Keep in mind that electric vehicles will get cleaner over time (as more electricity is generated from renewable resources), whereas gas-powered cars will not.
Gas-powered cars have been getting cleaner on a steady basis: more efficient engines, lighter materials, etc. improve gas mileage and thus lower emissions.
It's probably a lot easier to incrementally improve gas-powered automotive technology than it is to replace the large percentage of electric capacity in the U.S. that comes from coal-fired power plants. According to Wikipedia, this was about 50% of the nation's capacity as of 2008: 2133 TWh from coal out of a total of 4369 TWh.[1] That amount of industrial infrastructure is not likely to be completely replaced any time soon.
This is a great example of how the media often confuses the complexities of environmental impact. Here's why:
1. This study is limited to particulate matter pollution, not greenhouse gas emissions. Most readers nowadays associate "environmental impact" with climate change, so it's deceptive of the publisher to not specify that electric vehicles cause less greenhouse gas emissions overall than petroleum vehicles.
2. The particulate matter pollution in this study is a solvable problem, even if you keep the coal plants. Equipment like bag houses and static precipitators are already installed on a lot of coal generators to remove particulate.
3. We are currently in peak coal. Even China is starting to decrease the amount of coal generators that they are building. So the argument that we shouldn't switch to EVs because coal is dirty is pretty useless over the next few decades.
Conclusion: The Economist knowingly published an article meant to deceive the reader and discredit electric vehicles.
The quoted study "...assumes for all cars that present and future emission-control technologies will be more widely used in 2020, especially particulate filters which have a marked effect on cleaning diesel exhausts."
Why wouldn't you assume similarly optimistic scenarios for large scale power generation. It's clearly easier to retrofit and regulate about a 100 power station to trap particulate matter etc. than assuming that millions of gasoline and diesel cars on the road will each individually have correctly functioning filters.
Also, a large number of EV's on the road means that any future power plants' improved cleaner nature instantly affects the pollution impact of all the cars on the road.
6 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 17.2 ms ] threadIt's probably a lot easier to incrementally improve gas-powered automotive technology than it is to replace the large percentage of electric capacity in the U.S. that comes from coal-fired power plants. According to Wikipedia, this was about 50% of the nation's capacity as of 2008: 2133 TWh from coal out of a total of 4369 TWh.[1] That amount of industrial infrastructure is not likely to be completely replaced any time soon.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation#List_of...
1. This study is limited to particulate matter pollution, not greenhouse gas emissions. Most readers nowadays associate "environmental impact" with climate change, so it's deceptive of the publisher to not specify that electric vehicles cause less greenhouse gas emissions overall than petroleum vehicles.
2. The particulate matter pollution in this study is a solvable problem, even if you keep the coal plants. Equipment like bag houses and static precipitators are already installed on a lot of coal generators to remove particulate.
3. We are currently in peak coal. Even China is starting to decrease the amount of coal generators that they are building. So the argument that we shouldn't switch to EVs because coal is dirty is pretty useless over the next few decades.
Conclusion: The Economist knowingly published an article meant to deceive the reader and discredit electric vehicles.
You know everything that surfaces facts unfavorable to Tesla isn't some sort of conspiracy. This is good information to know.
Why wouldn't you assume similarly optimistic scenarios for large scale power generation. It's clearly easier to retrofit and regulate about a 100 power station to trap particulate matter etc. than assuming that millions of gasoline and diesel cars on the road will each individually have correctly functioning filters.
Also, a large number of EV's on the road means that any future power plants' improved cleaner nature instantly affects the pollution impact of all the cars on the road.