
Where Electric Vehicles Cause More Pollution Than Gas Cars - tomkwok
http://www.citylab.com/weather/2015/06/where-electric-vehicles-actually-cause-more-pollution-than-gas-cars/397136/
======
crdoconnor
This paper reads more like it's designed to foment support around removing
electric car subsidies rather than accurately measure their impact. I
particularly liked the part where they tried to assign a dollar value to
various pollutants. $42/ton for Carbon, in case you were wondering. They
totally scienced that shit.

As always with economic research with policy implications, it's good to dig a
little and find out where they get their money from, especially when they're
coy about it:

[http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Bureau_o...](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Bureau_of_Economic_Research)

~~~
ZeroGravitas
The map's a bit of a red flag as well. Apparently it's really good to own
internal combustion cars where no one lives. Of course, in a big map full of
sparsely populated areas, all that green looks really good, rather than mostly
useless.

Obligatory XKCD (with an oddly familiar map):

[https://xkcd.com/1138/](https://xkcd.com/1138/)

~~~
cbr

        it's really good to own internal combustion cars where no one lives
    

Isn't that right though? Tailpipe emissions are much worse in urban than rural
areas because there are more people to breathe them in.

~~~
3pt14159
Right, but be careful with that line of thinking. In terms of cents of
economic damage per km driven, yes, gas cars are better driven in the boonies;
but watch out! That isn't where most people are driving. Most people are
driving around cities. So this map makes it look like electric cars and gas
cars are more toe-to-toe than they are.

And really, most of the dirtiest coal power plants are nearing end of life, so
if you look at the trending, even in the USA, which has a very dirty energy
grid, electric cars are going to be much less pollutant than gas cars
everywhere and very soon.

Also note that the car in question, the Ford Focus, is one of the least
pollutant gasoline cars out there. Electric cars scale up better than gasoline
ones.

------
higherpurpose
> In some places electrics do so much relative harm that instead of being
> subsidized, as is currently the case, they should actually be taxed.

So tax the zero-emission electric vehicles for using coal energy in certain
areas (over which they have no control), instead of the actual coal companies
that produce that dirty energy? That seems quite backwards to me.

Tax the coal companies and force them to either convert to renewable energy
production, so then the electric vehicles can be 100% clean, or to force them
to shut down (and be replaced by renewable competitors).

Taxing electric vehicles just as much if not more than gas-powered vehicles
because they use coal energy right now is complete nonsense. At least electric
vehicles try to solve _one half_ of the problem. Taxing them like that would
put the breaks on both sides of the reform. Let's solve both problems in
parallel instead of putting the breaks on both (not forcing coal companies to
die/convert faster and also continuing to use gas-powered cars).

~~~
hybridtupel
Isn't it possible in the us to choose by oneself from which power company one
obtains the electricity? In europe you can for example choose to support
companies which only use renewable energies.

~~~
jccooper
Varies by location. There are plenty of deregulated markets and plenty of
still-monopoly markets.

------
codeulike
For the gas cars, did they also take account of the emmissions/polution from
the oil rigs/refineries/gas stations etc? For the coal plants, did they take
account of extraction of the coal? Because if we're bringing infrastructure
into the equation, where do we draw the line?

I note that in the UK, its very easy for consumers to specify that their house
be supplied with renewable energy. Looks like it doesn't work that way in the
US.

~~~
drabiega
I had the same question. Looks like they just compared electricity generation
pollution to combustion engine pollution. Very apples and oranges.

~~~
heydenberk
It says in the article that they did not:

> The study’s biggest caveat, acknowledged by the researchers, is that they
> don’t consider a full “lifecycle” analysis of emissions—so things like
> making the car, drilling for oil, or transporting coal aren’t included in
> the environmental costs.

------
jakozaur
Amount of electric car is irrelevant at this point. They market share is less
than 0.1% in most areas, so systematic calculations of current state are not
that useful.

The current EV subsidies are mostly to recoup some initial R&D cost and
overcome decades of advancements in gas cars. Moreover, gas cars enjoy strong
network effect as well as efficiency of scale.

The question is, what would be the total damages once they reach 5% market
share. There is strong belief that they have potential to be 10x better than
current cars on many dimensions.

------
jblok
With electric cars drawing power from a grid you reap the benefit of
centralisation. It's easier to upgrade a gas fired power station to increase
efficiency/reduce pollutants than it is to upgrade every vehicle on the road.

You also have a better spread of options using the grid, e.g. renewables.
Essentially with electric vehicles you are just moving the place where the
power generation happens, but with countless benefits.

~~~
7952
Also, power stations tend to have large stacks that try and direct the
pollution into the atmopshere where it can disperse over a wide area. In
comparison fossil fuel vehicles tend to have small exhaust pipes that can lead
to high levels of localised exposure to toxic/carcinogenic substances.

------
outworlder
From the article:

> Another criticism is that EVs aren’t about the present, they’re about the
> future. Assuming electricity grids will get cleaner, moving away from
> gasoline cars is the only way to approach a zero-carbon transportation
> sector (not to mention avoiding the political costs of oil dependence).
> Holland counters that rising fuel-efficiency standards are making gas cars a
> lot cleaner, too.

Did the author flunk basic physics? There isn't that much room for improvement
on a internal combustion engine. And "a lot cleaner" is still greater than
zero emissions (and, given the efficiency, _by far_).

Seriously. Were not for the lack of cheap energy storage devices, we would not
be having this discussion at all. Cars would have been electric from the
beginning (they actually were) and would be still like that.

~~~
CWuestefeld
Compared to the 1970s and earlier, internal combustion engines are strikingly
efficient. You're probably right that we've harvested all the low-hanging
fruit, and further progress will be slow and slight.

But there's still a LOT of room for efficiency improvement by changing the
other side of the equation. If we're generating power with nearly as much
efficiency as possible, we can still go a long way in USING that power
smarter.

Which is my long-winded way of saying that if everyone switched from driving
big-ass SUVs to driving light compact cars, we'd still achieve a huge boost in
miles traveled per pollutant emitted.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
You want low-hanging fruit, consider container ships. Can be up to 1/3 of
global air pollution, from about 6000 vehicles. Because they use the dirtiest
sulfer-laden diesel etc. They would be the biggest bang for the buck:

Wikipedia: "Of total global air emissions, shipping accounts for 18 to 30
percent of the nitrogen oxide and 9 percent of the sulphur oxides"

~~~
marcosdumay
Those are short lived pollutants that do harm only if emitted in populated
areas.

Yes, they are very dangerous in the middle of a city, and that's why urban
vehicles almost don't emit them, making ships more representative.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Wha? They enter the atmosphere and circulate around the globe for years. Just
because you don't see the grey clouds blowing in off the ocean, doesn't mean
there's no problem.

~~~
marcosdumay
Data is hard to find!

The best I could find gives nitrogen-dioxyde a half life of about 30 hours at
the atmosphere, and sulfur-dioxyde about 5 hours.

I'd expect it to vary widely with local humidity (something the oceans have a
lot), and I'd also expect the corresponding acids to fall down at the first
rain (another thing the oceans have a lot), although the acids are already
reasonably non-toxic.

Also, I'd expect those gases to not disperse in upper atmosphere, because of
their molecular weight. But it thrown with any speed (like in a volcano
eruption), they'd have the very low humidity, very low pressure that increases
their life to a maximum.

Anyway, all that expectation is from theory. References are hard to find.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Confused; then why do we object to cars emitting these gasses?

------
adonovan
> But in the Midwest and Northeast, where the electricity grid tends to rely
> on coal power plants, the damage from emissions ranged back up toward five
> cents a mile.

I'm very skeptical of this claim. NYC and Upstate NY are known to have some of
the cleanest electricity grids in the U.S. See chart on page 2 of this EPA
report, for example.

[http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/documents/egridzips/eGRID_9th...](http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/documents/egridzips/eGRID_9th_edition_V1-0_year_2010_Summary_Tables.pdf)

~~~
rchowe
I would be suspicious of this too, since I believe a lot of New England gets
its power from Hydro-Québec (from their HVDC lines) and nuclear sources. Even
normalized per capita, Vermont should have one of the lowest carbon
footprints, which makes me suspicious of some of their sampling methods,
though I haven't read the paper.

~~~
dublinben
You can get a really quick overview of your state's energy profile on the
Energy Information Administration website.[0] As you mentioned, the smaller
states mostly use nuclear and renewable sources. The clear outlier is
Massachusetts, which is about 60% natural gas.

[0][http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=VT#tabs-4](http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=VT#tabs-4)

------
cagenut
Even if this were true, the electric grid has hope: solar, wind & nuke can
grow while coal & even someday gas fade.

Gasoline has no hope.

~~~
dredmorbius
Not entirely true. Synfuels, including direct analogs of petrol and diesel,
can be created from electricity and seawater. The fuel is carbon neutral,
though somewhat more expensive than present fuels. US Naval Research Lab
estimates are about $6/gallon.

You retain energy density and storage stability of liquid hydrocarbons.

------
simulate
The US DOE provides a nice interactive tool for comparing emissions between
electric and gas-powered vehicles. The DOE data show that, in all US states,
an electric car has lower CO2 emissions compared to a gas-powered car with
average US MPG.

You can enter your zip code and it will graph the CO2 equivalent:
[http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php](http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php)

Gas powered cars with average US MPG produce 14815 pounds of CO2 equivalent
per year.

Ohio produces 70% of its power from coal. Entering 44101 for Cleveland, you
get 9074 pounds of CO2 equivalent per year, 39% less than gas-powered car.

Entering 94103 you can see that electric cars in San Francisco produce 4152
pounds of CO2 equivalent, 72% less than a gas-powered car.

A big part of the determination of CO2 emissions is the MPG of gas powered
vehicles. In a few states, a hybrid electric has lower emissions than an all
electric car because hybrids have a much higher MPG. This is explained nicely
here: [http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/electric-car-
emissions](http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/electric-car-emissions)

The average fuel consumption for gas-powered vehicles in the US is around 24
MPG:
[http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pub...](http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_23.html)

------
dmritard96
This ignores the amount of electricity needed to take crude and generate
gasoline as well as the rest of the gasoline supply chain. We may as well
start making our way towards electric. If we have clean cars then making the
rest of the system clean isn't a chicken or egg problem

------
sullivanmatt
The author of this article posted a follow-up a few days later, and more or
less acknowledged that he should have done a bit more vetting of this
"research" before going to press. The follow-up worth the read:
[http://www.citylab.com/weather/2015/07/4-key-problems-
with-m...](http://www.citylab.com/weather/2015/07/4-key-problems-with-
measuring-ev-pollution-vs-gas-cars/398093/)

------
sksk
This economist article had a nice summary on this topic, 2014 (not about the
same report, however). [http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-
technology/2163671...](http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-
technology/21636715-why-electric-car-may-be-much-dirtier-petrol-one-cleaner-
what). The culprit is coal.

------
sp332
This just means that people should switch to cleaner cars (like the Ford
Focus). The study completely ignores all gas-powered cars that don't have a
close electric equivalent.

