USA Today -- need we say more?
#1
02-26-2008, 11:09 PM
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 5,613
USA Today -- need we say more?
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/product...ollution_N.htm
The reason it has "yet to trigger alarms" is the writer, James R. Healey is lying by misrepresenting their position:
The pattern is clear that today's hybrid skeptics continue to strike the same old gong that "CNW Marketing" did before, attacks on the advanced vehicle environmental credentials. It also explains BMW's "Seven," a wildly impractical vehicle for which they believe all it takes is a Hollywood driver. Well I hope the Hollywood actors take them for every penny they can get. As for this latest nonsense, since the Volt, much less any other PHEV, is yet to hit the showroom floor, the USA Today hybrid skeptic is tilting at windmills . . . the perfect energy source for a PHEV.
Bob Wilson
Plug-in cars could actually increase air pollution
. . .
If large numbers of plug-in hybrids were being recharged with power from the least-sophisticated coal plants, "There is a possibility for significant increases of soot and mercury," says a report by environmental advocacy group Natural Resources Defense Council. Soot particles can make it hard to breathe, especially for asthmatics. Mercury is toxic.
. . . (350 words later)
The NRDC calculus shows that a plug-in charged from a power plant burning the dirtiest type of coal still has an overall pollution level less than a conventional gasoline car. But it would produce 11% more greenhouse gas emissions than a regular, non-plug-in hybrid, according to Luke Tonachel, vehicles analyst at the NRDC and co-author of the group's report on plug-ins. The report was produced jointly with the non-profit Electric Power Research Institute.
He says, however, that charging a plug-in with electricity from renewable resources — wind or water, for instance — cuts overall greenhouse gas emissions to as low as a conventional gasoline car getting 74 mpg. No current gasoline car does that.
The NRDC and Minnesota studies were published last year but have yet to trigger alarms. PHEVs still are experimental; their possible threat is distant.
. . .
. . .
If large numbers of plug-in hybrids were being recharged with power from the least-sophisticated coal plants, "There is a possibility for significant increases of soot and mercury," says a report by environmental advocacy group Natural Resources Defense Council. Soot particles can make it hard to breathe, especially for asthmatics. Mercury is toxic.
. . . (350 words later)
The NRDC calculus shows that a plug-in charged from a power plant burning the dirtiest type of coal still has an overall pollution level less than a conventional gasoline car. But it would produce 11% more greenhouse gas emissions than a regular, non-plug-in hybrid, according to Luke Tonachel, vehicles analyst at the NRDC and co-author of the group's report on plug-ins. The report was produced jointly with the non-profit Electric Power Research Institute.
He says, however, that charging a plug-in with electricity from renewable resources — wind or water, for instance — cuts overall greenhouse gas emissions to as low as a conventional gasoline car getting 74 mpg. No current gasoline car does that.
The NRDC and Minnesota studies were published last year but have yet to trigger alarms. PHEVs still are experimental; their possible threat is distant.
. . .
Originally Posted by Statement of Nathanael Greene Senior Policy Analyst Natural Resources Defense Council Before the Massachusetts Advanced Biofuels Task Force January 17, 2008
. . .
While I believe that there are better alternatives, if coal is to be used to replace gasoline, generating electricity for use in plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs) can be far more efficient and cleaner than making liquid fuels. In fact, a ton of coal used to generate electricity used in a PHEV will displace more than twice as much oil as using the same coal to make liquid fuels, even using optimistic assumptions about the conversion efficiency of liquid coal plants. The difference in CO2 emissions is even more dramatic. Liquid coal produced with CCS and used in a hybrid vehicle would still result in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of approximately 330 grams/mile, or ten times as much as the 33 grams/mile that could be achieve by a PHEV operating on electricity generated in a coal-fired power plant equipped with CCS.
. . .
While I believe that there are better alternatives, if coal is to be used to replace gasoline, generating electricity for use in plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs) can be far more efficient and cleaner than making liquid fuels. In fact, a ton of coal used to generate electricity used in a PHEV will displace more than twice as much oil as using the same coal to make liquid fuels, even using optimistic assumptions about the conversion efficiency of liquid coal plants. The difference in CO2 emissions is even more dramatic. Liquid coal produced with CCS and used in a hybrid vehicle would still result in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of approximately 330 grams/mile, or ten times as much as the 33 grams/mile that could be achieve by a PHEV operating on electricity generated in a coal-fired power plant equipped with CCS.
. . .
Bob Wilson
#2
02-27-2008, 05:36 PM
Re: USA Today -- need we say more?
What this misses, of course, is that widespread adoption of plug in hybrids will mean that they aren't charged by any of the generating plants we have today. They will be charged by the plants we build from here forward. If the demand increases, no one is going to start up an old dirty plant. They will add new generation and the challenge is to build new cleaner generating units.
#3
02-27-2008, 06:19 PM
Re: USA Today -- need we say more?
What this misses, of course, is that widespread adoption of plug in hybrids will mean that they aren't charged by any of the generating plants we have today. They will be charged by the plants we build from here forward. If the demand increases, no one is going to start up an old dirty plant. They will add new generation and the challenge is to build new cleaner generating units.
By trying to combine both the origin of the power with the source of the power for transportation, Mr. Healey is trying to obfuscate the issue. Also many homeowners have options in terms of energy generation. For those really concerned about their environmental impact and live in the right areas they could install a home solar array or wind turbine.
Truth be told net-net I doubt Mr. Healey's overall conclusion at any rate. I'm pretty sure the marginal pollution from increased electricity demand will more than be offset by the drop in pollution from using petroleum products as a primary source of locomotion.
A plug-in car would likely have a payoff much quicker than hybrids, home PV arrays, wind turbines, etc.
Last edited by ChicagoHCHII; 02-27-2008 at 06:23 PM.
#5
02-28-2008, 10:08 AM
Re: USA Today -- need we say more?
I tend to think PHEV's are a really good solution to the growing issues of pollution and energy costs; however personally I consider mercury to be a far more problematic pollutant to deal with than carbon dioxide or soot.
Mecury is extremely difficult to get out the of the food chain and affects the most vunerable population groups (unborn/young), it is dangerous in very low concentrations and it's already a problem right now.
I think before the big push towards PHEV's occurs we really need to clean up coal emissions, ideally sequestering the carbon dioxide but that seems to be way off right now in the future. Improved smoke stack scrubbers should be a huge priority, lets hope the next occupant of the WH can move us all forward.
Mecury is extremely difficult to get out the of the food chain and affects the most vunerable population groups (unborn/young), it is dangerous in very low concentrations and it's already a problem right now.
I think before the big push towards PHEV's occurs we really need to clean up coal emissions, ideally sequestering the carbon dioxide but that seems to be way off right now in the future. Improved smoke stack scrubbers should be a huge priority, lets hope the next occupant of the WH can move us all forward.
#6
02-28-2008, 10:26 AM
Re: USA Today -- need we say more?
I tend to think PHEV's are a really good solution to the growing issues of pollution and energy costs; however personally I consider mercury to be a far more problematic pollutant to deal with than carbon dioxide or soot.
Mecury is extremely difficult to get out the of the food chain and affects the most vunerable population groups (unborn/young), it is dangerous in very low concentrations and it's already a problem right now.
I think before the big push towards PHEV's occurs we really need to clean up coal emissions, ideally sequestering the carbon dioxide but that seems to be way off right now in the future. Improved smoke stack scrubbers should be a huge priority, lets hope the next occupant of the WH can move us all forward.
Mecury is extremely difficult to get out the of the food chain and affects the most vunerable population groups (unborn/young), it is dangerous in very low concentrations and it's already a problem right now.
I think before the big push towards PHEV's occurs we really need to clean up coal emissions, ideally sequestering the carbon dioxide but that seems to be way off right now in the future. Improved smoke stack scrubbers should be a huge priority, lets hope the next occupant of the WH can move us all forward.
And I'm not so sure on mercury. Most people are able to deal with low or trace levels of toxins (aside from a few like neurotoxins, plutonium, snake venom, or cyanide). Did you know in the Roman empire the aqueducts were made of lead? You didn't see people going mad in the streets en masse.
Today theres a lot of scare about mercury, but I remember as a kid playing with it one day when a thermometer burst. Today its recommended to have a hazmat crew come in?! Thats government bureaucracy gone amock. Mercury is treated today similar to asbestos: an irrational fear that it is far more harmful than it actually is.
Sure pregnant women and small children should avoid it at all costs, but for the rest of us trace amounts are probably okay. I dispute that its dangerous in very low concentrations, actually. Show me some data.
Last edited by ChicagoHCHII; 02-28-2008 at 10:31 AM.
#7
02-28-2008, 10:32 AM
Re: USA Today -- need we say more?
If you're too lazy to go on google to search, here is a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_poisoning
#8
02-28-2008, 11:00 AM
Hybrid and Ethanol Expert
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: All over the Central U.S.
Posts: 3,616
Re: USA Today -- need we say more?
[quote=ChicagoHCHII;163218]Did you know in the Roman empire the aqueducts were made of lead? You didn't see people going mad in the streets en masse.
[quote]
Right... and the average life expectancy was.... 32 years!
Moses was probably only 65. But back then, "old as Moses" was really amazing!
[quote]
Right... and the average life expectancy was.... 32 years!
Moses was probably only 65. But back then, "old as Moses" was really amazing!
#9
02-28-2008, 12:34 PM
Re: USA Today -- need we say more?
How exactly are they supposed to avoid it when it's in the food chain? not eat or drink?
If you're too lazy to go on google to search, here is a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_poisoning
If you're too lazy to go on google to search, here is a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_poisoning
Because elemental mercury often passes through the GI tract without being absorbed, it was used medically for various purposes until the dangers of mercury poisoning became known. For example, elemental mercury was used to mechanically clear intestinal obstructions (due to its great weight and fluidity), and it was a key ingredient in various medicines throughout history, such as blue mass. The toxic effects often were either not noticed at all, or so subtle or generic that they were attributed to other causes and were not recognized as poisoning caused by mercury. While the usage of mercury in medicine has declined, mercury-containing compounds are still used medically in vaccines and dental amalgam, both of which have been the subject of controversy regarding their potential for mercury poisoning.
Sorry but I'm not afraid of the big mercury boogeyman. Like I said its treated like asbestos today: its dangers (or prevalence) are greatly exaggerated.
#10
02-28-2008, 12:41 PM
Re: USA Today -- need we say more?
Did you know in the Roman empire the aqueducts were made of lead? You didn't see people going mad in the streets en masse.
Today theres a lot of scare about mercury, but I remember as a kid playing with it one day when a thermometer burst. Today its recommended to have a hazmat crew come in?! Thats government bureaucracy gone amock. Mercury is treated today similar to asbestos: an irrational fear that it is far more harmful than it actually is.
Today theres a lot of scare about mercury, but I remember as a kid playing with it one day when a thermometer burst. Today its recommended to have a hazmat crew come in?! Thats government bureaucracy gone amock. Mercury is treated today similar to asbestos: an irrational fear that it is far more harmful than it actually is.
You were lucky, pets and children have died from Mercury fumes due to relatively small spills. Medical fact.
