Electric cars are cleaner today and tomorrow will receive only the cleaning lady

Uncovering a fraud is uniquely satisfying, which is perhaps why news outlets continue to provide electric car deniers with a platform to proclaim they aren’t as green as they appear. But close examination reveals the latest round of skeptics to be lacking in substance. Numerous peer-reviewed articles have reached the same conclusion — from cradle to grave, electric cars are the cleanest vehicles on the road today. And unlike cars that rely on oil, the production of which is only getting dirtier over time, the environmental benefits of electric cars will continue to improve as old coal plants are replaced with cleaner sources and manufacturing becomes more efficient as it scales up to meet growing consumer demand.

“Did you account for the pollution from the electricity it takes to power the vehicles?”

This question has been asked and answered. Using today’s average American electricity mix of natural gas, coal, nuclear, hydro, wind, geothermal, and solar, an electric car emits half the amount of harmful carbon pollution per mile as the average new vehicle. In states with cleaner mixes, such as California, it’s only a quarter as much. To find out how clean your electric car would be today, plug your zip code into the EPA’s “Beyond Tailpipe Emissions Calculator.” Those benefits will only improve as the electric grid becomes cleaner over time.

Before NRDC began advocating for vehicle electrification, we did our own homework, publishing a two-volume report in partnership with the Electric Power Research Institute. The work took almost two years and concluded that a long-term shift to the use of electricity as a transportation fuel provides substantial reductions in carbon pollution and air quality benefits.

It’s essential to take a long view when examining vehicle electrification because the electric grid doesn’t stand still. Since the time we published that report, the EPA has adopted power plant standards for mercury and other air toxics, ozone-forming emissions, fine particulate pollution, soot and coal ash, proposed standards for greenhouse gases from new power plants, and has been directed by the president to adopt greenhouse gas standards for existing plants. Meanwhile, twenty-nine states have adopted renewable energy targets to reduce emissions. Driving on renewable electricity is virtually emissions-free.

“Did you account for the resources it takes to build the cars?”

Producing an electric car today requires more resources than producing a conventional vehicle, generally due to the large batteries. However, comparing the efficiency of relatively nascent and small scale electric vehicle manufacturing to the efficiency of conventional automobile production, which has benefited from more than a century of learning-by-doing, is misleading. Automakers are racing to save money and materials through recycling and more efficient production. Those who win the race will win the market.

Even with today’s technology, on a lifecycle basis, the electric car is still the cleanest option available. Higher emissions from manufacturing are more than offset by the substantial benefits of driving on electricity. We examined six peer-reviewed academic studies and found that in every case, electric vehicles win by a substantial margin, with estimates ranging from 28 to 53 percent lower crade-to-grave emissions than conventional vehicles today.

Opponents often rely upon the original version of a Norwegian study (Hawkins 2012), which has much higher estimates of emissions associated with the production of electric cars. Those skeptics generally cherry-pick from the original version of that article, and ignore the fact it was corrected post-publication, resulting in its estimate of the comparative emissions benefit rising from 22 percent to 28 percent. In other words, even the source relied upon by skeptics shows a substantial lifecycle advantage for electric cars. The Norwegian study finds the lowest benefit relative to the other articles examined partially because it includes an estimate of emissions associated with the disposal of advanced battery materials that is higher than other studies, which brings us to the next question:

“What about mining and disposing of the materials needed to make the batteries?”

First off, there is no shortage of the materials needed to make advanced vehicle batteries. A recent article in the Journal of Industrial Ecology concludes, “even with a rapid and widespread adoption of electric vehicles powered by lithium-ion batteries, lithium resources are sufficient to support demand until at least the end of this century.” Another analysis of the trade constraints associated with the global lithium market came to a similar conclusion, and noted that even a “five-fold increase of lithium price would not impact the price of battery packs.” Furthermore, companies like Simbol Materials are already finding innovative ways to acquire lithium by harvesting materials from the brine of geothermal power plants — no mining required.

Secondly, advanced vehicle batteries are unlikely to be simply thrown away; they’re too valuable. Even once they’re no longer suitable for automotive use, they retain about 80 percent of their capacity and can be re-purposed to provide grid energy storage to facilitate the integration of variable renewable resources, such as wind and solar. Automotive batteries can also be re-purposed to support the electrical grid at the neighborhood level, preventing the need to invest in costly distribution system equipment. Pacific Gas & Electric plans to use money saved through the strategic deployment of used battery packs in neighborhoods throughout Northern and Central California to provide electric car drivers with rebates to reduce the purchase price of new electric cars.

Finally, those batteries that aren’t re-purposed will likely be recycled. Conventional vehicle manufacturing is one of the most efficient industries in the world — around 95 percent of vehicle parts are recycled, reducing the energy needed to make more parts. It is worth noting that conventional lead-acid car batteries are consistently the most recycled product for which the EPA provides data, with a recycling rate of 96 percent. Advanced battery recycling could cut associated emissions in half, according to a 2012 study from researchers at Argonne National Laboratory. Companies are already investing in such technologies.

In summary, a sustained and serious examination of the cradle-to-grave impacts of electric cars reveals they are the cleanest option available today, and that the environmental benefits of vehicle electrification will only increase over time. That’s not only good news for the eco-conscious, but for any consumer interested in driving on a cleaner fuel at a price equivalent to buck-a-gallon gasoline. For more, see Real Oil Independence: Buck-a-Gallon Electricity for Life.

View the original article here

Two way Americans receive more responsibility of their energy future

Three years ago, the prospects for Americans to own the future their energy seemed relatively bleak. There was almost no replicable to do models municipal energy projects or investments, despite decreasing unit costs and technology - solar and wind-, which are suitable for local development.

But thanks to the recent opportunities in community solar and Crowdfunding, maybe we will see a market for renewable energy in America, where everyone wins.

We start with solar. It's the ultimate distributed renewable energy sunshine is everywhere – and its cost falls so quickly that within a decade 300 gigawatt solar unsubsidized competitive with local prices in communities in the country. In 2010, only one model for the development of community had proven solar easily replicable and there was no way, is a Community collective capital to invest in local energy (except maybe one Stadtwerke, story for another time) to combine. Since almost three quarters which residential roofs not suitable for solar, it was hard to see how most Americans take advantage of the Sun might brighten their energy future.

But in the year 2013, community solar are rising fast. Colorado Community-solar garden program - selling off his 9-megawatt limit in half an hour - shows a powerful model for people to go, even if their own roof is their money, solar, you don't or bundle not sunny let. Their model to other countries, such as the clean energy brought some companies in Colorado already have collective solar joint venture with the Wright Hennepin electric cooperative in Minnesota, and legislation consider to expand the possibility of other States (including Minnesota).

Remember in the year 2013, possibly opening the floodgates of Crowdfunding.

At the end of 2012, mosaic California (solar) launched their first joint project for solar investments, so that 51 California investors 6.38 percent profits to invest in a 47 kilowatt (kW) solar plant on the roof of the youth employment partnership in Oakland earn. Their subsequent 235 kW project of ups the ante and was open to ordinary people in California and New York (and accredited investors in all 50 States). It sold out in only 24 hours more than 400 investors with an average share of only $700. The investment used a common securities law exemption (rule 506 of Regulation D) and investors get an annual yield of 4.5 percent (minus the fees) within nine years, greening the economy and their budgets.

The key advantage of solar mosaic is the investment. Solar projects have sometimes called net virtual shared energy savings for participants, metering leave. Potential investors in the same utility service area is limited, and the savings can not be made to a property outside of this range. The mosaic model community solar transforms a simple investment, potential investors, to invest a given mosaic project, to elect cash in a Treasury or savings account with significantly higher yields than parking. Because now it is limited to broad participation in only two States, New York and California, but mosaic "works", to expand the possibility.

Mosaic can be renewable only the first salvo in a firestorm of community investment. JOBS Federal 2012 intends to create a new segment of investment security with much lower advance and legal costs, the mass pool would allow up to $1 million for solar and other renewable Energieprojekte.Der only "downside" in the mosaic model is that it explicitly not geography investments to connect. New York City resident, can invest in a project in California, but not in Manhattan or the Bronx. If this model successfully to remain, but it is likely that will change.

Crowdfunding isn't either on renewable energies, be restricted. People could their resources in block by block is energy efficiency retrofit, reduce their own and their neighbours of energy costs and share with the energy savings other local investors to invest together. Crowdfunding for energy efficiency could be combined with commercial building energy reviews your choice (only MN adopt in Minneapolis, for example) the least efficient buildings with the greatest potential for savings. Local joint investment would not only knock, and additional energy savings to share, but idle would boost the local economy by workers, it was make to work building more cost-effective and less climate damage.

Community solar and Crowdfunding are still in their infancy, but they represent two powerful tools for the Americans their energy take over future.

This post originally appeared on ILSRs self-reliant energy status blog.

View the original article here