A new study from North Carolina State University indicates that even a sharp increase in the use of electric drive passenger vehicles (EDVs) by 2050 would not significantly reduce emissions of high-profile air pollutants carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides.
“EDVs” is a catch-all term that includes hybrid, plug-in hybrid and battery electric vehicles.
“We wanted to see how important EDVs may be over the next 40 years in terms of their ability to reduce emissions,” says Dr. Joseph DeCarolis, an assistant professor of civil, construction and environmental engineering at NC State and senior author of a paper on the new model. “We found that increasing the use of EDVs is not an effective way to produce large emissions reductions.”
The researchers ran 108 different scenarios in a powerful energy systems model to determine the impact of EDV use on emissions between now and 2050. They found that, even if EDVs made up 42 percent of passenger vehicles in the U.S., there would be little or no reduction in the emission of key air pollutants.
“There are a number of reasons for this,” DeCarolis says. “In part, it’s because some of the benefits of EDVs are wiped out by higher emissions from power plants. Another factor is that passenger vehicles make up a relatively small share of total emissions, limiting the potential impact of EDVs in the first place. For example, passenger vehicles make up only 20 percent of carbon dioxide emissions.
“From a policy standpoint, this study tells us that it makes more sense to set emissions reductions goals, rather than promoting specific vehicle technologies with the idea that they’ll solve the problem on their own.”
When the complete history of the "green" movement is written, it will go down in history as the greatest wealth transfer scam in the history of the world.
Hat tip: Seth
4 comments:
“In part, it’s because some of the benefits of EDVs are wiped out by higher emissions from power plants.
I work in power generation and I've been saying this for years. And I've mostly been ignored, too, because hey, what do I know about power generation?
“In part, it’s because some of the benefits of EDVs are wiped out by higher emissions from power plants."
Not in part but the main part. So far we have not observe a significant exception to the Law of Conservation of Energy. That is the major point which is ignored or not seriously considered in the discussion.
What happened to Basic Science?
I never thought the purpose of an EDV was to decrease overall pollution, but to relocate the pollution from the city to the countryside.
As power plants become more efficient, the existing electric cars and plugin hybrid and range extended EVs will automatically become more efficient.
Also these cars can make the grid more efficient, by giving power back to the grid during peak times of the day and recharging at night when there is excess energy in the grid. I guess Physics Geek doesn't know about smart grid?
In states like Washington State where a lot of the electricity is generated by hydroelectric power, they are a clear win.
In states where most of the power is coal generated, electric cars are still at least as good as a Prius.
Post a Comment