OPPD's Coal-fired North Omaha power plant provides 58% of the electricity that powers LIVN GRN, our plug-in Prius.
My Dirty, Coal-Powered Plug-in Prius?
By Bill Moore
The National Research Council just issued a report that claims plug-in vehicles like our plug-in Prius are worse for the environment than gasoline-powered vehicles. The media has quickly jumped all over this -- as did a local physician friend of mine -- casting electric cars and PHEVs in a very negative light.
I fully admit that here in Nebraska, our PICC-converted 2009 Prius is being powered by a significant fraction of Wyoming coal, hopper car loads of it every hour. My local power company generates nearly 58% of our electricity from this dirty, CO2-laden fossil fuel. Another 27% comes from natural gas and oil. A nuclear plants located within 25 miles of our home here in Papillion, a suburb of Omaha, provide another 15%. Pathetically, only 0.2 percent comes from wind and landfill gas.
Concerned about how much CO2 we're indirectly contributing by plugging in our car every night and recharging its battery, I did some calculations that I'll share with you, though bear in mind, my math skills leave a lot to be desired.
First off, how much CO2 would our Prius emit if we simply kept it in its stock hybrid mode (actually we can easily switch it back through a simple computer display)? My wife, who drives the car daily, commutes a total of 11 miles round trip. Assuming she gets 45 mpg, she will burn about a quarter gallon of gasoline a day. Depending on whose numbers you use, a gallon of gasoline will produce between 20-24 pounds of CO2. So, in hybrid mode, her commute produces 5.28 lbs of CO2 if we use 22 lbs per mile as our average. In European teams that about 135 g/km.
To drive her 11 miles at 45 mpg (assuming colder weather), in stock hybrid mode, the Prius will produce just over 5 pounds of carbon dioxide and consumes around a quart (0.9 L) of petroleum (60% from overseas).
Now let's switch the car back to PHEV mode and what happens?
I've been tracking the amp hour usage of the car on a daily basis and my wife is using about 30% +/- of the 26.6 amp hour capacity of the Plug-In Conversions Corporation battery pack over the 11 miles. At a finished voltage of 220 volts, that translates into about 1.8 kWh of electric power consumed. Some bit of gasoline is also burned to warm up the catalytic converter, but its difficult to measure exactly how much at the moment because of the '09 Prius' bladder-type tank. I am guessing it's way under a quart, probably measured in fractions of a cup, though as it gets colder, it will go up, as it does with any IC engine car in winter.
Generating a kilowatt hour of electric power produces an estimated 2.095 lbs of CO2. So, recharging the Prius' battery back to its starting 89% SOC results in about 3.2 lbs (1710 gram) of fossil fuel-produced CO2.
Although a nuclear power plant may not produce CO2 on site, carbon dioxide is produced during the fuel creation process. Estimates vary, but one figure places it at around 40 grams per kilowatt hour.
So, to the 1710 grams add another 72 or 1782 grams for the 17.69 km of her commute. That calculates out to be equivalent to 100.73 grams/kilometer in European terms and 0.356 lbs of CO2 per mile in American nomenclature.
Finally, let's add 0.25 liters of gasoline that's burned starting the car to warm the catalytic converter and defrost the windshield on cold damp days like today. At the moment, this is just a guess; I'll have a better handle on this once we upgrade the Prius display to more accurately display fuel burned each day. So, for the sake of argument, let's add roughly another 37 g/km.
Running the car on gasoline alone in standard hybrid mode for my wife's 11 mile commute generates something around 135 g/km of CO2, while in PHEV mode, it is right around 137 g/km, not as good as I'd like, obviously, but one that is likely to improve over time as more of our local power comes from wind and other less-carbon intense energy sources.
Even in a state so heavily reliant on fossil fuels, our PHEV Prius generates about the same amount of CO2 as a stock 2009 Prius in our particular driving situation. I would, of course, prefer that instead of being so dependent on coal, natural gas and oil, we were more like Quebec, Norway or Brazil where nearly all of their power comes from renewable hydroelectricity. Then it would be no contest.
And unspoken in all this brouhaha is the fact most of the power propelling my wife's Prius comes from the American power grid, where coal is becoming less important and renewable energy is growing at double digit rates. In the my book, both our car and the grid is heading in the right direction. You can't say that about your average car on the road.
ADDENDUM: 5 November 2009
My local power company responded to my request to determine the percentage of coal vs. nuclear power-produced electricity I use overnight when I recharge the Prius. It turns out that on a yearly average it's a 50/50 split, which means that the amount of CO2 I am directly responsible for is just over 2 pounds for my wife's commute of 10 miles. In grams of CO2 per kilometer it works out to be 54.7g/km.
Here's how I arrive at that number. I've been collecting data twice a day from the car for several weeks now and it appears that the commute consumes about 2.4kWh of energy from the battery. Of this, I now know that half comes from coal or 1.2kWh. Assuming 1.8 lbs of CO2 per kWh means that we'd be directly responsible for just over 2 lbs of CO2 for my wife's commute to and from work, at least when the temperature is in the high 50's to low 60's, and the IC engine remains off. If the car were operating as a conventional Prius, the same trip would create 5.3 lbs at 45 mpg. A conventional gasoline car getting 22 mpg in city driving would generate 11 lbs of CO2, over five times what we're producing as a PHEV, even using coal. Total electricity used to make the commute each day? Less than 17¢ a day.
But in actuality, the car is carbon-free. We monthly contribute $15 to our utility's green energy fund. The utility tells me that equates to 500 kWh of "renewable, carbon-free" energy per month the utility purchases in our behalf (though it doesn't actually come off my monthly utility bill). Assuming we consume 3 kWh of energy a day recharging the car, that's only 90 kWh a month, less than 20% of the 500 kWh we're voluntarily paying for. I'll assume the rest offsets my computer and other electronics I use to produce EV World.
So, when I tell someone from now on that I drive a plug-in Prius, I don't want to hear any more "Oh, you're plugging into a lump of coal." Actually, no I am not, thank you very much. By-the-way, what's your car running on? Unless it's sunshine or wind, don't even bring the issue up.
Published: 22-Oct-2009 | Page Views: 2825
All non-subscriber comments must now be confirmed by email. No comments will be posted without prior confirmation.
Reader Comments
42 comments so far...
1.
23-Oct-2009
88740
| |
Bill,
I live in Orlando, FL where we plug into coal. I have been dreaming of converting an older Honda, MG or VW to electric, and have figured out exactly how much it will cost. I've researched all the hardware continuously over the past 8 years or more. I teach math and physics and I've run the numbers too, but they only show you part of the picture. Maybe pluging into coal produces fewer particles of carbon than petrol, but to see the big picture, look at the origins of both materials. We're destroying the Appalacian mountains to get to the coal, while the petrol has a smaller effect on the surface, as long as they aren't spilling it all over the ocean or burning it in the fields of Iraq.
So I haven't converted a car yet. I won't until I can first afford ~$20000 (+$20000 in rebates) to put solar panels on my roof. If I could get a loan amortized over a period of time such that my monthly payment would equal what I currently pay for coal power, then I would install a 5kw grid tie system today. It seems that the government would rather give me $20000, than loan me $40000, which I would pay back with interest. Maybe investing in coal, through subsidies, is a better investment (though I don't teach economics, so I can't speculate.) So, in the mean time, I drive a 1999 Nissan Sentra GXE very carefully and average 39mpg on my daily 26 mile (round trip) commute across Orlando to work, and use a solar powered clothes line to dry my clothes.
Posted by: Denny Douglas
|
|
2.
23-Oct-2009
88741
| |
Posted by:
|
|
3.
23-Oct-2009
88754
| |
Denny.... I understand completely. I lived in the coal fields of Appalachia for five and half years and know what coal mining has done and is doing to this region environmentally and to the health of its people. I've had friends with black lung disease and other killed by rock falls. I've seen rivers run black after a heavy rain, and mountain top removal only makes it worse.
Interestingly the head of the Union Pacific Railroad,headquartered here in Omaha, came out recently in support of the Chamber of Commerce and its stance against climate change regulations and carbon caps. Why? Because one of their biggest sources of revenue is hauling Wyoming coal.
Believe me, the first chance I get to find a better, less polluting way to power my life, I'll do it. But just my switching to PV, wind or hydrokinetics, won't make one bit of difference in the world until my utility finds a way to stop using so much fossil fuel... and that's what we're hoping to do at Hydrokinetic Labs.
Posted by: Bill Moore
|
|
4.
23-Oct-2009
88780
| |
Also unspoken is that the 2009 Prius is irrelevant to the debate itself, since the 2010 Prius-- which gets 50mpg rather than 45-- is the one that will appear as a plug-in in any serious volume.
It does show that the more electricity used (in your state, in 2009) the worse, which is unfortunate. However, if you lived in California or Texas this would be a completely different discussion (and I'd love to hear those numbers).
And there's no doubt the grid is heading in the right direction: this amazing article from last week about the Tres Amigas superconductor "hub" being proposed for New Mexico to relay wind power to other parts of the country is a massive step forward:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5giMkwo6cFPWD1X-zXg4cgE7v_lIAD9BAGI080
Posted by: Josh Trutt
|
|
5.
23-Oct-2009
88793
| |
If you plugin off peak at night you are using energy that usually gets wasted. This exceess is from coal, nuclear and any other fossil fuels that can't be shut off or ramped down off hours. It's also proven that one power plant is more controller and makes less pollution that the many vehicle exhaust pipes, 10 times less.
So you are driving much cleaner.
Posted by: jim stACk
|
|
6.
23-Oct-2009
88801
| |
This argument always makes me smile. If you can afford a prius, you can afford green tags. I pay an extra 1.5 cent per kilowatt hour for 100% wind power from coned. My electric scooter (I don't have a car) runs on 0% coal.
Posted by: Larry
|
|
7.
23-Oct-2009
88810
| |
Isn't the NRC sponsered by Glen Beck and flush-Rush Lamebaw
Posted by: john hurt
|
|
8.
23-Oct-2009
88888
| |
I happen to remember this morning after writing this that we do, in fact, send an extra $15/month to our electric utility's "Green Power " program, which helped fund it's wind turbine and other green energy initiatives. So, theoretically, we could actually be powering part of the car with renewable, which makes me feel a bit better about all this.
And yes, the green tags idea is a good one, though if I could get my Renewable Energy Account (REA) introduced in Congress, as well as the Solar Offset Tax Credit I've also proposed, it would make it much more feasible for all of us to afford solar and wind at the family and community level.
Posted by: Bill Moore
|
|
9.
23-Oct-2009
88910
| |
I like your math, but I would also consider the CO2 produced by the transport infrastructure for the oil and gasoline. Also consider the refining efficiency and the drilling pollution too. And you are 100% right that the grid is heading in the right direction.
Posted by: Mr Pizzaman
|
|
10.
23-Oct-2009
88911
| |
John Hurt,
Did you mean ‘sponsored’? And as far as I know the Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh shows don’t sponsor anyone. Other people and organizations sponsor them. Unlike your closed-minded liberal friends, they don’t survive on government grants. And as I recall, both of those fellows have railed long and hard against you simple-minded phony tree-huggers for stopping the clean energy production provided by nuclear power plants. If you and your ilk had listened to reason a long time ago there would be very few coal-fired plants in this country today. And now when someone rightly points out that driving on electricity may not be as clean as EV proponents claim (Bill Moore’s numbers lead credence to this) your intelligent response is to blame Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh? John, all of us want energy independence and a clean environment. It doesn’t mean that we all have to achieve it the way you think, or that we should buy the next bottle of snake oil offered to us without some analysis. Quit being so negative and try to put some thought into your comments. If you don’t agree with a point of view, tell us why and present your facts that bolster your position.
Posted by: Tom Lee
|
|
11.
23-Oct-2009
88921
| |
Dear Mr. Hurt: It's spelled "sponsOred."
And for the record, there are many conservatives and libertarians who actively support efforts to kick our addiction to fossil fuels (though not as many as we'd like yet).
We want clean air as much as anyone, and we also want to stop sending a BILLION dollars per day to oil-exporting regimes which oppress their people and seek to harm America (Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela, Iran).
By the way, we are big fans of Glenn Beck, while we don't agree with him on everything. We listen to Glenn while driving our 2009 Prius ;)
Posted by: J B
|
|
12.
23-Oct-2009
88935
| |
Bill, I vaguely remember reading an article about the large amount of electricity used to refine oil. Is this addition step included in your calculations?
Posted by: J Smith
|
|
13.
23-Oct-2009
88999
| |
J Smith... Doug Korthof makes this point about the amount of electric power it takes to refine oil into gasoline in America's Irrational Petroleum Dependence; and no, I did not take these emissions into consideration.
Posted by: Bill Moore
|
|
14.
23-Oct-2009
89148
| |
well said. but I think you need to stress that VERY little of your fuel $ went to Russia, the Middle East or Venezeula...what are the chances that Wyoming coal miners will attack Nebraska anytime soon?
Posted by: steve poppitz
|
|
15.
23-Oct-2009
89150
| |
As my plugin Prius sets in my garage waiting for time and money to complete the conversion, I find your Midwest numbers interesting and amusing. If I decide to use California PG&E's electricity of 16% renewable, there is another 20-40% that is carbon free from large hydro and nuclear. If I were able to plug the car in at a local utility, I would use 63% renewable and 85% carbon free electricity!
In the West and other areas with large hydro electric resources, there are many months of the year where between 12am and 6am the electric power prices are zero, or even negative. I have contended that plugin electrics could be offered power at cost during the night and the utility would have a positive return because nuclear, combined cycle, and hydro in spring have to run all night. In coal areas this would also be true but the coal plants are going to run anyway.
If you don't use the excess electricity generated at night, you can install a solar system or a CHP (combined heat and power) fuel cell running on natural gas and have low net carbon percentage.
Additionally, if you are into real movement to renewable resources and not just into feeling good, you can join C.R.O.C. http://www.thecroc.org/
Posted by: heresy101
|
|
16.
23-Oct-2009
89151
| |
As my plugin Prius sets in my garage waiting for time and money to complete the conversion, I find your Midwest numbers interesting and amusing. If I decide to use California PG&E's electricity of 16% renewable, there is another 20-40% that is carbon free from large hydro and nuclear. If I were able to plug the car in at a local utility, I would use 63% renewable and 85% carbon free electricity!
In the West and other areas with large hydro electric resources, there are many months of the year where between 12am and 6am the electric power prices are zero, or even negative. I have contended that plugin electrics could be offered power at cost during the night and the utility would have a positive return because nuclear, combined cycle, and hydro in spring have to run all night. In coal areas this would also be true but the coal plants are going to run anyway.
If you don't use the excess electricity generated at night, you can install a solar system or a CHP (combined heat and power) fuel cell running on natural gas and have low net carbon percentage.
Additionally, if you are into real movement to renewable resources and not just into feeling good, you can join C.R.O.C. http://www.thecroc.org/
Posted by: heresy101
|
|
17.
24-Oct-2009
89617
| |
Here is a slide show using data from Argonne National Lab illustrating well-to-wheels analysis for several categories of pollutants:
http://sherryboschert.com/PowerPoints/BoschertEVS23.ppt.htm
According to this study, most categories of pollutants are significantly lower for EVs and PHEVs compared to ICEs.
Unfortunately, calculating the total pollutant impact of various technologies is very complex. For example, ICEs are only about 15% efficient at converting chemical energy into vehicle motion (the vast majority goes out the tailpipe and cooling system as WASTE HEAT). Electric motors are about 85% efficient at converting electric energy into motion. However, roughly half of all electric power is lost in the transmission lines between power-plant and customer. Transportation and refinement of fuel from source to customer are also complex calculations.
Both Argonne and NRC are highly regarded research institutions. Unfortunately, we are left with competing research studies from institutions with complex funding and unknown political agendas.
I'd like to do some name-calling, but I'm just too uncertain.
Posted by: Mark Seidler
|
|
18.
24-Oct-2009
89813
| |
The NRC or Nuclear Regulatory Commission report is sponsored by Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh everytime they say we should base our energy policy on nuclear energy and that global warming is a myth.Nuclear energy is not cost effective,there is never going to be a waste facility and would only be operated by a few corporations.Green technology,on the other hand, is controlled by many corporations,employs more people and provides a much broader electrical grid system.
How many grants and tax breaks have been given to the oil,coal and nuclear industries over the last 50 years,not to mention the Pentagon expenses of protecting their resources?
Oh,thanks for spellcheck!
Posted by: john hurt
|
|
19.
24-Oct-2009
89814
| |
Mr. Lee,
The last conservative,mentally deficient presidential administration that you most likely supported gave the Americans the worst snake oil of all time,billions of dollars worth of fuel cell grants.This was their their second blow against electric vehicle research by not funding enough money for battery research.Their first blow was to back up the lawsuits against the CARB by the then administration saying that it was illegal for California to mandate the Zero Emissions Vehicle regulations.
Posted by: john hurt
|
|
20.
24-Oct-2009
89816
| |
Excerpt from National Research Council's 'Hidden Costs of Energy' report summary.
Despite the general overall similarity, some fuel/technology combinations were associated with greater non-climate damages than others. For example, corn ethanol, when used in E85 (fuel that is 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline), showed estimated damages per VMT similar to or slightly higher than those of gasoline, both for 2005 and 2030, because of the energy required to produce the biofuel feedstock and convert it to fuel. Yet cellulosic (non-food biomass) ethanol made from herbaceous plants or corn stover had lower damages than most other options when used in E85. The reason for this contrast is that the feedstock chosen and growing practices employed do influence the overall damages from biomass-based fuels. We did not quantify water use and indirect land use for biofuels.11
Electric vehicles and grid-dependent hybrid vehicles showed somewhat higher damages than many other technologies for both 2005 and 2030. Although operation of the vehicles produces few or no emissions, electricity production at present relies mainly on fossil fuels and, based on current emission control requirements, emissions from this stage of the life cycle are expected to still rely primarily on those fuels by 2030, albeit at significantly lower emission rates. In addition, battery and electric motor production—being energy- and material-intensive—added up to 20% to the damages from manufacturing. Compressed natural gas had lower damages than other options, as the technology’s operation and fuel produce very few emissions.
Although diesel had some of the highest damages in 2005, it is expected to have some of the lowest in 2030, assuming full implementation of the Tier 2 vehicle emission standards of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This regulation, which requires the use of low-sulfur diesel, is expected to significantly reduce PM and NOx emissions as well.
Posted by: Bill Moore
|
|
21.
25-Oct-2009
89820
| |
Hello. Great job. I did not expect this on a Wednesday. This is a great story. Thanks!
Posted by: vigrx vigrx
|
|
22.
25-Oct-2009
89821
| |
Please note that due to a rise in abuse of this forum, we are no requiring all non-EV World subscribers to confirm their comments by email prior to posting their remarks.
Posted by: Bill Moore
|
|
23.
26-Oct-2009
89832
| |
Thanks Bill for crunching your numbers. I worked for a nuclear plant 24 years and received abuse from my hippie friends. I couldn't afford to go back to teaching school, so I just tried to be the safest operator I could be.
I have visited coal electric plants. Workers there are exposed to radiation levels that are illegal in the nuclear plants. Naturally occurring radioactive elements are concentrated in the ash from coal. Coal costs more than uranium but you don't have to use so many people to contain its waste or spend so much money on educating the workers or tracking where and how everything was built or repaired. Homeland security added another 25% to continuing security costs as well as millions of dollars in building truck barriers after plane attacks on 9-11-2001. All of the savings in fuel cost at nuclear plants are eaten up by maintenance and salaries.
When individual privately owned home electricity production becomes safe, efficient and simple enough to automatically attach itself to the grid, big central plants burning coal or whatever will be phased out. The utility companies make money. Electricity is produced to keep the company alive. Simple control, efficient safe design is the key. I believe the change will come, but they have fooled me before.
Posted by: Larry Agee
|
|
24.
26-Oct-2009
89838
| |
All that work building renewables hasn't actually cleaned the grid up much. In 2007 the U.S. power grid emitted 605 grams/kWh. The fuel cell emits only 340 grams. EIA data makes it easy to track the effects of our attempts to green the electric grid: In 1996 we emitted 627 grams of CO2 per kWh and by 2007 this was reduced to 605 grams. That’s a 2-gram per year decrease. If we continue at that rate, it will take 139 years to equal what we can do now with a fuel cell. Recent years show even less progress. There was no improvement between 2006 and 2007. Plugging into the grid is, unfortunately, a bit like plugging into a lump of coal.
Posted by: Thomas Blakeslee
|
|
25.
26-Oct-2009
89839
| |
Unless you live in the Pacific Northwest or California, just about everyone else in the United States is using electric power produced from fossil fuels (in my case 58% from coal), but the issue is larger than just the CO2. Also integral to the question of plugging in are the geopolitical implications, balance of trade, military expenditures to protect the flow of oil out of troubled, unstable regions of the world, consumption of an irreplaceable resource that, to quote the Shah of Iran, is 'too valuable to burn.'
Here in Nebraska we are finally beginning to deploy wind turbines in megawatt field numbers, the latest just south of us, with more in the pipeline. It's my hope that many of those turbines will spin at night and that a larger fraction of the power to run LIVN GRN comes from that wind power, instead of the coal, natural gas and nuclear power it does today.
Or I could just move to Quebec!
Posted by: Bill Moore
|
|
26.
27-Oct-2009
90145
| |
You're right. You're math skills are pretty basic. You don't ADD the nuclear on top of the coal. Actually it averages it DOWN. Your 58% coal mix reflects the national mix exactly. Taking all sources into account, the AVERAGE is 1.35 lbs CO2 per kWh.
If part of your electricity is coal, and part nuclear, your use would be somewhere BETWEEN 72 and 1710. Not the two of them added together.
If the Nuclear power plant is the plant nearest your house, why do you think you're using any coal produced electricity at all?
The Prius may need .25 liters to warm up, but true electric cars do not. They use electric heaters of course.
Beyond that, I'm not sure what you did. Using your figures, it comes out to 480 grams per mile gasoline and 342 grams per mile electric - assuming 100% coal on my little four function calculator.
That drops to 220 grams per mile using the more likely accurate 1.35 lbs per kWh average.
Jack Rickard
http://evtv.me
Posted by: Jack Rickard
|
|
27.
27-Oct-2009
90209
| |
The NRC concern will disappear when plug-in hybrids as well as electric cars, no longer need to plug-in.
A very low-power MagGen(tm) has been prototyped that suggests a pair of 1kW units can demonstrate the ability to replace the need to plug-in within a reasonable development time frame - perhaps a year. That figure will vary depending on unpredictable factors, and I have been overly optimistic in the past.
The hybrid engine itself is likely to be replaced in the future by a Self Powered Internal Combustion Engine - SPICE(tm). These engines will be powered by Energy from Collapsing Hydrogen Orbits - ECHO(tm).
Since none of this will be easily believed, let me mention that what we call ECHO has been validated by experiments on a competitors system that uses the same fuel, at Rowan University.
Other laboratories need to do the same experiments. The Senior scientist at Rowan is now a Fellow at Cambridge University and is seeking to have the UK government sponsor such work.
An energy consultancy in Norway has invited labs in that country to reproduce the Rowan work.
The article: 5 Steps to Revive the Auto Industry and the Economy can be found at: http://www.aesopinstitute.org It provides a bit more information about the MagGen, ECHO and SPICE.
Posted by: Mark Goldes
|
|
28.
27-Oct-2009
90220
| |
Bill, this report is flawed.
If they want a balanced report you need to count all the CO2 caused by drilling, shipping, piping, trucking, refining, and distributing that gasoline (No need to mention all the extra unrest & problems caused) vs. mining, refining, distributing, and burning coal to electricity.
You then need to factor in the country's total use of each energy source, gasoline would be about 99.9% and coal would be 58%. You then tack on the additional CO2 produced by the proportionate percentage above and you will see there is no contest. Plug-in vehicles will clearly be the winner.
We can then move on to these coal fired plants and have them replaced, one step at a time. The whole "Let's not bother cleaning/greening this since that isn't" is childish. Tackle things one at a time, the vehicles today and these coal fired plants tomorrow...
Posted by: Roy Gill
|
|
29.
27-Oct-2009
90317
| |
Glad I made you do all those calculations! As the last comment that I read indicated--We have to calculate all the oil used indirectly in drilling, mining, transporting,manufacturing the machine that transport,etc,etc. Gets very very complicated. We need an IBMer to work on this. The less oil you use, the more you contribute to society in general. You done good Bill.(I think you use the airplane too much)
Posted by: Lew Pinch
|
|
30.
27-Oct-2009
90321
| |
Roy Gill - I think this level of detailed analysis is whats needed for fair comparison. Do you know of good studies that address these details?
Posted by: Matt Schneider
|
|
31.
28-Oct-2009
90477
| |
I agree with Jack Rickard about your numbers. I didn't run them myself, but the "estimated 2.095 lbs of CO2" just magically showed up (who estimates a number to 3 decimal points? Just call it 2.1) and then for an unknown reason the nuclear was added on, when I assume it was built into the 2.1 lbs. If not built in, it would dilute the 2.1 pounds, not add to it.
Converting to electric today gives us the flexibility to use different electric sources in the future, from home-generated to geothermal power plants to wind farms. And lets not forget power plants are not turned down at night - many electric companies actively promote street lights as a way of using some of their excess off-peak electricity.
Posted by: Rob N
|
|
32.
28-Oct-2009
90500
| |
Lew... I did some calculations on how much CO2 my flight to and front Detroit released into the atmosphere. I flew in a 50-seat Bombardier CRJ 200 with every seat full going and coming. The CRJ burns roughly 2,400 lbs of Jet A per hour at take off and climb. At cruise it burns half that. The flight from Omaha to Detroit direct is about 1:30 hr, so figure 30 minutes to climb and 60 minutes cruise, plus a bit for taxi on both ends, so call it 3,000 lbs of fuel.
Now divide that by the 50 passengers (leaving off the two pilots and one flight attendant) and you get 60 lbs of fuel per passenger one way. Jet A weighs 6.84 lbs per gallon, so figure each passenger on that plane was responsible for the equivalent of 8.7 gallons of jet fuel. Now double that for the return trip and you get 17.54 gallons of Jet A. If your Prius and mine could burn this fuel it would -- at 50 mpg -- get us to Detroit and almost back to Chicago. It would take another 10.4 gallons to get us home in the Prius.
I don't know about you, but I call that pretty dang efficient travel; roughly equivalent on a per passenger basis of just shy of 80 mpg. So, head-to-head, for the Prius to make the 1,400 mile round trip it would have released 616 lbs of CO2 (assuming I drove alone, of course) while the CRJ 200 released just 386 per passenger.
But yes, I am trying to keep my airplane trips to a minimum, just as I do my motor vehicle ones.
Posted by: Bill Moore
|
|
33.
28-Oct-2009
90508
| |
My colleague, Dr. Doug Nelson from Virginia Tech, sent me the following joint-EPRI/NRDC executive summary entitled Environmental Assessment of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles. Included in the summary is the following graph, which supports my contention that a 20-mile PHEV, which is what the PICC-converted Prius is, does produce slightly more CO2 per mile than a conventional Prius using 'old coal' and some fraction of gasoline from well-to-tank-to-wheel.
Also... I believe Roy and Jack are correct in stating the nuclear generated CO2 would effective dilute the coal by the percentage of nuclear that is running over-night. I'll try to find out what OPPD uses for base load to get a better handle on this number, but I suspect it'll be the No. O plant, not the Ft. Calhoun nuclear facility.
And for what it's worth, my wife's commute today was in excess of the 99.9 mpg display limit on the Prius. We might be burning coal, but it's American-made, brother! Can you say that about your car?
Posted by: Bill Moore
|
|
34.
29-Oct-2009
90705
| |
Bill;
What is the carbon cost of actually producing the Prius. There was an energy cost to producing the prius or any car for tat matter in terms of energy and carbon emissions. Shouldn't that gross carbon putput be depreciated against say a 5 -7 year period of ownership in the vehicle? One doesn't necessarily have to go purchase a new vehicle to be "greener" that the next guy.
Posted by: Tim Boschert
|
|
35.
29-Oct-2009
90768
| |
Besides the cost of drilling, digging, transporting oil and coal, do not forget the (less publicized) huge, huge cost of military protection (including their own CO2 producing transportation) needed for the oil flow to the US (which the taxpayer covers).
http://www.vizettes.com/kt/ae/pages/resource-protection.htm
Posted by: jean koster
|
|
36.
29-Oct-2009
90794
| |
Your last paragraph is a great point. I consider the reason for the sudden revival in interest in lining up the sweetheart deals for Nukes - socializing the monetary as well as the health risk of building them - is that the powerful interests who want to get rich off the building and operating of the plants know that the more inroads renewable sources make in the power-generating business the less sense the arguments for nukes will make, and there is about a 13 year lag between beginning construction and the power coming on-line. Of course they are doing all they can to prevent the penetration of solar and wind.
Posted by: Shelton Lankford
|
|
37.
29-Oct-2009
90815
| |
Mr Lee:
You are extolling atomic energy. Although I am not TOTALLY opposed to atomic energy, it has problems which are all too frequently overlooked.
The fact is that our present atomic plants use enriched uranium for fuel, and use it very inefficiently. As a result, if we continued to use our present atomic technology and greatly increased the amount of power generated therefrom, we would soon run out of domestic uranium. We simply do not have enough domestic uranium to follow that route. We would have to import uranium, and even that would not be sufficient forever.
In addition, our present atomic technology produces highly radioactive waste which must be isolated for thousands of years. We cannot be sure that our present waste disposal methods can safely do that.
Al alternative would be to re-process our atomic waste to produce usable fuel, in which case our uranium supply would last many times longer. However, for safety and national security reasons, a decision was made during the Carter administration NOT to reprocess nuclear waste. Although nuclear waste is reprocessed outside of the U.S., I do not feel qualified to state whether that is a reasonable thing to do.
Another possibility would be to use thorium reactors instead of uranium reactors. That would be helpful for 2 reasons:
1) Thorium is much more plentiful than uranium, and
2) Thorium reactors would be safer because they operate in sub-critical mode and therefore cannot run away.
Unfortunately, I do not know enough about thorium reactors to know whether they would be a suitable alternative to uranium reactors.
In any case, I have not seen any articles which scientifically and thoroughly compare the pros and cons of differing atomic reactors to know whether we should be considering generating more power atomically. If you have such information, I'm sure that many of us would be happy to read it.
Posted by: Frank Eggers
|
|
38.
29-Oct-2009
90857
| |
what need to be done is return to suing plants that are still pouting like they did in 1940s the EPA had a list of 50 Plants in the USA to sue and Tampa TECO was luckily for us the first. As in exchange of not having to pay a million dollar to the EPA in fines they allowed it to be applied to improving the plant to today’s standards which cost Teco abet over two million and the result was interesting ass not only was the plant much much cleaner bit also was surprisingly much more efficient so the 2 million in cost never hit the customers in fact electric did not go up for several years and still one of the cheapest rates in the country however the other 49 dirty plants are still dirty as Bush gave an executive order blocking the EPA ability to sue Obama has wisely reversed that order and gave back the EPA the ability but due to weakening the agency so badly during his term there just does not seem to be the will anymore.
Posted by: David Hardingham
|
|
39.
29-Oct-2009
90872
| |
One poster wrote, "what need to be done is return to suing plants that are still pouting like they did in 1940s the EPA had a list of 50 Plants in the USA to sue and Tampa TECO was luckily for us the first."
I say, let the plants pout if they wish to do so, and ignore the pouting.
Sorry, I just couldn't resist! Malapropisms can be fun.
Posted by: Frank Eggers
|
|
40.
30-Oct-2009
91110
| |
Bill,
Very interesting column -- and an impressive number of responses!
I'm a bit surprised that in 36 different posts, solar was mentioned in only four.
A good percentage of prospective and current EV/PHEV drivers could directly offset some, or even all, of their EV/PHEV miles by installing solar on their home or in their yard.
The solar system doesn't have to be huge or expensive. Even if your solar system offsets 25% of your EV/PHEV miles, that's an important -- and self-satisfying -- contribution. It's also important to note that solar always pays for itself -- and it pays for itself more quickly when it's running not just your home but a car.
We're going to start with a solar system (installing in June 2010), then buy an EV (in 2011). Hoping to cover at least 50% of our EV miles off our solar system, hopefully more.
--Christof D-H, Editor & Founder, SolarChargedDriving.Com
Posted by: Christof Demont-Heinrich
|
|
41.
01-Nov-2009
92407
| |
Let's talk pennies, dimes and dollars, in that order.
By my math the amount of CO2 per kWh could be closer to 1.8 pounds per kWh. I also think based on an educated guess that the car may use more like 5 kWh rather than than the 6.2 kWh per mile implied by the numbers. On the other hand, there is power lost as heat during the charge cycle (which people don't usually account for) so maybe 6.2 kWh per mile is what it actually takes to recharge the battery pack. Using those numbers, an 11 mile commute would use 3.2 pounds of CO2, or about 2/3 of what would be used in hybrid mode. Something, but not a lot to write home about.
A BIG factor is that your wife only drives 11 miles round trip to work. I assume that you telecommute. The average commute is 32 miles round rip so by your chosen lifestyle you are actually reducing your commuting carbon by almost 85% Way to go! Now if you can only stop flying around so much... Flight is efficient but the distances are great.
To completely take the teeth out of the EV criticism, you could put in a small wind or solar generator to take care of the car's needs. In your area a tiny 1kW system (the smallest anyone would install) would make over 1100kWh, twice what the car uses. For every unit of energy put into manufacturing solar panels, they return 10 units in their lifetime. That's an "efficiency" of 1000%. As a previous responder said, normal cars are only about 15% efficient.
It seems unlikely that there will be major new coal fired generating plants built soon. By using more electricity, electric cars will push the utilities to add power, most likely be non-carbon based, possibly wind. So in a sense, electric cars added to the grid will end up using carbon free energy.
Posted by: christopher morgan
|
|
42.
02-Nov-2009
93011
| |
Refining crude oil uses about 7kW of electricity per gallon of petrol obtained. Even in the US, with your horribly efficient vehicles, you can drive further on that amount of electric power than on one gallon of petrol. Ergo, a/ back to the drawing board with your calculations and b/ leave the blessed stuff in the ground and drive electric! MW.
Posted by: Martin Winlow
|
|
|
|
