“a politician who supports PHEV research and development and coal power is self contradicting”

I’m going to disagree strongly with this one. I know for a fact several people that view peak oil as a far graver short term issue than GHG emissions, and as a result support PHEV research and could care less about coal power in the short term.

PHEVs are a great idea because they don’t just sell to those politicos that care about GHG emissions, but also those that think global warming is not happening but hate imported middle east oil.

More to the point, the article seems to use some rather vague statements, what does ‘dominant’ mean anyway? They never said what constitutes this. 50% coal 70%? 80%? This is big variable that would directly impact the conclusions of the study.

Also did the study use the currently CO2 profile of coal power on average, or of new coal plants?

While I’m not a big fan of coal, the coal plants of today (IGCC and Ultra Super critical) are approaching 50% thermal efficiency. If the author just used the average efficiency of our coal generation capacity (which includes a lot of old inefficient plants) the study would likely be highly distorted.

Overall, saying “By definition, if you support more coal power you should not support electric vehicles of any kind.” Is a pretty strong statement to make based on just reading a single study abstract, and likely an overreactions. Other studies have come to the conclusion that EVs, even powered with coal are still better than gasoline.

Statements like that are making the good the enemy of the perfect, so please stop it.

=== author's response follows ===
Most of your questions about the LCA scenarios are addressed at the linked Sustainable Research blog (not just the abstract is found there).

You raise a very valid point about those who care only for energy independence and dismiss climate as a near term issue. Although I have no idea how prevalent that outlook is, my supposition was and remains that those individuals will soon realize the gravity and immediacy of the climate crisis.

Here are some new poll results (by Harris) that support my view on how Americans are coming to view climate as an an important issue: http://www.eponline.com/articles/62419/

Regardless of where the energy is derived, personal vehicles are terribly inefficient simply because of the ratio of human weight to vehicle weight that is being moved. It would be better to invest of mass transit than continue to support a technology that is flawed at its core.

The issue with the study is that the author concludes two things:

1) In areas with a lot of coal power the GHG emissions of PHEV are slightly higher than a Hybird car.

2) The US AVERAGE CO2/kWh results in a reduction in CO2 for a PHEV over a traditional car and a Hybrid car.

In other words, the study concludes that PHEVs will result in slightly higher emissions in areas with a lot of coal power, *BUT* that this will be more than offset by PHEVs utilized in areas with cleaner energy.

(I should add that areas with the highest car (IE CA) seem to generally coincide with areas with the cleanest electricity so PHEV adoption will lightly be highest their).

In other words, the conclusion of the study does not justify yours.

== author's second response follows ===
the headline does say "Where Coal Predominates"

Predominate= To be of or have greater quantity or importance; preponderate

This is the same type of argument as those who jump up and down and say the Prius is environmentally worse than a Hummer.

What they don't take into consideration are people like me who plan to purchase an electric car AND solar panels to offset the charging car. They also don't take into consideration the solar and wind that will be online in two years when PHEV's start showing up on showroom floors.

Oil companies have a vested interest in seeing that PHEV's, so I can imagine we will see a raft of these stories by as PHEV's become a tangible reality. We are just now realizing how much special interest science is being proffered as objective research.

Fortunately we won't have a Bush administration when PHEV's start rolling off the assembly lines, otherwise I can only imagine the illegalities they would resort to in trying to stop them.

=== author's response follows ===
Perhaps I am over reacting; but ,would like to draw your attention again to the statement made in bold in the post that 'we really need to clean up the grid.' Should have made the additional need statement 'that we need more distributed clean power sources' (like you intend to add to your home).

Again those I ask the question of why that matters. After all, even if coal predominates in certain areas the net overall benefit of PHEVs or EVs is a reduction of GHG emissions when the totality of the carbon emissions of our grid are taken into effect.

Pointing to one specific area of the country that relies a lot of coal power and saying ‘see if this area adopts PHEVs, GHG emissions will increase by 5% therefore PHEVs are bad’ while failing to ask the more pertinent question of the overall impact of PHEVs on the whole is not a good idea. Also, the author does appear to rely on the carbon emissions of the existing coal fired fleet, not new generating capacity, so if a PHEV were powered by a new coal power plant the GHG emissions would be lower than gasoline, (not that that is an argument for coal, but the net effect is a benefit).

More importantly, given the fluxions and variability of renewable energy sources we will likely rely on PHEVs or EVs to perform some smart charging to load level the grid. In other words, you now how a chicken and egg issue, we can’t really fully develop clean energy until we have V2G, but then your arguing that we should not have PHEVs until we have clean energy.

Either way, we need to come to terms with the reality that renewable energy is not evenly geographically distributed and therefore there will always be areas were the electricity is dirtier, and that will always remain the same and therefore is not an argument.

=== author reply follows ====
Agree for the most part.

There is a significant body of support for increased reliance on coal of all forms, including extension of the operating life of exisiting coal fleet without meeting new source performance standards for emissions of sulfer oxides, nitrogen oxides, particulates, and mercury (which is killing our fish and aquatic life).

The major areas of the USA which are/will rely on coal for meeting existing and projected demand are Utah and Colorado (all the high plains actually), the entire Southeast, including Florida, and Texas/Mississipi/Missouri. That's a pretty big chunk of the driving demographic.

"...upstream impacts from fuel extraction, production, processing, and transportation are included..."

Are those same factors used when considering the HEV and the gasoline-only engine? IOW, are the greenhouse gas emissions of the power to find the oil, dig the wells, pump the wells, transport the oil, refine the oil, and transport and pump the refined gasoline also factored into the equations?

I'd be shocked to find that GHG emissions are significantly higher to dig coal and ship it 500 to 1,000 miles by rail directly to a nearby power plant than pumping out oil and shipping it halfway around the world to a refinery, process it, and then transporting it again to my local gas station.

I also find it interesting than many articles dwell significantly on the extra materials and processes needed to manufacture batteries, but rarely comment on all of the extra metals and resources used to produce the typical SUV they often compare against. Or are the materials needed for heavier bodies, chassis', engines, differentials, and transmissions free?

Does this consider that a lot of baseload power plants would be running anyway whether or not that electricity was being used to charge PHEV's?

Also, I find it curious that every time an article comes up about PHEV's, all of a sudden everybody's concerned about the pollution from producing electricity, when GM's pushing for PHEV's. On the other hand, if the article's about some small company making PHEV's or BEVs, all of a sudden nobody cares about that, and you get the incessant condemnations of GM for killing the EV1 project. Same thing with SUVs and pickups--everybody gives the big 3 crap about that, even though Toyota/Honda/Nissan etc sell equaly inefficent gas guzzlers (albeit not as well).

Let me go further and point out that other studies disagree:

https://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsections&sc=transportation&id=20213&a=f

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1569/

"Plug-ins will lead to lower overall emissions, even if the electricity that powers them comes from coal."

=== author's response follows ===
Now we're having some good fun. I will definitely read these and also invite the author of the cited study to comment.

Problem is that plug-in hybrids will create more demand for electricity which will help delay the closing of coal plants. Since plug-in hybrids represent new demand, it is correct to account the dirtiest power to them as they will result in coal plants staying on-line. Only when there is an excess in supply of clean green power should we start using plug-in hybrids.

We are much better off spending our limited resources on public transit, rail and cycling. This is what the rest of the world is already doing. It is about time Americans stop making lame excuses and use their creativity to create great public transit and rail systems.

=== author's last response follows ===
Thank you.

From the Homonym Patrol: One "pores" over results, and "pours" the milk. From the OED:

pore v.
1. intr.
a. To look intently or fixedly, to gaze (in, on, upon, at, over); to search for or into something by gazing. (Often, now always, with admixture of sense b.)
b. To look at something (usu. a book) with fixed attention, in the way of study; to read or study earnestly or with steady application; to be absorbed in reading or study. (Const. on, upon, (now chiefly) over; rarely in, into, or absol.)
c. To fix one’s thoughts earnestly upon something; to meditate, muse, or think intently; to ponder. Const. on, upon, over ...

The problem with computers and the internet is that they create more demand for electricity as well, therefore only when there is an excess in supply of clean green power should treehugger.com be turned on.

I think the key part is that the previous commenter is setting an impossible goal in saying ‘excess in supply of clean green power’ Hell, we don’t have an excess supply of dirty energy today so setting such an impossible condition seems rather silly.

But getting more serious, how much do you know about clean green energy? Just about everything I read about wind and solar points to Plug-in Hybrids as being a key part in balancing the intermediate nature of these power sources. In fact, there are already trials of using V2G to compensate for the variability of wind energy.

From the wind experts I’ve spoken to the only way to get wind and solar past 20% of our grid is utilizing V2G PHEVs to balance the grid.

So you’re saying that we should not have PHEVs and EVs until we have clean energy, and the clean energy people are saying that we can’t have clean energy until we have PHEVs.

What’s wrong with developing both at the same time?

Articles like this are spreading FUD plain and simple.

If you charge your car with solar and wind power then this whole argument becomes obsolete. Well, past the point where you break even for energy gained compared to energy expended to manufacture, deliver, and install said "free energy" producers.

I am personally holding out for a plug-in hybrid equipped with a small size (think 3 cylinder 1 liter) turbo diesel that can run WVO right out of the box. Yeah... an impossible dream.

Good to see some analysis looking at the broader mass and energy balance. This starts to get people to look beyond the plug to ask "where does the electricity come from". Poor political choices are made when we hear the average person say, "it's electric so it has zero carbon footprint".

So that rules out Obama, Clinton, and McCain. Who do we have left? Nader, McKinney, Gravel...

They're all for electrics and they all want a moratorium on coal. Go figure.

Mass donation day for Mike Gravel on May 13th. It's his birthday. The least you can do is donate a few dollars. http://www.gravel2008.us/donate_now

Some very good points being made here. As one of the authors of the journal article cited in this post, I wanted to try to add to the discussion.

First of all, in the big picture here, John Laumer (the TreeHugger author) states what we all know: we have to de-decarbonize the grid. We have to do this regardless of PHEVs coming into play or else getting to 80% below 1990 level GHGs by 2050 will be tough.

If we want to decarbonize transportation primarily via PHEVs, then we need to also think about what our grid (at scale, and at night for the most part) looks like and how it changes or else we might only make small improvements, not drastic ones (see earlier comment about 80% below 1990 levels- it really all comes back to this).

Our paper compares the life cycle greenhouse gases from a sedan, a hybrid, and PHEVs with different electric ranges. A PHEV charged on coal does beat regular sedans (30mpg) and really beats sedans with less fuel efficiency. So Mike Z's comment that PHEVs will reduce overall emissions even when charged on coal is right. This is because most people don't own hybrids, they own regular cars or SUVs. So if people who might not have bought a hybrid would buy a PHEV, we're doing better on GHGs and this would be a good improvement.

The paper lets you compare the relative GHG benefits of PHEVs depending on what type of electricity is used for charging (as well as if you used cellulosic E85). PHEVs start to beat hybrids when the life cycle GHGs from electricity are ~650-750 g/kWh. There are some things that could move this answer around a bit (fuel efficiency and other parameters), but it's a good starting point.

So if we want big GHG reductions from PHEVs, we have to get charging electricity down to the 150-350 g/kWh range. We point out that the timelines in the electricity sector and the vehicle sector are completely different, with power plants lasting 30-40 years or more, and vehicles ~12-15. So the power plants we build in the next decade or so will be part of the mix that charges our second, third, maybe fourth PHEV down the line. A vigorous cap and trade system, carbon tax, or carbon portfolio standard could help, as can major investments in low-carbon technology. But as one commenter says above, it takes a lot to retire old power plants, and we need to think about the grid and PHEVs as a coupled system, not individual components.

Some quick final points- Mike Long's comment (and intuition) is right- on average importing, refining oil and distributing gasoline contribute ~25-30% to the combustion impacts; upstream impacts from coal add ~8-14%,and domestic natural gas add ~13-20% (LNG can be higher than this). So the carbon intensity of coal (we used life cycle 950 g/kWh, which is a pretty efficient coal plant) is more responsible than the life cycle impacts for PHEVs having higher GHGs than hybrids running on gasoline. But- they still beat regular cars and this is important. No matter what we do, we need major GHG reductions from electricity and transportation at scale, and low-carbon electricity and PHEVs are one pathway toward this goal.

I agree with James, I won't have an EV without a cheap wind turbine on the roof of my house.

Put this in context please! The study says that 950g/kWh is the breakeven point for PHEVs. Let's see, there were only 2 states above that level: North Dakota and Wyoming. These two states represent 0.4% of the U.S. population.

This comes from
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oiaf/1605/cdrom/pdf/e-supdoc.pdf
looking for states that exceed 2.09 pounds/kWh in the table.

====== author's response follows ===
Thank you for pointing this out.

On the other hand, we must also focus on the fact that what is being proposed now is a very significant expansion of coal fired electricity capacity across the nation (hundreds of new plants are either under construction or planned) using old, relatively inefficient technology. If the "energy security" mindset drives public policy making, by the time PHEVs become widely available there will be even more coal plants proposed.

Additionally, having spent some time looking at EIA myself, I recall that Utah gets 93% of consumed electricity from coal-fired plants. Perhaps there is a difference in how state specific data are presented: between electricity produced overall and actually consumed, per source category?

Just to clarify Earl Killian's comment- it is ~650-750 g/kWh that is the break-even point for PHEVs vs. hybrids, not 950. So there are more states involved (potentially a lot more if coal is the dominant overnight fuel at the margin in a state, or a if state imports a lot of coal power). 950 is the number we used to represent charging mostly with coal. If we start importing more LNG to use in natural gas plants to power PHEVs, we could get close to or above that 650 point.

The main point of the piece is to bring about a dialog on what we want our grid to look like if we want large GHG reductions from PHEVs and add to the discussion on how to get there.

Cars, even if they are electric, are highly inefficient. Good city planning, bike trails and train systems, and pedestrian friendly communities are the BEST solution that we as a society SHOULD strive for.

Re-inventing the automobile = beating a very dead horse, but too many people love their car, and will do anything to keep it.