From the University of Tennessee at Knoxville comes this surprising bit of research. Taken in entirety, and electric vehicle has a greater impact on pollution than a comparable gasoline vehicle. Full disclosure – I own an electric car myself. I’m actually on my third one, shown below, made in China:
UT researchers find China’s pollution related to E-cars may be more harmful than gasoline cars
Electric cars have been heralded as environmentally friendly, but findings from University of Tennessee, Knoxville, researchers show that electric cars in China have an overall impact on pollution that could be more harmful to health than gasoline vehicles.
Chris Cherry, assistant professor in civil and environmental engineering, and graduate student Shuguang Ji, analyzed the emissions and environmental health impacts of five vehicle technologies in 34 major Chinese cities, focusing on dangerous fine particles. What Cherry and his team found defies conventional logic: electric cars cause much more overall harmful particulate matter pollution than gasoline cars.
“An implicit assumption has been that air quality and health impacts are lower for electric vehicles than for conventional vehicles,” Cherry said. “Our findings challenge that by comparing what is emitted by vehicle use to what people are actually exposed to. Prior studies have only examined environmental impacts by comparing emission factors or greenhouse gas emissions.”
Particulate matter includes acids, organic chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles. It is also generated through the combustion of fossil fuels.
For electric vehicles, combustion emissions occur where electricity is generated rather than where the vehicle is used. In China, 85 percent of electricity production is from fossil fuels, about 90 percent of that is from coal. The authors discovered that the power generated in China to operate electric vehicles emit fine particles at a much higher rate than gasoline vehicles. However, because the emissions related to the electric vehicles often come from power plants located away from population centers, people breathe in the emissions a lower rate than they do emissions from conventional vehicles.
Still, the rate isn’t low enough to level the playing field between the vehicles. In terms of air pollution impacts, electric cars are more harmful to public health per kilometer traveled in China than conventional vehicles.
“The study emphasizes that electric vehicles are attractive if they are powered by a clean energy source,” Cherry said.”In China and elsewhere, it is important to focus on deploying electric vehicles in cities with cleaner electricity generation and focusing on improving emissions controls in higher polluting power sectors.”
The researchers estimated health impacts in China using overall emission data and emission rates from literature for five vehicle types—gasoline and diesel cars, diesel buses, e-bikes and e-cars—and then calculated the proportion of emissions inhaled by the population.
E-cars’ impact was lower than diesel cars but equal to diesel buses. E-bikes yielded the lowest environmental health impacts per passenger per kilometer.
“Our calculations show that an increase in electric bike usage improves air quality and environmental health by displacing the use of other more polluting modes of transportation,” Cherry said. “E-bikes, which are battery-powered, continue to be an environmentally friendly and efficient mode of transportation.”
The findings also highlight the importance of considering exposures and the proximity of emissions to people when evaluating environmental health impacts for electric vehicles. They also illuminate the distributional impact of moving pollution out of cities. For electric vehicles, about half of the urban emissions are inhaled by rural populations, who generally have lower incomes.
The findings are published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology.
Cherry worked with Matthew Bechle and Julian Marshall from the University of Minnesota and Ye Wu from Tsinghua University in Beijing. The scientists conducted their study in China because of the popularity of e-bikes and e-cars and the country’s rapid growth. Electric vehicles in China outnumber conventional vehicles 2:1. E-bikes in China are the single largest adoption of alternative fuel vehicles in history, with over 100 million vehicles purchased in the past decade, more than all other countries combined.
This study is funded by the National Science Foundation’s Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) award. The prestigious CAREER award supports junior faculty who exemplify the role of teacher-scholars through outstanding research, excellent education, and the integration of education and research within the context of the mission of their organizations. Cherry received his award in 2011.
Some guys are rightfully pointing out that the USA has vastly superior emission controls on our coal power plants than the PRC has in order to bolster the EV argument. It also needs to be pointed out that the USA has stringent emission controls on gasoline fueled passenger cars as well. Every country that I’ve been to with the exception of perhaps the UK and Holland have lesser or NO emissions equipment on cars. An urban passenger car in the USA is less ‘polluting’ than an urban vehicle in the PRC.
This will be as big a shock to most people, as finding out bio-diesels “pollute” more than gas, oil, or even coal.
These cars should be termed pollution relocation cars…..
Bio-fuel cars should be known as food re-allocation cars…..
IMHO
An electric car was available in the USA in 1896 and had the same range as a modern day Chevvy Volt. There’s progress for you!
http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/14/114-year-old-electric-car-gets-same-40-miles-to-the-charge-as-chevy-volt/
commieBob says:
February 13, 2012 at 9:57 am
“It depends on where your are. Where I live, the car would be charged over night on nuclear generated electricity. No pollution.
I seriously thought about converting an old pickup truck to electric. People have done it successfully and the parts are available. It’s not even horribly expensive. Then I found out about shale gas. If gasoline were to become sufficiently expensive, I would convert one of my cars to natural gas. The conversions are available at a ‘reasonable’ enough price that it makes electric pointless.”
Electric is already pointless. And I believe natural gass produces more water vapor than gasoline. So, if you believe in AGW, natural gas produces more GHG than gasoline as water vapor is a stronger GHG component.
Grimwig says:
February 13, 2012 at 9:24 am
“I agree with just about all that’s been said. I don’t have an electric car yet (just a very efficient Honda CR-V Diesel) but I am looking for one for a second car.
I do have an electric ride on Lawn Tractor which will be solar charged.
I don’t subscribe to electric vehicles because of AGW, pollution or PC but because I was around in the early seventies when the fur flew in the middle east and we were threatened with rationing. I bought a tiny Citroen 2CV then to make the Range Rover ration go further!. Don’t really like to be reliant on anything we can’t make or grow in the UK if possible.”
Now this IS a good reason to have a non-gasoline powered vehicle! Electric, I’m not so sure.
People concede a lot of things for argument’s sake. That’s a good way to come up with a lot of bad conclusions and mix them in with beliefs. What is clean? Why is it better and is that purpose the most important consideration? Is it necessary that I comply (support with my taxes and governmental support) with someone else’s conclusion that an electric car is “better” generally? Why isn’t it frequently better to carry more power with you in the form of liquid energy? What is the time value of charging a battery during a trip? Does it really make enough comparative sense to generate power remotely with waste, transmit it with waste, store it with waste, and then use it with waste?
Chicago air, e.g., is a whole lot “cleaner” than it was in 1973. Reducing industrial particulates and emissions even further yields an ever decreasing and more nebulous benefit. Rural Illinois air was never a threat of any significance. There is no urgency. There isn’t even any reason for my suburb to build another extra wide street with bike lanes in the hope that people will use them. They don’t. We’ve proved that. Can we at least stop wasting money and move on.
In the meantime, my neighbors will keep driving their SUV because it works best for what they want and I will drive mine because it is just big enough to safely tow my boat and it makes no economic sense to buy a second car. And, besides that, because I like it better than any car I have ever driven. If someone can get an electric to work as well for every purpose, that I like as well and for less total (inclusive of subsidies and replacements ….) money, then maybe I should buy one. No need for any pressure but market pressure. Maybe someone’s values make trying an electric car worth the money to them. Just don’t transfer that to a value that I need to support rather than accept. There’s a difference both financially and qualitatively.
Still, with an electric car I at least make the pollution the so called “someone else’s problem”. And I believe it would be much cleaner if they did the calculation for France rather than for China.
On this story, I needed to break-out my micrometer and re-calibrate to Angstroms to measure my level of surprise.
Yes, there are efficiency economies of scale in power generation… but distribution losses are huge. Then add in the losses of charging and discharging a battery.
Tough to efficiently burn coal or use hydro generation in a vehicle, but 100 cubic feet of natural gas to fuel a vehicle engine will take it FAR further than the electricity created by that same 100 cubic feet of natural gas created by a generation plant.
trbixler says:
February 13, 2012 at 8:02 am
Safer bike routes and showers available at work. Very low pollution and good for your heart.
—————————-
Agree totally, I have an electric bike and used to cycle to work (on cycle paths, largely) until I moved house and my place of work moved, so my route to work is now to a cyclist as a wind farm is to a raptor, i.e. sooner or later you’re gonna get minced. So I drive, unfortunately.
Thorium reactors seem like a fairly clean way of generating the leccy for the bikes and cars, but they’d need to be widely distributed geographically, to avoid the grid problems when everyone plugs in to charge up overnight.
So much could be achieved economically and environmentally if the people in charge were really and truly working in the best interests of the people they supposedly represent. Sad really.
Can you pay extra to buy only the cleaner, cheaper, electricity from nuclear plants?
@ur momisugly Coach Springer says:
February 13, 2012 at 10:38 am
Obviously you haven’t accepted the new paradigm of “Central Control” . Off to the re-education camp with you, comrade. 😉
Justa Joe says:
February 13, 2012 at 10:03 am
Some guys are rightfully pointing out that the USA has vastly superior emission controls on our coal power plants than the PRC has in order to bolster the EV argument. It also needs to be pointed out that the USA has stringent emission controls on gasoline fueled passenger cars as well. Every country that I’ve been to with the exception of perhaps the UK and Holland have lesser or NO emissions equipment on cars. An urban passenger car in the USA is less ‘polluting’ than an urban vehicle in the PRC.
=====================================================================
That is correct.
BUT !!!!
The greenies cannot admit as to how clean energy production is in America, because that would take away an issue for the greenies to continue to demagogue about.
Electric cars aren’t as clean as the green mafia hypes them to be? Manufacturing in China pollutes more than in the USA? Chinese power plants are dirtier than those in the West?
I find this no more shocking than I find the plunging sales figures of the Chevy Volt shocking.
I looked up Chris Cherry. Whadaya know? Ol’ Chris is a huge e-bike fanboy.
http://www.utk.edu/tntoday/2011/09/06/nations-first-automated-ebike-system/
I knew something was a tad off. Having been to Shanghai many time during the last 10 years I’ve noticed the huge increase in the use of private cars, but I’ve never even noticed e-bikes. Cherry is basically the Margaret Mead of the e-bike.
trbixler says:
February 13, 2012 at 8:02 am
“Safer bike routes and showers available at work. Very low pollution and good for your heart.”
All true, but not the whole story. In the Seattle area, as with many areas around the US, bicyclists routinely run through red lights, weave through stopped traffic, and generally behave both arrogantly and ignorantly in their reckless cycling behaviors. When they have a self-induced ‘close encounter of the nearly tragic kind’, they act as if they are blameless. Or is it just clueless? Or shameless?!
If bicyclists want to ‘share the road’ or have their own bike lanes on the roads or separate from the roads, when will they start paying their full share of building and sustaining these bike lanes and highways? A hefty licensing fee and mandatory insurance would be ‘fair’ and a good start to redressing the inequities of your ‘share the road but not the expenses’ philosophies! Or is it just the ‘free ride’ that makes it worthwhile?
It always good to see a university producing solid research rather than the politically correct non-sense coming out of “left” coast universities.
One of the nice things about living in the Southeastern United States is that the state colleges provide superior educations at affordable prices. The students graduate with a solid professional background as well as the common sense skills necessary to enter the workforce.
I’m involved in hiring decisions and think twice about hiring graduates from one of the coastal universities…. and tend to select accordingly. As an employer, I’m interested in evidence of competence, productivity, a solid work ethic, common sense, honesty, and courage to tell me what a need to hear (as opposed to what I want to hear).
I visited UT Knoxville while taking my son on college tours over the summer. It is an impressive institution. Indeed, it took my son all of an hour to be sold. He’s entering UT in the Fall.
My daughter’s graduating from UAH this semester with a degree in electrical engineering.
It looks like they both made wise choices.
Regards,
Kforestcat
What Chris Cherry is calling an e-bike in China is what we would call an electric scooter. Electric scooters and gasoline powered scooters are, of course, gaining poularity in China. Every type of motorized vehicle is gaining popularity. These scooters should not be confused with one of those electrical assist bikes, which also use pedal power.
“He [C. C.] did his dissertation research on e-bikes in China where, over the past decade, their use grew from practically nothing to more than 100 million. “They are ubiquitous in every city on every street,” he said.
The same thing, he thinks, could happen here, where the proliferation of lightweight, long-lasting lithium-ion batteries are making e-bikes an appealing alternative to the car.”
Gimme a break.
Chris lacks credibility. Here he is on an e-bike.
http://www.nsf.gov/news/mmg/media/images/electric_bike_1_f1.jpg
While the environmental C/B ratios for various green initiatives are always arguable, one aspect of them is not
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2012/01/when-being-green-means-subsidies-rich-harm-poor/162514
When ‘being green’ means subsidies for rich, harm for the poor
A recent survey suggests that the average household income for purchasers of electric vehicles, and thus collectors of all those lucrative government subsidies, is $170,000. Meanwhile the share of personal income devoted to gasoline purchases is growing, particularly for those with lower incomes
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gfTGdsP_0EM/Tyf_VYTgiII/AAAAAAAAQyU/h56TX6ChORY/s1600/gas.jpg
If, as now predicted gas prices move to over $4/gal, the negative effect will be felt most by the bottom quintile of income earners, which is just further proof of the leftists “dirty little secret” i.e. “They Hate Poor People”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/they-hate-poor-people_617428.html
@Mark Sorenson It is my understanding that distribution losses in North Am are under 8%.
Even if you were burning fossil fuels exclusively for electricity generation, you have fewer, larger capture points for your waste products, greater efficiency since you won’t have tens of millions of small engines continually stopping/starting/idling (although some new cars address this last issue), which ramps up the emissions significantly.
The reduction or elimination of ground-level ozone and particulate matter in highly populated areas carries huge benefits for public health
Regarding overall efficiency, in the 1990s the Department of Energy devised a way of comparing all electric car fuel efficiency to gasoline cars. To summarize, electric cars get about 30 to 35 mpg(equivalent), which compares well to hybrids and high-efficiency diesel and gasoline cars. The EPA number of around 95 to 100 mpg(equiv) only refers to the electrical energy drawn from the battery and does not represent the system fuel efficiency from the generating plant. (All costs and losses for gasoline itself are included in the estimate.)
A more detailed summary and links are given by Warren Meyer in “Forbes” Nov. 24, 2010.
Electric cars have advantages only if the electrical source is hydroelectric or nuclear. Solar and wind require back-up natural gas power plants to cover the intermittency problem. In the case of wind, the so-called back-up actually provides around 90% of the total power, and for solar the back-up would have to provide at least 60% of the total power.
Wind and solar also have substantial negative environmental effects themselves (land cost, bird kills, etc), and the dispersed and dilute nature of the energy sources requires very large transmission systems.
TANSTAAFL (Heinlein)
Mac the Knife says:
“If bicyclists want to ‘share the road’ or have their own bike lanes on the roads or separate from the roads, when will they start paying their full share of building and sustaining these bike lanes and highways?”
I wholeheartedly agree. There is no credible reason that bicycles should not have to pay their share to build and maintain streets and roads. I think one-quarter of the average annual car license fee would be fair.
In San Francisco bicyclists have gotten completely out of control. And it’s not just S.F., it’s happening in most big cities. They call it “Critical Mass”. It is the “Occupy” movement on bicycles.
AnonyMoose says:
February 13, 2012 at 11:04 am
Can you pay extra to buy only the cleaner, cheaper, electricity from nuclear plants?
============================================================
Not really, but you can pretend like you did:
http://bacontime.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/eco-nonsense-and-silliness/
This is a non-story, given that they’re studying Chinese power-plants, not European or American.
A more appropriate headline would have been “New Study Shows China uses ‘dirty’ power plants.” Shocka. Next up: new study showing Chernobyl-style power plants demonstrate how dangerous nuclear power is.
What’s amusing here is that most commenters are using this (flawed) study to confirm their pre-existing bias; ironic that this is a skeptical site.
DMarshall says:
February 13, 2012 at 12:28 pm
@Mark Sorenson It is my understanding that distribution losses in North Am are under 8%.
8% just about equals the contribution to electrical generation from all “renewable” sources, although most of it comes from hydro, which the “Greens” don’t really consider as renewable, lest someone might actually suggest wacking up a few more dams. If, instead of spending billions subsidizing worthless bird shredding wind turbines and PV installations, we deployed high efficiency natural gas generators, which because of their relatively small footprints and low local impacts can be placed directly into high population areas, we could significantly reduce those losses, at least those attributable to line losses. And since the shale gas revolution has made the power they produce cheaper than even coal, we could also enjoy the numerous benefits that always devolve from making energy cheaper and more widely and consistently available.