coal-burning electricity

[butter]

Hi,

I know that KarenRei actually touched upon this subject briefly in one of the other threads, but I can't remember the specifics of what she said, nor can I find it...

This issue has come up many times now in my conversations with friends and family: when I joyfully blather on about how I'll finally be gas-free with the all-electric Aptera, going on about the lack of emissions, not relying on fossil fuels, someone will inevitably (and it seems rightly) point out that electricity is still by and large being generated with the help of coal/fossil fuels.

I don't know enough to give a substantive retort. I can only tell them that I am definitely aware of that, I know electricity that is generated in huge quantities (as opposed to home-centric solar panels and the like) does leave a carbon footprint.

What I want to know is this: is using electricity from Southern California Edison (my residential electric co) better than using gasoline for my car -- better for THE PLANET, I mean?

I know it must be difficult to make any comparisons, but what I'm trying to get at is -- if either way I'm going to end up burning some fossil fuels to make my car move, is it still the lesser of two evils (ENVIRONMENTALLY SPEAKING) to go with SoCal Edison rather than Chevron? This isn't about money or politics, just plain old nature and how we're messing it up.

So, just so you don't get confused, I'm not really asking about, like, the efficiency of a gas or electric car (although that would certainly come into play in the grand scheme). It's just, when people point out that using electricity STILL involves burning fossil fuels (the emissions are simply coming out of the factories instead of your tailpipe)... is there any environmental upshot?

ack...

Thanks in advance for any responses,
Amy

[Aptera 1103]

Put solar panels on your house if you can. We currently are able to meet all of our electrical needs and more with 18 panels discretely located on our roof. :)

[butter]

I'd love to, but I live in a condo complex. I think if I ever moved to a single-family home, that would probably be PROJECT #1 for me!!

So... aside from the choice of putting up my own solar panels, any measurable advantages for our dear planet if I used electricity over gas?

[futura]

butter,

If you're pullin' electrons from SCE it's a pretty mixed bag of sources. They have the San Onofre nuke (fairly CO2 neutral), and a fair amount of natural gas and oil fueled generators. They closed their big coal plant in Mojave a couple of years ago rather than upgrade to meet air quality standards.
Of course, when the heat's on in SoCal, they buy power from everywhere, some of which is coal-fired. I think anyone who tries the "moral relativism" argument of an electric vehicle vs fossil fueled is standing on a poor scientific foundation but especially in your case with SCE (IMO).

Cheers

[butter]

Oh, okay... (I'm a little confused) so to clarify, you're saying that using electricity from SCE isn't really all that much cleaner than guzzling gasoline straight in the tank, right?

So when a friend points out to me that it's still gonna be coal-burning electricity I'll be using to charge my Aptera batteries, I really can't point out any "buts"?

[futura]

Actually, I thought I was saying the "opposite" but maybe it got lost
in my verbiage. SCE is better than an Duke energy and a LiFePO battery powered electric car is ALWAYS better than a fossil fueled car.
Cheers.

[butter]

Oh, ok, PHEW, yay!

YAAY!!

[KarenRei]

Well, you can pull up the thread I posted previously for specifics (there's a DOE study that will tell you the same thing). Are you just looking for a quick talking point? Here's a good starter:

"Even with coal electricity, EVs are still cleaner because power plants are much more efficient than gasoline engines and electricity transmission loses only a trivial amount of that gain. Also, power plants have large, centralized scrubbers."

If you want to go on:

"Replacing your average vehicle with an equivalent EV reduces CO2, nearly eliminates carcinogenic VOCs and neurotoxic carbon monoxide, keeps nitrous oxides and sulphur dioxide** about the same, and slightly increases particulate emissions. However, the Aptera is not an "equivalent" vehicle; using a third the energy of an average vehicle, the benefits are that much more dramatic."

A good final talking point is:

"When the rapidly falling prices of wind, solar enhanced geothermal, and other renewables techs catch up with the price of coal, which doesn't look far off at all given the continued price drops, the grid will switch to them in bulk. At that point, I'll have a wind, solar, geothermal, and other renewable powered car, and yours will still be burning gasoline."


** Sulphur dioxide, in principle, would rise significantly, as coal power currently emits notably more sulphur dioxide than cars for the same amount of energy output. In practice, however, thanks to the Clean Air Act, coal power plants aren't generally allowed to emit more sulphur than they emit now. So, to profit from the financial windfall that EV charging would give power companies, they'd have to install better scrubbers. Hence, SO2 levels don't change.

[butter]

I love you, KarenRei, I love you I love you I LOVE YOU!!

POIFECTTTTTT!!!

Man, you rock.

P.S. Thank you!

[3-4-me]

Good replies.
I had a "buddy" hit me with "what about all those batteries you'll be using, what happens to them when they need replaced?"
I know it's a stupid argument, and they'll be recycled one way or another. But you can't argue with some people.
What's the best comeback for the naysayers?

[KarenRei]

The biggest thing is to point out that you *won't* be going through batteries -- that these are no ordinary batteries, and they're designed to last for over 10 years. The batteries are lithium phosphate, a long-lasting and safe variety of lithium ion battery, not lead-acid or nickel-cadmium (the two main toxic types). In these batteries, the cathode (typically lithium iron phosphate) is nontoxic, the anode (graphite) is what you find in pencils, the separator is plastic, and the electrolyte is merely an irritant. No heavy metals or anything like that. And yes, almost all automotive batteries are currently recycled. Now, the same sort of system isn't yet in place for li-ion as it is for lead-acid, but it's only a matter of time.

[Chupacabra]

I'd just tell them your car can whip theirs with one fender tied behind its back, and if they persist tell them "Don't get all logical on me".

[Apt3448]

I chanced upon a NY times blog on the pro's and cons of all electric cars here:
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/would-you-buy-an-electric-car-now/?scp=2-b&sq=electric+vehicle&st=nyt
The author is not going for it, but the arguments are reasonable. In the some comments the 'long tail pipe' shows up again. No need to rehash the point, but you can read the numbers in a fairly even handed post here: http://www.slate.com/id/2179609/ comparing the Tesla to a Corolla. I was surprised by this number: According to the Energy Information Administration, a gallon of gas produces 19.564 pounds of carbon dioxide. Yuck! Like Karen pointed out before, it is argued that all electric vehicles produces less CO2 and other crap. (and the less weight and the less drag a car has - such as the Aptera - the less electricity it takes to move it, the less coal, etc).

What was new to me was a link to our very own EPA which lets you figure out what percentage of your (by zip-code) electricity comes from coal, anyway. For me in LA (90004) that is apparently only 13%, (with 46% from gas). http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/how-clean.html

So an all electric vehicle would produce less CO2 etc in the worst case (driving an inefficient Tesla and charging with 100% coal generated electricity). In our case, the Aptera does for better (see Karen's wiki for details), and our electricity is less dirty to start with.

And so on for using night time electricity, etc, but I just wanted to add the info on the source of your electricity.

So what are we still waiting for?!

[drivin98]

Also Southern California Edison is the company bringing a huge distributed solar generation (http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/04/01/video-huge-solar-project-to-begin-this-year/) to a rooftop near Southern-Californian you.

[butter]

Awesome! Thanks, Apt3448 and drivin98, for providing more info on this sometimes ambiguous situation. Much appreciated!!

[Apt3448]

Drivin98, I'm not getting the whole picture on that SCE plan. Would I as LADWP customer buy more solar generated power?

[Apt3448]

This is slightly OT but i'd like input from you people out there. Does anyone actually currently generate his/her own electricity using solar? I'm considering but it is a fairly steep investment with returns over many years, or so it seems. Various web-sites give different models of the way to go about it and if someone knows of a really useful web-site I'd appreciate that.
1) I had planned on saving and paying cash for my Aptera, but I could also spent the money on solar and finance the car. It seems about the same amount. I just cannot stand the idea of paying that much interest, though. Any thoughts here?
2) If I invest in solar, can/should I do it in parts? add more cells when my gas heater needs replacement and I get an electric one or should I do it all at once.
3) Having an unobstructed, more or less flat roof in LA should mean i have no problem generating all my electricity needs. But how much to add just to charge my Aptera? (I know I saw an encouraging estimate in a thread and can't find it anymore. reference please?).

[speculawyer]

This is slightly OT but i'd like input from you people out there. Does anyone actually currently generate his/her own electricity using solar? I'm considering but it is a fairly steep investment with returns over many years, or so it seems. Various web-sites give different models of the way to go about it and if someone knows of a really useful web-site I'd appreciate that.
1) I had planned on saving and paying cash for my Aptera, but I could also spent the money on solar and finance the car. It seems about the same amount. I just cannot stand the idea of paying that much interest, though. Any thoughts here?
2) If I invest in solar, can/should I do it in parts? add more cells when my gas heater needs replacement and I get an electric one or should I do it all at once.
3) Having an unobstructed, more or less flat roof in LA should mean i have no problem generating all my electricity needs. But how much to add just to charge my Aptera? (I know I saw an encouraging estimate in a thread and can't find it anymore. reference please?).
I've built one at a previous house and am currently starting the plans for a PV system at the current house. Some comments:
-For everyone: Go here http://www.dsireusa.org/ to find out about the incentive programs to help pay for your system. My previous system has 1/2 paid for by my local utility.
-Loans: If you need a loan, take out the loan for the PV system . . . it is an upgrade to your house so it should be a tax-deductible mortgage type of payment.
-Replacing the gas heater sounds like a really bad idea. Gas is more efficient than electric for heat.
-As far as sizing the system, you are probably going to be limited based on your electric bills as to how big the system can be. I think that can lead to a perverse incentive for people to waste electricity in order to get their electric bill up high so they can build a bigger PV system if they plan for an electric car. Perhaps build a system to meet your current needs but make sure you have a big inverter so you can add more panels later.
That is what I'm thinking right now.

Here is the state of california solar site:
http://www.gosolarcalifornia.org/

[Apt3448]

Thanks speculawyer, I appreciate the help and I'll check it out!