Life cycle air quality impacts of conventional and alternative light-duty transportation in the United States (6 page pdf, Christopher W. Tessuma, Jason D. Hillb,1, and Julian D. Marshall, Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences(PNAS), Dec. 30, 2014)
Also discusses here: Electric Vehicle Batteries: Clean and Green, or Something Less?(Al Bredenberg, Contributing Writer, Design News, Sep. 7, 2015)
Today we review research into the life cycle costs in terms of GHG emissions and ptrematurte deaths resulting from the use of electric vehicles (EV) compared to conventional vahicles using gas which is a factor not only of the tailpipe emissions on the road but also on the source of the electricity used to charge the batteries and what emissions come from them. Results indicate that EVs using electricity generated from coal (which is true for southeastern USA) produce more than three times the mortalities than from conventional vehicles burning gas – and over 90% of this comes from the battery production. On the other hand, EVs using electricity from wind/solar/water have almost insignificant damages compared to gasoline powered vehicles. EVs using electricity form biofuels such as corn ethanol have impacts about 50% higher than ordinary gasoline powered vehicles. All of this underlines the importance of considering the pollution costs of the manufacture of the Lithium batteries that power many EVs, in addition to the fuel economy on the road.
Key Quotes:
“powering vehicles with corn ethanol or with coal-based or “grid average” electricity increases monetized environmental health impacts by 80% or more relative to using conventional gasoline. Conversely, EVs powered by lower emitting electricity from natural gas, wind, water, or solar power reduce environmental health impacts by 50% or more.”
“production of copper and other raw materials for batteries occurs far from people…copper ore smelting, which causes the majority of battery production SO2 emissions, mainly occurs in the sparsely populated southwestern United States.”
“In 2011, the Chinese government began shutting down graphite mines for environmental and resource protection. Stricter controls were imposed to prevent a pollution problem called “graphite rain.” USGS explains that “dust emissions from the mining of crystalline flake graphite had become a major issue, and although graphite is inert and not harmful, the air pollution from dust had become a problem to local residents and farmers.”
“Excluding battery production, impacts from wind, water, and solar (WWS) EVs .. are notably lower than from the other scenarios because WWS electrical generators do not produce emissions while in use. Emissions from battery production for the EV scenarios are tracked separately. The main emission sources for EV battery production .. are coal mining inWyoming and the Appalachian Mountains and the extraction and refinement of raw material inputs, including copper”
“Air pollution-related human health impacts for each scenario (PM2.5 and O3-related mortalities, and the corresponding monetized damages) ..range from 230 mortalities per year ($0.14 per gallon gasoline-equivalent) for the WWS EV scenario to 3,200 mortalities per year ($1.94 per gallon gasoline-equivalent) for the coal EV scenario. Estimated mortality impacts from PM2.5 are approximately an order of magnitude greater than those from O3”
“Previous studies ..have argued that to meet stated goals for GHG emission reductions, it is necessary to both electrify vehicles and decarbonize electricity generation, for example through WWS electric generation. Our results suggest that such a strategy would have the strong cobenefit of substantially reducing air quality-related mortalities (by ∼70%).”
Showing posts with label Hybrid. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hybrid. Show all posts
Thursday, October 29, 2015
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
How Much do Hybrid Cars Pollute?
Emissions from Hybrid and Plug-In Electric Vehicles (Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Dept. of Energy)
Also discussed here: Well-to-Wheels Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (70 page pdf, A. Elgowainy, A. Burnham, M. Wang, J. Molburg, and A. Rousseau, Argonne National Laboratory, Feb. 2009)
Today we review a publication from the US Dept of Energy that compares the emissions, both tail pipe and well to wheels, of hybrid vehicles to those running on conventional gasoline. The results indicate not surprisingly that hybrids use 40-60% less gas. One very important point though is the source of the electricity used to power the plug-in hybrids where some regions (such as Ontario) drawing its power from non-pulluting sources from carbon fuel emissions, such as hydro and nuclear, while others depend almost entirely on coal, natural gas or oil.
Key Quotes:
“Hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), and all-electric vehicles (EVs) typically produce lower emissions than conventional vehicles do”
“EVs and PHEVs running only on electricity have zero tailpipe emissions, but emissions may be produced by the source of electrical power, such as a power plant. In geographic areas that use relatively low-polluting energy sources for electricity generation, PHEVs and EVs typically have a well-to-wheel emissions advantage over similar conventional vehicles running on gasoline or diesel”
“[in the USA] 91% of coal use is for electric power generation, and 51% of electric power is produced by coal combustion”
“PHEVs that employ biomass-based fuels (e.g., biomass-E85 and -hydrogen) may not realize GHG emissions benefits over regular HEVs if the marginal generation mix is dominated by fossil sources”
“PHEVs that employed petroleum fuels, E85, and hydrogen, …were shown to reduce petroleum energy use by 40–60%, 70–90%, and more than 90%, and GHG emissions by 30–60%, 40–80%, and 10–100%, respectively, compared with those of a conventional gasoline ICEV”
Also discussed here: Well-to-Wheels Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (70 page pdf, A. Elgowainy, A. Burnham, M. Wang, J. Molburg, and A. Rousseau, Argonne National Laboratory, Feb. 2009)
Today we review a publication from the US Dept of Energy that compares the emissions, both tail pipe and well to wheels, of hybrid vehicles to those running on conventional gasoline. The results indicate not surprisingly that hybrids use 40-60% less gas. One very important point though is the source of the electricity used to power the plug-in hybrids where some regions (such as Ontario) drawing its power from non-pulluting sources from carbon fuel emissions, such as hydro and nuclear, while others depend almost entirely on coal, natural gas or oil.
Key Quotes:
“Hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), and all-electric vehicles (EVs) typically produce lower emissions than conventional vehicles do”
“EVs and PHEVs running only on electricity have zero tailpipe emissions, but emissions may be produced by the source of electrical power, such as a power plant. In geographic areas that use relatively low-polluting energy sources for electricity generation, PHEVs and EVs typically have a well-to-wheel emissions advantage over similar conventional vehicles running on gasoline or diesel”
“[in the USA] 91% of coal use is for electric power generation, and 51% of electric power is produced by coal combustion”
“PHEVs that employ biomass-based fuels (e.g., biomass-E85 and -hydrogen) may not realize GHG emissions benefits over regular HEVs if the marginal generation mix is dominated by fossil sources”
“PHEVs that employed petroleum fuels, E85, and hydrogen, …were shown to reduce petroleum energy use by 40–60%, 70–90%, and more than 90%, and GHG emissions by 30–60%, 40–80%, and 10–100%, respectively, compared with those of a conventional gasoline ICEV”
Related articles
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)