ETA Warns That Switching to EVs Will Increase Emissions in Coal Dependent World Page 2

 

Coal Mine

For example, under the current EU emissions trading system, sales of electric cars are likely to result in higher overall CO2 emissions and oil consumption.

Director at the ETA, Andrew Davis, said: "Whilst the report is not intended to dampen enthusiasm for electric vehicles, their introduction should not be viewed as a panacea; significant changes to the way we produce and tax power are needed before we will reap any benefits."

Key findings of report:

Performance
Electric cars powered by wind or solar energy are obviously superior, but if the electricity comes from coal, hybrids perform better.

Price
There is potential for improvement in performance and reduction of costs in the medium term, but not enough to suggest electric cars could compete head-on with conventional vehicles within the next two decades.

CO2 emissions
The EU emissions trading system implies that plug-in electric cars would not increase CO2 emissions because the power sector is covered by the scheme. If this trading scheme remains unchanged, sales of electric cars are likely to result in higher overall CO2 emissions and oil consumption.

Popularity
Low running costs of electric vehicles would lead to extra demand for car transport and make necessary the taxation of electricity.
On-board metering of electricity use would be a key requirement.

National Grid
Even if the National Grid has the capacity and the basic infrastructure to meet the needs of electric cars, the new demand patterns they will create may mean greater use of coal and nuclear power.

Recommendations made by the report:
It unlikely that electric vehicles will number more than 25% of new sales by 2050, but in order to speed the uptake of the technology and manage the transition, the report recommends the following three
measures:

Stringent CO2 standards for cars
The most certain way to promote electric-powered transport is to tighten long-term CO2 standards for cars to 80 g/km by 2020 and 60 g/km by 2025 whilst at the same time increasing fuel taxes.

A lack of stringent CO2 standards removes the main incentive for motor industry to invest in electrification. Road tax exemption and grants for electric cars should be abolished; electric cars must be rewarded for their energy efficiency, not for moving emissions from exhaust pipes to power station chimneys.

Quantity and quality of electricity used in electric cars must be measured.
On-board metering of the amount of electricity will be critical in order to manage and regulate demand for electric vehicles.

The power sector has to be de-carbonised Existing loopholes in the Emissions Trading Scheme need to be closed and the cap further tightened.

Ends

For a copy of the report or an interview with Andrew Davis, please call Yannick Read at the ETA press office on 0845 389 1064 or 07788 606 483.

Notes to editors

The report, 'How to avoid an electric shock: Electric cars from hype to reality' was conducted by the European lobby group Transport & Environment, an organisation co-founded and supported by the ETA.

The Environmental Transport Association is provides carbon-neutral breakdown cover and insurance products. As well as encouraging responsible driving to reduce carbon, the ETA campaigns for sustainable transport www.eta.co.uk

The ETA each year analyses the environmental performance of every new car on sale in Britain. The greenest car on sale in Britain this year is the Honda Insight Hybrid






Posted in:
 
Follow Us

 

Have an opinion?Join the conversation!

  • Posting indicates you have read this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use
  • Notify me when there are more comments
Comments (9)
  1. This article begs to differ: http://dvice.com/archives/2009/07/shift-sorry-cri.php (click my name)
    The article assumes 250 million vehicles would require 600 billion kwh per year. This means
    Quote: " Per the EIA, every kWh generated by a coal plant produces two pounds of carbon dioxide. So 600 billion kWh x 2 lbs of CO2/kWh = 1.2 trillion pounds of CO2. Ouch.
    Still, is that better than gasoline? The EIA says the U.S. consumed 3.3 billion barrels of gasoline in 2008, or 138 billion gallons. The Environmental Protection Agency says one gallon of gas belches out 20 pounds of CO2. That adds up to about 3 trillion pounds of CO2."
    So even at the lousy 3 miles per kwh that is assumed in this article coal powered EV's come out on top almost a factor 3 compared to ICE's in CO2 emissions.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  2. Emissions with be easier to control at the power plant than on millions of cars. Don't forget hydro power also.. lots of it goes unused at night in the north east.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  3. ...not to mention the possibility to turn coal power plant CO2 emissions into biofuels:
    http://gas2.org/2009/09/17/arizona-project-uses-algae-to-turn-coal-pollution-into-biofuel/ (or click my name).
    All of these factors indicate how disingenuous ETA's argument really is. The point is that at the vehicle level EV's are emission free and 90% efficient. How the power is generated is a choice and well-to-wheel zero emissions are definitely an option. ETA's attempt to thwart early adoption of zero emission EV's using this kind of fallacious arguments indicates an anti-car perse agenda rather than an anti polluting car agenda.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  4. Who knows, they may be being bought-off by the infamously honest oil barons. I'm so sick of the whole ICE empire, and also of being held captive to this kind of energy propulsion for our cars. And hybrids are not the answer. They're a temporary bandaid, expensive at best. Love your ideas above about controlling emissions at the powerplants easier than at the tailpipes of millions of rigs. The idea of turning coal power plant CO2 emissions into biofuels is ingenious. Love it! Here's to all-electrical automobile prolusion! Bring it on in it's entirety!!
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  5. The conclusion of the ETA that a hybrid will pollute less than a hybrid seems to be based an a lot of faulty assumptions. And, their solution is to raise taxes on gasoline and cut incentive for electric. That kind of thinking is the reason why we are still burning oil.
    The reality of electric cars is that they will mostly be charged at night, when there is excess energy available. And, electric car owners are going to demand solar panels, especially here in the southwest.
    Before anyone blames electric cars for pollution that hasn't even ocurred yet, we should question why the electric grid wastes almost half of the energy. The real solution is local generation from clean sources.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  6. Depending on what assumptions you choose to make, you can arrive at whatever conclusion you desire.
    However, oil is getting dirtier with time as we come to rely more and more on tar sands, shale oil and heavier oils in the Middle East and South America. So, gasoline doesn't have a clean 'long tailpipe' either. Electricity doesn't rely solely on coal. In Canada, it accounts for less than 20% of electrical generation, and falling. At least with electric cars we have the option of cleaning up the energy supply, which is not the case with oil.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  7. The State of California has required all large industrial concerns to report their C02 emissions as a baseline for its control efforts. By far the largest C02 emitters in the state are oil refineries, dwarfing electric power stations. Granted that most power in CA is generated with natural gas, it still begs the question of what are the total emissions of gas and diesel powered vehicles from the wellhead to where the rubber meets the road. When you add literally billions of tons of C02 from the refining process to what comes out of the tailpipes, electricity starts looking even better.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  8. The source of the ETA "report" is a study by Kromin et al, funded by Shell and Ford Motor: see http://blog.storybridge.org/2009/11/evs-speed-climate-change-wtf.html
    But even so, the long tailpipe argument is just not valid. For the reasons that Chris O mentions but also because EV's make it possible for drivers to be active in the energy market in a way that petrol never did.
    There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that even 10% - 20% national fleet penetration of EV's (the most optimistic studies estimate) would increase emissions from coal fired power stations. Long tailpipe "studies" make this assumption, but there is no evidence to support the validity of this assumption at all.
    Folks are not going to charge their EV's with peak power and pay many times the cost, when they can use surplus power at night that would otherwise go to waste.
    Other studies quoted in the report suggest that even 60% of EV ownership would result in *no impact* on grid capacity.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  9. I concour with all the comments made so far and the short sided view of the orginal paper. May I add that this reapparition of such a thesis is similtaneaous will a lot of communications, some weeks before the Copenhagen summi, "showing" that global warming is not what it is supposed to be ...
    Ad finally, look at the model Betterplace is promoting, only reneweable electricity shoul be distributed to the affiliated EVs.
    Regards to all,
    JC NPNS
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

 

Have an opinion?Join the conversation!

Find Green Cars

Go!


 
© 2011 Green Car Reports. All Rights Reserved. Green Car Reports is published by High Gear Media. Send us feedback. Stock photography by Homestar, LLC.