Energy Use is a Zero-Sum Game
When discussing global warming and attempting to calculate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, a fact that is frequently overlooked is that energy use is a zero-sum game. That is, most forms of machinery require an input of energy. It can be electricity for a toaster, a gas flame in a furnace or gasoline into a car. Frequently, you can change the form of the energy, say by switching from a gas furnace to an electric furnace, but you still need to produce the energy to run the furnace. If producing the electrical energy to run the furnace produces more GHGs than running the furnace on gas, then you haven’t gained anything for the GHG environment.
In a recent post, I said that the plug-in or all-electric car might save the world based on the fact that
it has zero GHG emissions and that we have now reached the tipping point for electric cars because they are fast enough to be credible. A concerned reader pointed out that I had "forgotten the basic fact that all-electric cars require ELECTRICITY" and that we will "simply trade one evil for another." My response? In the words of Pat Paulson, “Picky, picky, picky.” Well, OK, maybe the point needs to be addressed.
So, do plug-in or all-electric cars have a net positive effect on reducing GHGs emissions? Let me suggest five reasons for the answer being yes.
1. Tesla Says So
Elon Musk, the chairman of Tesla Motors, provides an analysis of how his all-electric car compares to other vehicles, assuming that the electricity is produced via natural gas fueled electrical generation. According to his analysis, the natural gas CO2 emissions in power plant production are one-quarter of the Honda Hy-brid CNG. In essence, a car engine is not nearly as efficient (at least with respect to GHG production) at creating energy as is a power station that produces electricity. I realize that he is biased, but his reasoning seems plausible.
2. Others Say So
Musk isn't alone. The calculations are that even if the electricity is generated by coal-fired plants, the GHG reductions would be 50%. In combination with the other advantages of the elimination of pollutants and elimination of oil dependence, that's pretty good.
3. Wind And Solar Are Coming
Additions to coal-fired electrical generation are here and growing. Cap-and-trade will force it. International politics will force it. Environmentalists will force it. And for every kilowatt of electricity produced by wind or solar, the benefit of the all-electric car multiplies.
Advances are also being made in the storage of solar and wind energy through, for example, compressed air storage and improvements in batteries.
4. Action Is Already Being Taken
The ability to have a practical energy delivery system is more than just theoretical. Solar installer Solar City has built four solar electric-car charging stations along U.S. Route 101 between San Francisco and Los Angeles. Fully charging the Tesla, which has a range of 250 miles, costs about $4.
5. What's The Down Side?
There appears to be no feasible argument that the stand-alone, gas powered engine of every car could possibly be better for the GHG environment than an engine that is electrically powered. Even if it is a break-even scenario (which isn't supported by the facts), why would anyone be against the all-electric car? It will always be easier to increase electrical generation at a power plant than it will be to make adjustments to every gas engine.
Now that the electric car has shown that it is more than a glorified golf cart, it is on its way. And all indications are that it will be a significant net reduction for GHG emissions. If so, it will be interesting to see what impact it has on the need for extensive and expensive environmental regulation.
RELATED POST: Global Warming and Fast Cars -- A Perfect Match
