Toshi
10 kW
[cross-posted from my Google+ stream: https://plus.google.com/115479414905422234350/posts/E6gV6pGkYJh ]
The Decline of Coal
One of the frequent, snide criticisms of electric vehicles is that they're "coal-powered cars." This refers to the historically high usage of coal to generate electricity in many regions throughout the US, especially in Appalachia. What does "historically high" imply in the recent past? A 1996 MIT Energy Lab paper that I've previously cited describes the national energy generation makeup in that era as "52% coal, 28% natural gas", and other, minor players.
Well, that era is ending, at least on the national scale. (On the state level power generation has always had large regional differences. Take the extreme examples of Idaho and West Virginia, for instance, with Idaho boasting 79% hydroelectric power and <1% coal use as compared to West Virginia's 98% reliance on coal.)
Above is the US Energy Information Administration's Short Term Energy Outlook that illustrates the the decline of coal. Note that coal, as a percentage of total, nationwide electricity generation, has fallen from 50% to 36% over the past 8 years alone. Although there's expected to be a small rebound in 2013 due to coal prices bottoming out and natural gas prices rising, the trend can be expected to continue in future years. This is both due to economic factors (including power utility consumers deciding they don't want coal power, especially if so-called "clean coal" is significantly more expensive) and due to the behind-the-scenes influence of groups including the Sierra Club, which in turn are financed by individuals including the billionaire mayor of NYC, Michael Bloomberg.
The NY Times published an article about this phenomenon just yesterday, in fact, focusing on the associated and inevitable decline of coal-mining-centric towns in Appalachia, and the efforts of the coal industry to lobby and coerce its way back to the boom days, days in which the public could be showered with soot and mercury without a second thought.
What are the implications of this move away from coal?
The major repercussion is that assumptions based on earlier, higher-percentage-of-coal-generated-power estimates need to be revised. These revisions will result in lower absolute well-to-wheels GHG and smog-forming pollutant emissions for BEVs, REEVs, and PHEVs (with no change for non-electric vehicles, of course). One such example of a report whose conclusions need revising is the much-publicized Union of Concerned Scientists State of Charge report from April 2012. In it the assumption of 45% coal and 20% natural gas electricity generation is made (page 5), something that's clearly not true in 2012 per the above figure. Even though they already concluded that with 45% coal it still makes environmental sense to shift to BEVs, their conclusion would be that much stronger were it to reflect the more recent data I describe above.
The other implication that I draw from this is that global GHG and smog-forming pollutant emissions are probably not going to go down at all. Say what? Wasn't this whole post on the declining use of coal? True, but only within the United States electricity generation market. As the NY Times states, "Pressured on the domestic front, some giant American coal producers ... are shifting their attention to markets overseas, where coal-fired power plants are being built faster than they are being abandoned in the United States."
The most I can ask for, I suppose, is that my own country improve its policies and choose more wisely in its power generation sources, and precisely that is happening. The citizens in China and India will need to speak up for themselves if they don't want their children's lungs coated with black, 100% made in America, Appalachian-sourced soot.
The Decline of Coal
One of the frequent, snide criticisms of electric vehicles is that they're "coal-powered cars." This refers to the historically high usage of coal to generate electricity in many regions throughout the US, especially in Appalachia. What does "historically high" imply in the recent past? A 1996 MIT Energy Lab paper that I've previously cited describes the national energy generation makeup in that era as "52% coal, 28% natural gas", and other, minor players.
Well, that era is ending, at least on the national scale. (On the state level power generation has always had large regional differences. Take the extreme examples of Idaho and West Virginia, for instance, with Idaho boasting 79% hydroelectric power and <1% coal use as compared to West Virginia's 98% reliance on coal.)
Above is the US Energy Information Administration's Short Term Energy Outlook that illustrates the the decline of coal. Note that coal, as a percentage of total, nationwide electricity generation, has fallen from 50% to 36% over the past 8 years alone. Although there's expected to be a small rebound in 2013 due to coal prices bottoming out and natural gas prices rising, the trend can be expected to continue in future years. This is both due to economic factors (including power utility consumers deciding they don't want coal power, especially if so-called "clean coal" is significantly more expensive) and due to the behind-the-scenes influence of groups including the Sierra Club, which in turn are financed by individuals including the billionaire mayor of NYC, Michael Bloomberg.
The NY Times published an article about this phenomenon just yesterday, in fact, focusing on the associated and inevitable decline of coal-mining-centric towns in Appalachia, and the efforts of the coal industry to lobby and coerce its way back to the boom days, days in which the public could be showered with soot and mercury without a second thought.
What are the implications of this move away from coal?
The major repercussion is that assumptions based on earlier, higher-percentage-of-coal-generated-power estimates need to be revised. These revisions will result in lower absolute well-to-wheels GHG and smog-forming pollutant emissions for BEVs, REEVs, and PHEVs (with no change for non-electric vehicles, of course). One such example of a report whose conclusions need revising is the much-publicized Union of Concerned Scientists State of Charge report from April 2012. In it the assumption of 45% coal and 20% natural gas electricity generation is made (page 5), something that's clearly not true in 2012 per the above figure. Even though they already concluded that with 45% coal it still makes environmental sense to shift to BEVs, their conclusion would be that much stronger were it to reflect the more recent data I describe above.
The other implication that I draw from this is that global GHG and smog-forming pollutant emissions are probably not going to go down at all. Say what? Wasn't this whole post on the declining use of coal? True, but only within the United States electricity generation market. As the NY Times states, "Pressured on the domestic front, some giant American coal producers ... are shifting their attention to markets overseas, where coal-fired power plants are being built faster than they are being abandoned in the United States."
The most I can ask for, I suppose, is that my own country improve its policies and choose more wisely in its power generation sources, and precisely that is happening. The citizens in China and India will need to speak up for themselves if they don't want their children's lungs coated with black, 100% made in America, Appalachian-sourced soot.