renewable penetration on the grid. A PHEV fleet with V2G capability is the key element in grid power storage at a reasonable cost. As we know from its inability to capture anything like the full value of the public option in health care reform, the GAO is GEARED to produce conservative estimates.
I'm not sure what you *think* it says about our options for transitioning away from fossil fuels, but I doubt it says what you *hope*.

Federal Energy and Fleet Management: Plug-in Vehicles Offer Potential Benefits, but High Costs and Limited Information Could Hinder Integration into the Federal Fleet
GAO-09-493 June 9, 2009
Summary

The U.S. transportation sector relies almost exclusively on oil; as a result, it causes about a third of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions. Advanced technology vehicles powered by alternative fuels, such as electricity and ethanol, are one way to reduce oil consumption. The federal government set a goal for federal agencies to use plug-in hybrid electric vehicles--vehicles that run on both gasoline and batteries charged by connecting a plug into an electric power source--as they become available at a reasonable cost. This goal is on top of other requirements agencies must meet for conserving energy. In response to a request, GAO examined the (1) potential benefits of plug-ins, (2) factors affecting the availability of plug-ins, and (3) challenges to incorporating plug-ins into the federal fleet. GAO reviewed literature on plug-ins, federal legislation, and agency policies and interviewed federal officials, experts, and industry stakeholders, including auto and battery manufacturers.

Increasing the use of plug-ins could result in environmental and other benefits, but realizing these benefits depends on several factors. Because plug-ins are powered at least in part by electricity, they could significantly reduce oil consumption and associated greenhouse gas emissions. For plug-ins to realize their full potential, electricity would need to be generated from lower-emission fuels such as nuclear and renewable energy rather than the fossil fuels--coal and natural gas--used most often to generate electricity today. However, new nuclear plants and renewable energy sources can be controversial and expensive. In addition, research suggests that for plug-ins to be cost-effective relative to gasoline vehicles the price of batteries must come down significantly and gasoline prices must be high relative to electricity. Auto manufacturers plan to introduce a range of plug-in models over the next 6 years, but several factors could delay widespread availability and affect the extent to which consumers are willing to purchase plug-ins. For example, limited battery manufacturing, relatively low gasoline prices, and declining vehicle sales could delay availability and discourage consumers. Other factors may emerge over the longer term if the use of plug-ins increases, including managing the impact on the electrical grid (the network linking the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity) and increasing consumer access to public charging infrastructure needed to charge the vehicles. The federal government has supported plug-in-related research and initiated new programs to encourage manufacturing. Experts also identified options for providing additional federal support. To incorporate plug-ins into the federal fleet, agencies will face challenges related to cost, availability, planning, and federal requirements. Plug-ins are expected to have high upfront costs when they are first introduced. However, they could become comparable to gasoline vehicles over the life of ownership if certain factors change, such as a decrease in the cost of batteries and an increase in gasoline prices. Agencies vary in the extent to which they use life-cycle costing when evaluating which vehicle to purchase. Agencies also may find that plug-ins are not available to them, especially when the vehicles are initially introduced because the number available to the government may be limited. In addition, agencies have not made plans to incorporate plug-ins due to uncertainties about vehicle cost, performance, and infrastructure needs. Finally, agencies must meet a number of requirements covering energy use and vehicle acquisition--such as acquiring alternative fuel vehicles and reducing facility energy and petroleum consumption--but these sometimes conflict with one another. For example, plugging vehicles into federal facilities could reduce petroleum consumption but increase facility energy use. The federal government has not yet provided information to agencies on how to set priorities for these requirements or leverage different types of vehicles to do so. Without such information, agencies face challenges in making decisions about acquiring plug-ins that will meet the requirements, as well as maximize plug-ins' potential benefits and minimize costs.


Recommendations

Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Implemented" or "Not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:
Team:
Phone:
Susan A. Fleming
Government Accountability Office: Physical Infrastructure
[phone]


Recommendations for Executive Action

Recommendation: To enable agencies to more effectively meet congressional requirements, the Secretary of Energy should, in consultation with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), General Services Administration (GSA), Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and organizations representing federal fleet customers such as Interagency Committee for Alternative Fuels and Low-Emission Vehicles (INTERFUEL), Federal Fleet Policy Council (FEDFLEET), and the Motor Vehicle Executive Council, propose legislative changes that would resolve the conflicts and set priorities for the multiple requirements and goals with respect to reducing petroleum consumption, reducing emissions, managing costs, and acquiring advanced technology vehicles.

Agency Affected: Department of Energy

Status: In process

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should begin to develop guidance for when agencies consider acquiring plug-in vehicles, as well as guidance specifying the elements that agencies should include in their plans for acquiring the mix of vehicles that will best enable them to meet their requirements and goals. Such guidance might include assessing the need for installing charging infrastructure and identifying areas where improvements may be necessary, mapping current driving patterns, and determining the energy sources used to generate electricity in an area.

Agency Affected: Department of Energy

Status: In process

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should continue ongoing efforts to develop guidance for agencies on how electricity used to charge plug-ins should be measured and accounted for in meeting energy-reduction goals related to federal facilities and alternative fuel consumption. In doing so, the Secretary should determine whether changes to existing legislation will be needed to ensure there is no conflict between using electricity to charge vehicles and requirements to reduce the energy intensity of federal facilities, and advise Congress accordingly.

Agency Affected: Department of Energy

Status: In process

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: The Administrator of GSA should consider providing information to agencies regarding total cost of ownership or life-cycle cost for vehicles in the same class. For plug-in vehicles that are newly offered, the Administrator should provide guidance for how agencies should address uncertainties about the vehicles' future performance in estimating the life-cycle costs of plug-ins, so agencies can make better-informed, consistent, and cost-effective decisions in acquiring vehicles.

Agency Affected: General Services Administration

Status: In process

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Recommendation: Once plug-in hybrids and all-electrics become available to the federal government but are still in the early phases of commercialization, the Administrator of GSA should explore the possibility of arranging pass-through leases of plug-in vehicles directly from vehicle manufacturers or dealers--as is being done with DOD's acquisition of neighborhood electric vehicles--if doing so proves to be a cost-effective means of reducing some of the risk agencies face associated with acquiring new technology.

Agency Affected: General Services Administration

Status: In process

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

[kristopher]

9. Plug In for Clean Air

This is a blog entry at the National Resource Defense Council (unquestionably one of the best environmental NGOs out there). It is sourced and links to one of the most comprehensive analysis of PHEVs that has been done to date. This analysis is a product of the Electric Policy Research Institute, the National Laboratory responsible for research into providing for the nation's electric supply. I strongly encourage you to download both sections of the EPRI

Plug In for Clean Air

Luke Tonachel
Vehicles Analyst, New York City


As someone who has been enthusiastically watching and promoting plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, I was concerned that the headline of an article in USA Today (“Plug-in cars could actually increase air pollution,” Feb. 26) could lead to misperceptions about the environmental benefits of plug-in hybrid vehicles. The fact is that plug-ins are an important opportunity for reducing pollution.

Plug-in hybrid vehicles, which run part time on electricity supplied from power plants, are an extremely promising technology for reducing global warming pollution. Compared to conventional vehicles and today’s non-pluggable hybrids, they can run cleaner and use less gasoline, which helps reduce global warming pollution, slash oil dependence and save Americans money at the pump.

The environmental benefits of large-scale plug-in hybrid deployment have been detailed in Environmental Assessment of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles a comprehensive study jointly authored by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and NRDC (executive summaries of report: Volume 1 | Volume 2). The EPRI-NRDC report is especially relevant because it considers the evolution of the grid toward cleaner generation due to carbon constraints and existing regulations that tighten select criteria pollutant controls in the future. It evaluates the complex mix of generation resources used for vehicle charging in concert with rapid penetration of plug-ins into the market, and the study shows that plug-in hybrids reduce global warming pollution and provide modest, widespread air quality benefits.

Like many technologies, you can use plug-ins in the right way or the wrong way. Charging plug-ins with dirty coal power is the wrong way; these carbon-intensive sources make it harder for both the electric sector and transportation sector to meet our long-term global warming goals. Heavy reliance on the dirtiest technologies can also lead to localized increases in certain criteria air pollutants, such as particulate matter, also known as soot. Many of NRDC’s advocacy efforts are focused on preventing the wrong path: we are fighting against continued use of dirty coal generation, and we promote policies that encourage a cleaner grid mix.

electricity for vehicle charging. Typically, this is not the case; the electricity grid is a mix of generation technologies that includes coal along with cleaner energy sources. Overlaying the mix, regulations cap the criteria pollutants that are primary contributors to smog and acid rain (including oxides of nitrogen and sulfur dioxide), and therefore electricity producers cannot increase these emissions in their efforts to meet the increased energy demanded from plug-in hybrids. Existing laws tighten these cap levels over time forcing power plants to get cleaner.

We already have a road map for the right way to deploy plug-in vehicles. As soon as the vehicles are ready for the market, they should be introduced in large numbers across the nation in areas where the public is assured that plugging in will not lead to localized air pollution problems. We need to also keep improving the efficiency of these and other vehicles, so we continually reduce fuel demand by maximizing fuel economy (both miles per gallon and miles per kilowatt-hour). Simultaneously, we should follow examples for controlling global warming pollution from electric sector set by California (AB32 Global Warming Solutions Act and SB1368 Greenhouse Gas Performance Standard) and the Northeast states (Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative).

So let’s get started. It takes nearly fifteen years to turnover the fleet of vehicles on the road, and power plants can live for fifty years or more. Deploying plug-in vehicles smartly will put us on the path of clean, electrified transportation.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ltonachel/plug_in_for_clean_air.html

[wtmusic]

11. 96% fewer hydrocarbons, 99% less carbon monoxide, 67% less NOx

Looking at the big picture electric beats gasoline hands down.

[JohnWxy]

14. No links. please provide. Do these figures consider the fuel source for charging PHEG's?

..if not these data are not accurate.

[madokie]

15. With those kind of figures I would say it couldn't

[JohnWxy]

17. They don't. Just wanted to register the question and the request for the link.

[wtmusic]

20. Link

http://www.evadc.org/pwrplnt.pdf

(Table 1)

[JohnWxy]

25. very good. I like links. I'll check it out.

[JohnWxy]

27. Table 1 shows increase of 203% in SO2 and 122% for Particulates (for U.S.)

for PHEGs.

[wtmusic]

30. Fortunately SO2 and particulates are among the easiest pollutants

to scrub from coal power plant output, and are virtually non-existent at NG plants (see output for CA). Coal plant output is signficantly cleaner today than when this chart was made 12 years ago.

Not to mention electric cars are just plain more efficient, by a longshot. And:

"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that tailpipe emissions increase 25 percent for every 10,000 miles traveled.26 As gasoline cars age, their engines, catalytic converters, and other emission control devices become less efficient. The cleanest a gasoline car ever will be is the day it rolls off the assembly line."

[JohnWxy]

31. Well, I feel better now. I know how enthusiastic the Utiilities are about installing scrubbers.

BTW was the cost of installing scrubbers included in estimates of cost for PHEGs? Just wondered.

At any rate, the emprical results of the GAO study show reductions from PHEGs are not as good as they at first appear, when you look at the contributions by coal power plants. People have had the idea a PHEGs would provide 100% reduction over ICE applications when they are operating on battery power. That's not quite right. REgular hybrids being recharged without tapping into power grid are free of the coal power factor.

Again, what I have pointed out about PHEGs, is the TIME required to get appreciable results. With the utilities' enthusiasm for installing scrubbers how long will it take to retro the power industry? We're still looking at 20 years to get some appreciable results. They will only matter if global warming is not beyond control by then. I actually do not expect people will realize we must do something more now. Without greater reductions starting in the next few years, the gains (i.e. reductions) brought by PHEGs will not matter.

[wtmusic]

34. About as enthusiastic as car companies were about installing cat converters.

As usual, regulation is the answer.

When installed, limestone slurry scrubbers immediately remove 90% of sulfur dioxide from flue gas, and precipitators/filters even a higher percentage of particulates. So what's the basis for your assertion that "we're still looking at 20 years to get some appreciable results"? I'm not sure why you're tying this in with global warming anyway - they have absolutely no effect on CO2 production, so sooner than later we need to bail on coal altogether for wind/solar/nuclear. When that happens in your neighborhood, your plugin EV will be cleaner overnight.

btw whoever thought that any kind of electric power whether from a "PHEG" (whatever that is) or a powerplant has no environmental footprint is severely misinformed. So if your point is that severely misinformed people had unrealistic expectations, then I agree. :thumbsup: :silly:

[JohnWxy]

35. Right. I am just trying to inform people that PHEGs do have a carbon footprint. As you can see some

people find this sort of talk to be heresy. When we replace coal with wind and solar power then PHEGs will achieve their full potential. But until then, people are better served to recognize that PHEGs achieve something less than a 100% reduction of GHGs.

(BTW table 1 doesn't show any numbers for CO2 emissions and as we know, while charged by power plants powered by combustible fuels, PHEGs do not have zero CO2 emissions.)

[kristopher]

37. No you aren't.

You aren't "just trying" to do anything of the sort. You are trying to promote the use of ethanol by waging a campaign of misinformation regarding the place of EV's in the big picture plans to move away from fossil fuels.

Stinks like a skunk.

[Fledermaus]

40. Don't feed it. If we all agree not to feed it, maybe it will go away.

[kristopher]

42. Not a chance.

[diane in sf]

12. Your title is misleading...

[JohnWxy]

16. No, it's not. Reductions of 13% for small cars and 20% for SUVs is much less than people were

anticipating from PHEGs.


I could just leave it at that, as you did (without any argument or support for your assertion). But I will elaborate:

(By the way, I would have responded in a more timely manner to this comment but I have been somewhat engrossed in another matter of a very pressing nature..(Health Care Reform)).


When you look at table 1, the summary table, page 15 of the GAO report, you see The increased reduction of GHgs for the PHEGs compared to compact gasoline cars is 4 to 5% for coal powered recharging and 54% for natural gas. For SUVs a reduction of 21% for coal and 62% for natural gas is shown.



Now when you weight these percentage reductions by the uses of coal and natural gas for power generation (weighted by proportion of coal and natural gas power generation and population - by state: http://www.geocities.com/jwalkerxy/Coal_NatGas_by_State.xls">55.6% coal, 44.4% natural gas) you get the following:

Small cars....13.2% less GHG emissions
SUVs......19.6% less GHG emissions

Now I was under the impression that PHEGs were going to achieve very large GHG emissions reductions. When you hear of Plugins possibly getting 60 or 100 mpg (a figure often tossed around.) you tend to think you're going to see some pretty strong GHg emissions reductions. I think a lot of people were thinking of 60% (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x203017#203045">or even higher like - 80% GHG reductions (or more: see cmt 11) ) (per car). So when I see 13% and 20% figures that's rather more than a little dissappointing.

I also think everybody was thinking that PHEGs were supposed to do better than regular hybrids, but regular hybrids get about 25% (or more) better gas mileage than a comparable ICE powered car and since they are not using the power grid to recharge the batteries this should be a good estimate of the GHG emissions reductions vs the ICE powered cars.

If you compare the 13.2% and the 19.6% reductions to the 25% reduction for regular Hybrids, the PHEG figures are lower than those for regular hybrids.


NOw, the figures from Table 1 of the GAO report are for operating the PHEGs solely within their electric power range - but that is particularly what was supposed the strong point of Plug-ins. How many times have we heard somebody say with great enthusiasm - "Why if you only drive 15..20.. miles to work you can operate on electric only!". Well, the GAO results are for operating within the battery range and those GHG reduction numbers are, I contend, definitely well below what most people were thinking would be achievable with Plug-ins.

Now keep in mind that as battery ranges get longer people will be abe to drive more and more on electric only and that means more charging from the power grid meaning a greater percentage of the propulsive power being used will come from a balance of natural gas and coal (and less from the gas powered ICE engine on board the PHEG). This will make the recorded results better estimates of PHEG permormance in terms of GHG reductions as battery ranges gets longer.


So I really don't thihk the title of my post (which incidentally came from the article I found on the report - since intitially I couldn't find the report itself on the internet) was overstating these results at all.

[kristopher]

24. Yes, yes it is.

[excess_3]

13. the plug-in feature's use is optional

if you don't like it, don't use it

[rollingrock]

18. This GAO report is wildly inaccurate

In California, the most populous state in the country, only 20% of electricity is derived from coal-fired power plants.

80% of California's electricity comes from natural gas, nuclear, wind and solar, and hydro-electric power. Unlike coal, natural gas is a clean burning source of energy.

Only half of the country's electric power is derived from coal fired power plants. So at least half of the electricity being generated for electric vehicles and hybrids comes from non-coal sources. That makes electrical power overall at least 50% cleaner than gasoline right off the bat.

And in the future, that figure will get even higher as more natural gas plants are built, more wind and solar stations are built, replacing the old coal fired plants.

[Dogmudgeon]

19. Unfortunately, coal-fired power plants are still being built

The schedule for building them has had its fits and starts recently -- mainly due to crippling inflation in the technical construction field -- but coal is certainly a priority for the energy companies.

Even if it is "clean coal", it's still coal, and it will still release enormous amounts of CO2.

A recent report written for lay readership is http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf">Tracking New Coal-Fired Power Plants.

The proportion of coal-produced energy MAY decline, but I doubt it, unless there is a concerted effort to do so.

--d!

[wtmusic]

21. Limiting the number of locations where CO2 is produced

is a big step toward controlling the production itself.

It's much easier to upgrade 600 coal plants than to upgrade 60 million cars currently driving American highways. Once the cars are electric, the source of the electricity will only get cleaner.

[rollingrock]

22. Those coal plants are merely proposals

they have not been approved or finalized for construction.
and most of them were proposed during the Bush era.

[JohnWxy]

32. I have been a one man cheering section for wind power and I would love to see us replace as much

Coal power plants as we can with Wind (and solar as it becomes cost competitive) but this conversion will take time - and commitment. Even with commitment it will take many years to make a significant dent in the use of coal.

For the record, I would love it, if PHEGs could be charged from clean energy TOMORROW but it will take decades. And as I have tried to point out to people, we do not have decades to start making appreciable reductions in GHGs.

Actually, even if PHEGs could be charged with clean power TOMORROW because it will take 20 to 30 years to get a significant number on the road, the reductions PHEGs will achieve will come too late to matter if we do not do something to acheive more reductions NOW. What reductions we can achieve starting in the next few years would be just as, or more, effective than bigger reductions two or more decades from now - because Global Heating is accelerating.

We need to work towards getting those bigger reductions from Hybrids and Plug-in Hybrids (although I'm less sure about the benefits of PHEGs relative to regular Hybrids, now) but we have to do some things now to achieve more GHG reductions in the next few years if we want the later reductions from Hybrids and electrics to make any difference in the future.

[kristopher]

33. Really????? Since when?

A "one man cheering section for ethanol" you meant to say, right?

For years you have posted on two topics almost exclusively - the promotion of ethanol and the denigration of battery electric.

Now you are trying to greenwash yourself???

Not a chance, bub. Dishonesty simply oozes from your every keystroke, John.

[freethought]

23. Also consider the publication that made this article

"Investor's Business Daily"-If you want stock and other financial market reports IBD is the newspaper for you. However, if you want objectivity and sound opinion one would best look elsewhere. Having some experience with this publication I can say this, if it does involve capitalism, big business, or far-right conservatism chances are IBD is going to rail against it.
IBD makes the Wall Street Journal look like bleeding hearts.

[rollingrock]

29. The GAO report is completely distorted

in this article. Which is to be expected coming from a
publication called 'Investor's Business Daily.'