In my post last Fall on Rob Lowe’s plug-in hybrid, I argued that in the absence of a cap on greenhouse gas emissions, switching to plug-in hybrids might actually be worse for the climate than just switching to regular hybrids. I no longer believe that. Electric vehicles are winners for the climate in the Northwest.
My argument then, based on research at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), was that the “marginal kilowatt-hour”—the extra electricity that’s generated when consumption grows—in Cascadia is usually from fossil fuels and, in the off-peak, middle-of-the-night hours when most electric vehicles would be charged, extra electricity comes from burning coal. Burning coal is worse for the climate than running hybrid vehicles on gasoline.
What changed my mind was better research, conducted by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC), about where the region’s marginal kilowatt-hours come from. NPCC did a meticulous, hour-by-hour assessment of marginal power generation in the Pacific Northwest. They discovered, to my surprise, that the overwhelming majority of the Northwest’s marginal electricity, even during off-peak hours, comes not from coal but from natural gas. In Cascadia, we only get our marginal kilowatts from coal during the midnight hours on a few low-demand weekends. Coal-fired power is the marginal electricity consumed in fewer than 5 percent of hours all year. This wonk-alicious figure illustrates.
As a result, the consequences of overnight charging of electric vehicles is to incrementally increase the amount of natural gas that Cascadia burns (or causes to be burned elsewhere). And the greenhouse gas implications of this scenario are substantially cleaner than burning gasoline in a regular hybrid vehicle.
Specifically, revisiting this figure from my original post, a regular hybrid generates about 290 grams of carbon dioxide per mile, while a plug-in hybrid charged with electricity generated at a combined-cycle natural gas plant (as most of ours is) generates about 240 grams per mile. An all-electric vehicle generates much less, of course, because it never uses gasoline (shown in red in the figure).
I still have worries: What are the ripple effects in the electricity market and in the natural gas market of burning more natural gas for power in the West? Does it cause other utilities elsewhere to burn more coal? What if natural gas prices rise further than they already have?
But I also have a hope: the Western Climate Initiative, if it is adopted by its member states and provinces, will put electricity on a predictable path to clean energy. In fact, electricity will be under the cap before transportation fuels, if this week’s proposal is enacted. And in the presence of a binding limit on emissions, my worries about electric vehicles’ unintended consequences vanish entirely.
So the real conclusion of this post, like the earlier one, is that we need a carbon cap. Cap, cap, cap!
eldan
I think your earlier post was correct for right now, and that a grid-wide emissions cap is the only thing that would change this. The trouble is that while in theory our main electricity source is hydro, it’s all fungible. If we could actually reduce consumption below the region’s hydro resources, the dams would continue to generate just as much electricity, but the rest would get ‘exported’; in effect to California, where it offsets fossil-fuel power. So every kwh of renewable energy used in Puget Sound is a kwh of fossil fuel power not offset elsewhere.
Barry
The big thing you are leaving out is how long cars last: 13 years or more. If the grid isn’t greener in that timeframe forget it…our goose is literally cooked. Even if plug-in hybrid is only break even now, it will be far better over the lifetime of the car. One of the biggest problem we are going to face is changing the fossil fuel burning infrastructure in time. We absolutely have to stop buying long lasting infrastructure that uses fossil fuels. Period. And we need to green the grid. There isn’t another choice. Both have to happen. If you continue to buy new fossil fuel furnaces and stoves and cars and such until the grid is greener we will lose years we can’t afford. All those items will require fossil fuels to operate long after the green grid is better choice.Think about the lifetime ghg footprint not just today’s.As James Hansen says, any new coal fired powerplant built today with out carbon capture is going to have to be bulldozed. Ditto for any long lasting fossil fuel infrastructure.
Ethan Meginnes
It is interesting how different experiences give different results. My wife and I recently sold our house in Seattle and bought a condo to help our large footprint (we live in two communities) on the planet. When I recently read about one of the new e-motorcycles out I was really excited. We could be a one car family with a plug-in hybrid and an e-motorcycle could spell us whenever we were not using our bicycles (the vast majority of our local travel). Then I realized that our reduction in housing has made it impossible to benefit from an e-motorcycle or a plug in hybrid. My new condo has a community parking garage like many high density households. I do not know of a single community parking garage that has outlets to plug into for these alternative vehicles. Obviously market forces could change this but I certainly do not see this anytime soon. I realize biodiesel is not a perfect solution but it will continue to have to be mine for the foreseeable future. We must always remember real world application when discussing the climate saving technologies out there.
Alan Durning
Eldan,Thanks for your note. We agree on the primacy of the cap.Barry,I think you and I have already been around this bush a few times. If we assume a 20-year trajectory to zero emissions, then you’re right. But if we assume a 50-year trajectory (or more), then I’m right. Ecologically, a 2-year trajectory (or less) would be best. But politically, a 50-year trajectory is the best I can imagine achieving.Ethan (full disclosure for others: we’re friends),Maybe a really long extension cord? I test-road an electric scooter this summer. My next post is about it! (Alex will love it. Kathryn did.)Charging points are key for electric vehicles. I know EV proponents have been advocating to get them installed. Fortunately, they’re not hard to retrofit in: anyplace wired for electricity can have an outlet for vehicle recharge. Metering them to charge by the kilowatt-hour is a little more expensive, but I’m guessing it’s a smaller obstacle to electric vehicles than their sticker price, limited range, and slow “refueling.” On these criteria, liquid fuels are still superior.
Wells
It never ceases to amaze me how the most important advantages of Plug-in hybrid technology are completely ignored by the purportedly knowledgeable. I would list them as I have in the past, but there’s no educating those who consider their opinions incontrovertable. It looks to me like Sightline practices an Old School line of thinking, that is, today’s level of habitual driving is not to be questioned, the only solution is the techno-fix, more technology, not less. Nice charts, Alan. Completely worthless, but shiny-pretty.
Alan Durning
Wells,Ouch.Um. Have you read, say, my car-less series? I’m guilty of many things, but I don’t think I’m guilty of the sins you ascribe to me. “Old School . . . today’s level of habitual driving is not to be questioned”
Wells
I’m sorry to hear about the divorce, Alan. I didn’t mean to kick you while you’re down. Love is eternal. I got into heated debate with Eric on the plug-in hybrid issue some months ago, and left unsatisfied after detailing their unrealized advantages on his article about how achieving 18mpg for SUVs has more impact than hybrids. To suggest their fuel/energy consumption is mediocre does a disservice to readers. Find that article and read my comments. If you need clarification, I’ll check back here and try to do so at your request. Let automobile-related business and utility company interests deride the plug-in hybrid phenomenum. We should not be surprised that the Bush administration killed hybrid R in favor of utterly impractical hydrogen and fuel cell technology. Is Sarah Palin a profound phony or what? Didn’t she set Senator Biden up with her initial greeting “Hey. Can I call you Joe?” planning to hit him later with the buzzphrase “Say it ain’t so, Joe. – There you go again. – Looking at the past instead of the future…” She’s putting herself off as a genuine, what you see is what you get, homespun type while orchestrating a sophisticated put down.
Barry
Alan, I’m confused by your comment “If we assume a 20-year trajectory to zero emissions, then you’re right. But if we assume a 50-year trajectory (or more), then I’m right….But politically, a 50-year trajectory is the best I can imagine achieving.”I live in BC where the law requires zero-ghg for all new electricity generation within 8 years. And WCI, i believe, has electricity gen under cap and includes imports too. All this happened in less than two years. Sightline has written some interesting posts about how big social transformations are non-linear. And as your article points out, even without any of this the electricity for plug-in hybrids is already better than using gasoline in NW. It is just going to get better over the years. So isn’t it true that even a plug-in hybrid bought years ago would have lower ghg over it’s lifetime than a non-plug-in? I’m confused how “50-years to zero-ghg” fits into my comments, or your own article, on this. As far as other long-lasting point-source fossil fuel burners, like stoves and heaters, doesn’t Sightline agree that people can buy lower-ghg alternatives TODAY by providing their own low-ghg electricity/power? You don’t have to wait passively for utilities to green your electricity over 50 years or more. There are immediate alternatives like putting solar on your roof or funding build-out of new low-ghg gen by buying green power. This has been my point all along. Isn’t this the best-case scenario for sustainability? Saying we should continue our deadly fossil fuel habits for decades because we have to wait for others to act seems an odd position for Sightline to take.