Will Mass Use of Plug-in Cars Increase Air Pollution?
We have reviewed and discussed the EPRI study which suggested mass-adoption of electric cars can be handled by the power grid, will result in net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and dramatically reduce U.S. petroleum consumption.
A more recent study by GM suggests E-REV use will reduce tailpipe emissions by 80%.
In the USA Today, two studies , one by the National Resources Defense Council and the other by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency were reported.
As we already know, the Chevy Volt is essentially a coal-burning car, because right now, the majority of U.S. electricity is produced at coal-burning powerplants.
As per the NRDC report, if the elecricity is generated in older-technology coal plants, “there is a possibility for significant increases of soot and mercury,” .
The second study suggested “plug-ins also could result in more sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions,” and mentions “SO2 is toxic in large amounts and is a component of corrosive acid rain”. This study also apparently contradicted the prior EPRI study in concluding that PHEV use could increase CO2 emissions.
Source (USA Today)
Popularity: 4%
(2 votes, average: 3.5 out of 5) 
Loading ...
45 Responses to “Will Mass Use of Plug-in Cars Increase Air Pollution?”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
- Volt Battery Supplier Chosen and GM Comments on Production Photo Leaks (POLL)
- BREAKING: Production VOLT Spied!! The REAL DEAL!!
- Chevy Volt Interior Picture Leak
- Bob Lutz Responds to Toyota’s Announcement: Large Volt Test Fleet in 2009
- Volt Competition: Mazda’s Secret E-REV Program, Toyota Forwards Plug-in Fleet to 2009
- Bob Lutz on Chevy Volt Battery Tests, Cold Starts, and Use of OnStar
- The Chevy Volt Generator Will Run at One of Several Fixed RPMs
- E-Flex Cadillac Next?
- How the Chevy Volt Operates Past the Customer Depletion Point
- The Chevy Volt Will Have iPod Connectivity (Plus More Design Issues)
February 27th, 2008 at 1:22 am
“GM could sell 60,000 or more a year, forecasts consultant J.D. Power and Associates, if the price is $30,000 or less.”
Now , how did they arrive at those numbers?
A quick glance at GM Volt dot Com?
I wonder how much they charged for that report?
lol
February 27th, 2008 at 1:29 am
Does this report assume 100% coal or 50% that is i the national avg?
Where I live in texas, i can pick who my energy company is. One choice is green mountain, which uses renewables. I can also put solar on my roof.
This is a non-report in my book.
February 27th, 2008 at 1:46 am
I should think it would be easier to put polution control devices on the approx 1500 coal based power generating plants than to try to reduce the emmisiions of millions of cars. I would imagine that many of them already have significant emmisiions reductions already in place.
Here is a list of the types of plants in operation in 2006:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat2p2.html
February 27th, 2008 at 2:18 am
That article has ‘Oi-money’ written ALL over it.
Also, look to some places which use 100% hydro electric power like most of Canada. An electric plug-in vehicle of ANY type would be like 100% clean.
Also, it would be much easier to control emissions from coal plants then from the 10 million cars on the road.
This article is total BS. I bet Big Oil put this article out..
February 27th, 2008 at 2:46 am
Not so fast.
#2 voltman, maybe you have a choice to avoid burning coal for electricity but that doesn’t mean everybody in the country does or will opt for that choice if it’s more expensive.
#4 Mark, if cars and power plants start out even, of course it would be easier to reduce emissions from power plants. But the point of the article is that they’re not starting out even.
The studies may be bunk but not for the reasons you guys are throwing out here.
My take is that if your electricity is clean, great, buying a Volt will save the world. If you get your electricity from coal, you may want to do some investigation. It may be cleaner to run your Volt on gas, i.e., never plug it in. You will still get gas mileage that is in-line with a Prius, and it will have reasonable acceleration and handling. (A Prius has worse acceleration and handling than your average minivan, for god’s sake.)
February 27th, 2008 at 4:43 am
USA today likely came up with the most dramatic headline they could in order to sell papers (or mouse clicks). I googled and found what I believe was the original report from the minnesota pollution control agency. This was from it’s summary:
To summarize, generally the use of PHEVs in place of conventional gasoline-driven ICE vehicles will reduce air emissions. The sole exception appears to be SO2 emissions, which rise due to the high sulfur content of coal combusted to generate electricity.
February 27th, 2008 at 5:00 am
1. Only 53% of US electricity comes from coal. So for the first 20 miles of a trip things are really good.
2. A coal fired plant is better for the environment than a whole bunch of cars burning gas.
3. Put 2 - 3 kw of solar panels on the roof to generate the power load for your Volt & claim you’re green.
Reducing pollution is good for health.
February 27th, 2008 at 6:06 am
First, It is really inexpensive to remove NOx, SOx, and Hg from coal-fired power plants relative to the price of electricity to the consumer. CO2 is another story.
Second, and the important point from my perspective is that plug-in vehicles could be extremely clean without displacing cropland or forest land by using hydro, nuclear, wind, geothermal, tidal, wave, “clean” coal, and/or solar electricity generation. Plug-ins are definitely the long-term solution for personal transportation and the U.S. should be a leader in moving in this direction.
February 27th, 2008 at 7:00 am
Part of the reason why 53% of US electricity comes from coal (per NZDAVID #7) is the many environmentalist wacko’s who were successful in stopping the building of nuclear plants a number of years ago.
pdt #8, well said!
February 27th, 2008 at 7:17 am
What the article doesn’t mention…
The impact of a few thousand cars (10K the first year) is negligible… so the impact is not measureable. Ahhhh but what about after more and more and more cars become powered by electricity in the future? Well the key word is future. As we move forward and the percentage of plug in cars increases so will the use of old tech coal.
The adoption of electric over gas isn’t going to happen over night and the use of old tech coal isn’t going to last forever.
That said going all electric right now is still better for the enviroment (despite what the article implys) and will only get better in the future.
February 27th, 2008 at 7:37 am
This report has generated a lot of comments. See the end
of this link:
http://www.calcars.org/calcars-news/918.html
for some brief repudiations of the article.
February 27th, 2008 at 7:43 am
Something that no one has mentioned yet in this thread is that the Volt is a very energy efficient vehicle regardless of where it’s energy comes from. So even if you’re running it from a coal plant, you’re consuming less energy overall.
Plus, it isn’t using imported oil, and as others have pointed out, there are ways to make electricity green. It isn’t a dead end, even if it isn’t perfect yet. It’s definitely a step in the right direction.
February 27th, 2008 at 8:03 am
This is not so different than the results of my fly by night study I performed earlier last year:
http://ohmexcited.googlepages.com/CO2.htm
An electric vehicle powered by coal is cleaner than a Toyota Corolla, but not a Prius. In many states, however, it is much cleaner, and on average it is cleaner.
It’s clear that coal is the single biggest problem when it comes to CO2 output in this country. Here’s a recipe for smashing success, for both carbon output and energy security:
1. Only buy energy star appliances
2. Systematically replace coal plants with nuclear plants and carbon sequestering plants for night time generating capacity
3. Replace your Camry with a Volt
4. Put solar panels on your roof if you can afford it
This is not brain surgery ( sorry, Lyles
). #’s 1, 3, and 4 alone will not solve the problem. Just face reality and do the math!
February 27th, 2008 at 8:23 am
These reports discuss power from the “dirtiest” coal plants. In many instances, these are plants that are 50+ years old that are utilized during peak electrical demand. Most volts will be charged at night during off-peak hours. These studies, however, look at the worst case scenario.
With that said, the answer is that conventional coal plants need to be gradually phased out and replaced with clean coal plants that separate and sequester (store) CO2 underground (and also have low SO2 and mercury emissions). Obviously, solar, wind, biomass, and nuclear are also important.
I see the Chevy Volt as a vehicle that reduces our dependence on foreign oil, however, it is actually shifting its energy consumption from oil to the grid. If the grid is not clean nor efficient, the reductions in pollution and greenhouse gases is not as pronounced as one might hope.
However, just as the transportation industry is reducing its environmental signature, the electrical grid in this country, and in the rest of the world, must do the same.
February 27th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Coal plants burn excess coal at night because they cannot go offline, even though the demand goes below the amount of energy that could be produced from that much coal. A significant portion of vehicle charging would come just from that coal that is already burned at night, thus cannot be counted as a net increase over our current situation. In effect this makes the coal plants more efficient by levelling out the demand curve. This also makes it easier to maintain the grid. This also makes electricity cheaper.
There is a significant amount of green energy coming online through the grid; wind is expanding pretty fast and is an option for many (I’ve got it here in the northeast). Electric cars are a gateway leading to people getting solar panels on their roof as well. People are going to be excited & motivated to do this, even if the economics don’t yet make sense.
February 27th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Clearly we must do what is good for the environment. Shut the site down Lyle…it’s all over.
February 27th, 2008 at 8:58 am
UGH! This is so short sighted. Even IF this was true today, with the introduction of ever cleaner technologies, plug-ins would eventually become cleaner anyway. Electricity has the potential of being generated by means of 100% clean/renewable sources. If someone knows of a way to generate clean/renewable Oil, please let me know! This is a CRITICAL step in the right direction! Please, GM, don’t get sidetracked by this type of garbage study!
February 27th, 2008 at 9:16 am
One thing to note on issues is that one issue is delt with at a time and then the focus moves onto the next issue. To me, the plug-ins is the first step and then the next step is the grid. As long as people talk about it and move things along, then things are good. Progress…Keep moving forward.
Statik, you make me laugh.
February 27th, 2008 at 9:22 am
#Brian you say it all !!! Non issue . Next
February 27th, 2008 at 10:00 am
“As per the NRDC report, if the elecricity is generated in older-technology coal plants, “there is a possibility for significant increases of soot and mercury”
That statement seems safe, broad, and insightless (is that real word?). How much research did it take for them to come up with that? Yes, IF we used only the worst coal plants, then there is a POSSIBILITY for significant increases of soot and mercury. I would prefer a more detailed study that estimates the most likely outcome. If I only ate beans and dirt, there is a possibility that I’ll sprout a beanpole.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s conclusions may be relevant in that part of the country, but if USA Today did not make the localized aspect of that impact clear, USA Today is spreading false information. As mentioned in other responses, not everybody uses coal.
…and did you notice the time of day that Lyle posts?
February 27th, 2008 at 10:36 am
“Plug-in cars could actually increase air pollution”, the USA Today’s article’s headline, is untrue (or at most, only half-true). For the US as a whole it’s simply UNTRUE, and it’s only HALF-true in areas of the nation where electric power is generated predominantly by dirty coal-fired power plants (like Minnesota). Based on my careful review of the primary report USA Today mis-quotes….
The NRDC report* that the USA article essentially mis-quotes actually shows that plug-in hybrids in “regions that are heavily dependent on dirty, coal-fired power plants” actually reduce the overall pollution below that of conventional automobiles by ~25%, and for the entire US grid by ~45%. While a 25% improvement in pollution in Minnesota isn’t as good as a 45% improvement for the US as a whole, IT’S STILL AN IMPORTANT IMPROVEMENT!!!
The NRDC report* concludes by offering 5 “Policy Recommendations”, the FIRST two of which are, in the order listed….
- “Promote the advancement of commercial plug-in hybrid technology”
- “Clean up electric power plants”
So this USA Today article takes the all-too-frequent “junk journalism” approach of mis-quoting a responsibly-written study to sensationalize their own article & its headline (which itself is untrue)!
PS: The report does show non-pluggable hybrids as having a small advantage in reducing overall pollution over plug-in hybrids, but ONLY in regions heavily dependent on dirty, coal-fired power plants (like Minnesota)! So the NRDC report’s #1 recommendation remains to “”Promote the advancement of commercial plug-in hybrid technology”!
*The full NRDC report is at http://www.nrdc.org/energy/plugin.pdf
February 27th, 2008 at 10:39 am
I believe that it is possible that certain isolated locals in proximity to coal fire plants may become more polluted by the coal fire plants, due to their increased burning of coal, but overall, the reduction of pollution and greenhouse gases would be greatly reduced.
You have to wonder why so many scare articles are popping up, regarding clean energy. You would think the liberal media would be all over it, but they are now sticking up for coal plants.
February 27th, 2008 at 10:53 am
More half-truths.
FACT: It’s a LOT easier to clean up and KEEP clean ONE coal fired electric plant than it is to clean up and KEEP clean 10,000 gasoline-hybrid cars.
FACT: The Law of Accelerating Returns. http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1
If we adapt electricity as the prime mover the demand would require innovation of alternative renewable sources of electricity to grow exponentially.
Related:
Solar Power to Rule in 20 Years, Futurists Say
BOSTON — He predicted the fall of the Soviet Union. He predicted the explosive spread of the Internet and wireless access.
Now futurist and inventor Ray Kurzweil is part of distinguished panel of engineers that says solar power will scale up to produce all the energy needs of Earth’s people in 20 years.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/080219-kurzweil-solar.html
Why is it called “common” sense when it is obviously uncommon?
February 27th, 2008 at 11:06 am
There are several points here - the study was, of course, widely misreported by the media, which was looking for a dramatic headline, and so chose two report only the most eyecatching claims.
First - the majority of electricity is not produced by coal (about 49% is) and ALL of the new, controllable power plant generators over the past few years have been natural gas. Unless and until something happens on the carbon sequestration front, no more coal plants will be built, and many (at least 32) of the larger,base-load coal plants will be replaced by nuclear over the next 5 years. Since practically the entire effort at carbon reduction concerns electrical power generation, any estimates of electrical propulsion (this is what they are evaluating, whether in a plug-in or all-electric)
on emissions that doesn’t also estimate the emissions of power generation in those years in the future when plug-ins will actually be around, makes no sense whatsoever. As I recall, the study talked about emissions effects based on locale, thus power generation
methods used locally, which the media conveniently forgot to mention in its desire to produce some eyecatching headlines. See what happens when the popular media gets ahold of a technical article? They aren’t competent to report anything other than accidents and murders, and usually they even get the names wrong in those instances.
Notice that in Vermont, which produces but 5 pounds of carbon per megawatthour of electricity produced (versus over 600 pounds for
“environmentally responsible” California - because Vermont is 75% powered by nuclear and 21% powered by hydroelectric), the reduction in carbon by electrical propulsion is near 100%.
February 27th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
I think the answer to the question is no. The USA Today doesn’t even say which NRDC report they are referring to, and I can’t find it on the NRDC website. The EPA is regulating the total emissions anyway: http://www.epa.gov/camr/basic.htm
February 27th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
In vermont the “environmentalists” are doing their best to prevent Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant from getting their license renewed for another 20 years of operation. I’m sure the coal, oil and gas companies are sitting back and having a god laugh about it.
February 27th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
#21 Thanlks for the link; I didn’t see it before I wrote my comment above. I agree; bad journalism, the headline is not supported.
February 27th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Thank you BillR, #14, nasaman, #21 and kent beuchert, #24, for clarifying this “article” so effectively.
As a member of the NRDC, I would say that a very high priority of the NRDC is to clean up the dirtiest of coal plants. The air pollution impacts of these plants are felt much farther away than one might imagine. For example, some of the dirtiest plants in the Ohio Valley create substantial health hazards in New York and Connecticut from their particulate emissions. The stuff stays in the air for days. The technology exists to clean this up. They were ordered to do so by the EPA in the Clinton administration. After contributing some $48 million to the first Bush campaign, the order was lifted. This is a matter of public record.
So I think that nasaman has reported the NRDC’s position and priorities exactly right:
1 - Promote plug in hybrids
2 - Clean up coal plants
Otherwise, the law of unintended consequences will snap us, just as it so often does.
I’ve said it many times before. You guys are the greatest. Well done.
In the words of #19, Jeff J:
Non issue. Next.
February 27th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
The argument that EV’s and Plug-In Hybrids will actually increase pollution is a bunch of baloney.
This argument was in fact refuted and proved incorrect in the movie “Who Killed The electric car?”
These studies are almost always funded by corporate special interests, and are most often reported in neo-con publications like USA Today and Fox News.
February 27th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
As others have already mentioned, the article makes a “worse case” by assuming all power comes from “older-technology coal plants”.
I also continue to make the case that even if the amount of pollution was equal between an internal combustion engine and an equally sized/performance EV or PHEV, that it’s still a lot better to move the pollution from being spilled out of millions of tail pipes into urban areas where lots of people are breathing the air in, to usually less urban areas with tall smoke stacks. Look at China where 10’s of thousands of folks are dropping dead each year due to it.
February 27th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
#28 Noel, Keep up the good work.
The article does not point out the efforts being made to clean up coal power plants.
Also, I note they are tracking Transportation usage since 2003.
From the EIA site
1995 - Net Generation (thousand megawatthours) Coal 1,709,426
2006 - Net Generation (thousand megawatthours) Coal 1,990,926
Increase
1995 - Net Generation (thousand megawatthours) NG 496,058
2006 - Net Generation (thousand megawatthours) NG 813,044
Large increase
1995 - Emissions (thousand metric tons) Carbon Dioxide (CO2) (all sources) 2,083,509[Revised]
2006 - Emissions (thousand metric tons) Carbon Dioxide (CO2) (all sources) 2,459,800
Increase
1995 - Emissions (thousand metric tons) Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) (all sources) 11,896
2006 - Emissions (thousand metric tons) Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) (all sources) 9,524
Decrease
1995 - Emissions (thousand metric tons) Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) (all sources) 7,885
2006 - Emissions (thousand metric tons) Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) (all sources) 3,799
Massive Decrease.
Source:http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epates.html
February 27th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
#4 Mark says “That article has ‘Oi-money’ written ALL over it.
Also, look to some places which use 100% hydro electric power like most of Canada. An electric plug-in vehicle of ANY type would be like 100% clean.
Also, it would be much easier to control emissions from coal plants then from the 10 million cars on the road.
This article is total BS. I bet Big Oil put this article out..”
Wise reply — Thank God someone else sees the truth.
February 27th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Comment to Jim1, #3 who says “I should think it would be easier to put polution control devices on the approx 1500 coal based power generating plants than to try to reduce the emmisiions of millions of cars. I would imagine that many of them already have significant emmisiions reductions already in place.”
Jim - check out the new clean coal burning technology (EEE stock ticker on NY Exchange). We can now economically pre-process coal so that old coal-fired power plants meet all the EPA standards without installing any pollution control devices on these plants. The US, with our huge reserve of coal, will benefit tremendously from EEE technology.
Also, new designs for nuclear power plants make it impossible for them to “go critical”. France produces 80% of their nuclear power using the OLD technology. The potential for nuclear produced electric power is huge.
As GM and others are successful with electric vehicle technology there is no doubt that the demand for electricity will correspondingly increase. If we address the electric power issue head on, there will be plenty of clean electric power to replace imported oil. Technology waits in the wings for implementation. Swift action on the political front is another subject.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:01 am
Please notify me of followup comments via e-mal.
February 28th, 2008 at 6:27 am
Big oil has the national distribution system in place for any type of “liquid” fuel they can control and which they want to retain. Ethanol, hydrogen or whatever. When you can “plug” your vehicle in at home to “refuel”, you bypass their profit center. They are well aware of this and will everything to derail any EV.
When Linden President was president in the 1970’s, during the energy shortage he promised that 200 nuclear plants would be built to make us energy independent, it never happened. But it did happen in France, which generates 75% of its electrical power from nuclear. See http://www.uic.com.au/nip28.htm
What we need now is a national energy policy, which addresses all forms of energy consumption because our national security is at stake if we fail to do this now.
February 28th, 2008 at 9:37 am
This article makes no sense, it’s the cars fault we make electricity from Coal.
So remember everytime you buy something that plugs in your ruining the enviroment.
So the smear tactics have begun!
February 28th, 2008 at 9:38 am
“What we need now is a national energy policy, which addresses all forms of energy consumption because our national security is at stake if we fail to do this now.”
Exactly, our problem is the guys who write the policy work for Big Oil!
February 28th, 2008 at 11:20 am
I expect lots of on site solar in the next few years.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
31 NZDavid:
Thanks. As an engineer by training, and a sort of half-a**ed “environmentalist” by life experience, I am confident that coal can be a viable and environmentally acceptable energy source. All it takes is money and commitment. The money will be available as coal and other energy prices rise in response to $100+/barrel oil.
All of the issues of air pollution, and the mining outrages seen in Appalachia and elsewhere, are susceptible to technology and the will to mine, and restore the landscape, in a truly responsible manner.
The industry has not wanted to address these issues, simply because it will cost them money. Application of enlightened regulation, and the huge cash flow which will result from increased energy prices, provide the opportunity to change this culture.
The same can be said about nuclear power. Even the waste disposal issue can be solved when the economic pressure gets intense enough. Instead of telling the poeple of Nevada “Screw you, and sue us if you don’t like it.”, the industry should be making them offers they can’t refuse. The same goes for Appalachia, Wyoming, and everywhere else negative environmental impacts have been shoved down peoples’ throats.
Mitigation is a simple concept. Make people whole for the damage done. Alas, the culture has always been to try to minimize the cost, and weigh the cost of litigation against the cost of doing the right thing. When enough cash gets flowing, maybe this can change.
Sorry if this sounds uncharacteristically optimistic, coming from me. I’m sort of scaring myself, actually.
February 28th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
The USA Today article referenced above is shortsighted at best and otherwise just pure disinformation. The author lacks vision and imagination.
Many people have already commented that the projected percentage of ‘E-REV’ or ‘PHEV’ will initially make up only a small percentage of the total market at first. The time when E-REV vehicles use power from the grid is also at “off peak” times, making better use of coal fired power overall. The primary fault with the article is the lack of foresight in how the world will look in 15-20 years when these vehicles actually do make up a statistically significant portion of the world vehicle market. It is important to see how all the variables change through time when making such predictions.
As the number of E-REV vehicles like the Volt increase, the number of ways that will provide power will change and likely keep pace with consumption. Legacy coal plants will be forced to clean up (or be shut down) by an environmentally friendly government in Washington. Tax credits for owning E-REV vehicles will also be passed at the expense of big oil, spurring more consumers to purchase vehicles like the Volt. The current administration has already vowed to veto any such provision. One could speculate that the motivation behind such a declaration by a government run by former oil men is that this is not in the best interests of the American people as a whole but rather a concession to certain interest groups.
A major political push needs to be made to literally give power to the people. This is to say, each homeowner will produce their own power and also be contributing power to the grid (thus actually taking power and wealth from big oil). Companies like Nanosolar will lower the cost of personal solar arrays set up at your home, making solar more economically viable and taking the strain off of those dirty legacy power systems. Local power production of this kind reduces the need for expensive long range high voltage lines to be constructed from large, corporate wind farms, etc. to feed the need from remote areas to population centers. Personal wind turbines are also another great option with many excellent designs available that are friendly to wildlife (PacWind), durable and efficient. There is also the question of loss of power/kilometer on the current system of high voltage power lines to contend with, only strengthening the argument of personal/local power production.
I expect that within 15 - 20 years that the majority of vehicles will use either strict electric or a form of E-REV system with a home based electrical supply as the primary source of energy for consumers. Large, coal fired plants will either be forced to shut down for economic reasons or will have such a reduced portion of the overall supply as to be negligible compared to todays pollution output (due to better regulation, scrubbing standards and market share).
Lots of great posts, keep your heads up - we are going in the right direction after a dark period in our history.
February 28th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Solar power? Here in New England 70% of the home heating load is during 2 months of the year in December and January. Unfortunately only 16% of the annual solar energy falls on us during those months. Chasing something that is not there. In our area solar works for domestic hot water because you have demand for it during the summer months of maximum solar radiation.
February 28th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
41Rockyroad makes a good point, but solar CAN be done in New England - just not as well or as consistantly as in say Arizona. Effeciency is as important as power generation (local power vs losing power over transmission lines) especially in places like New England where you have such a diverse climate change over all four seasons. Homes will need to be even more stingy with the power they use and innovative new ways to do more with less have to be created. New England has always been a home to ingenuity and I don’t think they will let us down when it comes to green tech development.
New England has pretty good wind resources (especially along the coast), thus wind would make up a larger portion of the power choice for most New Englanders (either personally or through tapping into a grid that is increasingly fed by wind. There are many solar projects currently in operation in New England including one in Brockton, MA that is ironically built on the ashes of an old gasworks factory. Renewable sources of power are like a toolbox. You cant say that a wrench is your preferred tool and will use it for everything - it needs to be the tool that best suits the job at hand.
Here is a map of historical wind conditions in New England:
http://truewind.teamcamelot.com/ne/
Now, overlay this with the population density of say, Massachusetts for example:
http://www.answers.com/topic/massachusetts-population-map-png-1
you can see that the northeastern and and southeastern areas have the best wind resources for the largest population densities. There are peak areas in mountains in the west but with a few exceptions this benefits a much smaller population.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:29 am
A little clarity. The USA Today story was bogus. As observed, the study was systematically misreported to generate “news.” Big oil was not part of this problem, but, as also observed, the incompetence of the media to report technical issues.
America is split about 50/50 on many issues because the truth is systematically obscured by the media to sell their product. Thus, people like Rush Limbaugh do not get it when it comes to the virtue of PHEV.
The good news is that sites like this, with the many well studied rebuttals, lessen the malicious impact of systematic misreports.
One of the frequent posters signs off with “death to oil,” but as far as this thread goes, a better refrain might be “death to misinformation.”
February 29th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Forwarding message….
To Whom It May Concern:
I have been driving electric cars since 1990, and hope to get my husband out of his hybrid Prius as soon as a plug in hybrid comes out. I charge my car at my condo, with energy purchased from my power company that is 81% wind, 10% geothermal and contains no coal. I pay the equivalent of 60 cents a gallon. Although this is not possible for every American, millions of us can purchase cleaner power today, or install solar panels, that will charge their plug in vehicles right in their garage, at off peak hours, making their cars without doubt much, much cleaner than any gas (hybrids included) car on the road today.
There is no perfect transportation solution, but instead of bashing plug in cars that have the potential to run gasoline-free, why not encourage America to switch our power grid to wind, solar and geothermal power instead of relying on coal plants?
Alexandra Paul
Pacific Palisades, CA 90272-1544
March 18th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
I am trying to research information on the old gas burning cars that were used during the 2nd world war.
My dad had an old Chev and needed it for work so he had two cylinders fastened on the rear , one of which
was a type of furnace that burned coal to produce a gas that would then be stored in the second cylinder to run the car when switched over to gas instead of petrol as it was always called in New Zealand. Petrol was of course rationed. My memory is not all that clear and if anyone can remember these contraptions I would appreciate some feedback
gavin Morris San Diego CA