The Environmental Validity of Electric Vehicles
Very few people understand a sad truth about electric vehicles sold in the U.S. in 2014: right this very minute, most of them carry no real environmental benefit over gas- or diesel-powered vehicles, given an honest well-to-wheels analysis of the fuel they actually consume. Those who wish to understand this better should read the many comments made here (and elsewhere, I’m sure) by senior energy analyst Glenn Doty, like the note he made to a post I wrote yesterday.
The condensed version of all this is that, at least in the U.S., a predictable incremental load on the grid, e.g., a large number of EVs being charged at night, is met with the most inexpensive source of baseload power, which is coal. Even in states, e.g., California, that do not burn any coal at all, charging an EV at night sets off a chain reaction of buying and selling power across various regions controlled by profit-minded grid operators that almost always results in more coal being burned somewhere by someone. And, because coal is far worse for the environment that any other form of energy, the overall results are rarely positive, and normally quite negative.
Glenn simplifies all this and says that until all this is no longer the case, no one of eco-conscience should buy an EV. That’s where, I believe, he’s incorrect. In particular, there are numerous important aspects of this whole subject that I think merit discussion:
• While it’s true that we haven’t decommissioned all our coal plants, we’re most certainly headed in that direction. Every day, we make progress in terms of baseload (and peak) energy that have bearing on all this: the explosion of wind energy and its expansion geographically, the viability of energy storage (and the help that EVs bring along in this regard), the integration of smart-grid technologies, vehicle-to-grid (V2G), etc.
• Perhaps the granddaddy of these is the (admittedly falling) value that oil has in the world market. Think of Putin and the countless other pigheaded tyrants around the world whose empires will be irrelevant the very moment that oil becomes unimportant.
• There are numerous other side-discussions to be had here, e.g., the people who simply overbuild the PV arrays they have on their homes and workspaces to charge EVs with sunlight. I know people who haven’t used a single watt-hour of energy from the grid in their homes or cars since the 1990s.
• The adoption curve of EVs and the elimination of coal seem to be happening in near lockstep. That’s very good news. The validity of saying, “Let’s get rid of every last lump of coal, THEN introduce EVs” is equivalent to saying, “Let’s get everyone through high school, THEN let’s start building colleges.” (I hope that analogy communicates effectively.)
Glenn should be along any minute with a reply….
Speak of the devil and he will appear!
😉
Craig,
The numbers don’t bear out nearly as well as you suggest in terms of coal’s obsolescence.
A quick breakdown of the last 10 years for our grid percentage:
Year, Coal, NG, Hydro, renewable, nuclear.
2004 49.8% 17.9% 6.8% 2.1% 19.9%
2005 49.6% 18.8% 6.7% 2.2% 19.3%
2006 49.0% 20.1% 7.1% 2.4% 19.4%
2007 48.5% 21.6% 6.0% 2.5% 19.4%
2008 48.2% 21.4% 6.2% 3.1% 19.6%
2009 44.4% 23.3% 6.9% 3.7% 20.2%
2010 44.8% 23.9% 6.3% 4.1% 19.6%
2011 42.3% 24.7% 7.8% 4.7% 19.3%
2012 37.4% 30.3% 6.8% 5.4% 19.0%
2013 39.1% 27.4% 6.6% 6.2% 19.4%
2014* 39.5% 27.1% 6.4% 6.6% 19.1%
*2014 accounts for the first 9 months
The balance of power generation for each year is from petroleum products.
As you can see – even with a record build-out of wind (which has since stagnated) and a rampant build-out of solar, the total penetration of non-hydro renewables has only increased by 4.5% of our electric generation in the past decade. Meanwhile, hydropower and nuclear have both dropped 0.4% and 0.8% respectively, so the total penetration of non-fossil generation has increased by 3.3% over 10 years. Yes, over that same decade coal has decreased its share by 10.3%, but that was accomplished mainly by a 9.2% increase in the share derived from natural gas. This was exclusively the result of the fracking boom, and that is likely going to slow as global oil markets have become oversupplied. Furthermore, a combination of greater efficiency (especially as pertains to insulation and light bulbs) and manufacturing offshoring has resulted in the total electrical generation of the U.S. being stagnant – only increasing 2% over the past decade.
If you only look at the decrease in coal, and assume that the rate of decrease can persist – despite headwinds associated with the global petroleum market, the U.S. gas market, and the complete stagnation of wind – it will take nearly 4 decades to eliminate coal from the grid, and if these trends persist then nearly 90% of that displaced coal will be made up by fracked natural gas. The reserves of natural gas, while plentiful, are not infinite. Gas recovery will probably double in expense every 15 years… so planning on very large growth in natural gas in 2-3 decades is probably a bad plan… by 2030 NG will definitely stop increasing its grid share, again leaving us with coal as the affordable option…
Furthermore, a combination of greater efficiency (especially as pertains to insulation and light bulbs) and manufacturing offshoring has resulted in the total electrical generation of the U.S. being stagnant – only increasing 2% over the past decade. Most of the incandescents are gone, and manufacturing is slowing rebuilding in this country, which means we’ll no longer enjoy the 1:1 relationship between installation and penetration. It will be a moving target moving forward.
The aging nuclear fleet makes it highly unlikely that the gradual slide in nuclear power will do anything but accelerate in the future….
It will be SHOCKING if the U.S. manages to eliminate coal from the grid by 2050. It’s more likely to be 2060-2070.
It is possible that not one single EV made today will be functional by the time the grid finally sheds coal – even if we really focus effort and resources on ridding ourselves of our coal dependence (which I believe is absolutely crucial for us to retain and pass on any shred of our environmental inheritance).
Craig… This is not a case where the kids are in high-school and we’re debating building colleges. This is a case where the kids haven’t been born yet – and some of us are already looking at apartments in the Boston area near Harvard.
Craig,
Where I said “again leaving coal as the affordable option”, I had meant to say “again leaving coal as the MOST affordable option”… But if I’m going to change it, I’d prefer to just say “again leaving coal as the default”… Because we’re not talking about affordability. I meant what I said concerning your antagonist – coal is more expensive to our society if we look past the singular silo of “electrical costs”… but what we’re talking about here is realistic ramp-up and deployment rates.