Although there is a lot of debate about what type of green technology will be the best for our environment and our economy into the future, plug-in hybrids appear to be growing in popularity. One of the concerns with this type of alternative energy vehicle is what will happen to our power grid when all of these vehicles plug in. Can the current infrastructure handle the greater load? Well, the newest AIADA newsletter tells us that we should be OK up to about 180 million plug-in hybrids. That's a heck of a lot of hybrids. That figure was part of a report by the U.S. Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. With unstable and high gas prices, electricity becomes even more attractive, so understanding what we might have to do to handle an influx of plug-ins is important. Electricity is cheaper than gasoline, for sure, but it is not a zero emission solution. The extra load on powerplants simply means that emissions are transferred from the vehicle to the plant. So there is still some work to do on that front as well. But the good news is that making that change can have a positive impact on CO2 levels as well. The study included a finding that if 84 percent of our 220 million vehicles were running on electricity, our carbon dioxide emissions could drop by 5 percent. And CO2 is what many environmentalists are looking at when they discuss the problem of greenhouse gases and global warming.
In a separate but related news item, The Wall Street Journal reported that these plug-ins will probably cost an extra $6,000 to $10,000 more than our current crop of non-hybrid vehicles, even when mass produced. Batteries are a big part of that premium, so advances in that technology may make the differences smaller in coming years, but as most people already realize, hybrids aren't likely to pay for themselves for at least several years of ownership. Critics often say that hybrids will never pay for themselves on reduced fuel use alone, which is usually true. What most people fail to factor into that equation, however, is that consumers often value the "greenness" of their cars above dollars and cents. The feel-good factor is a big part of the ownership experience. Just like most people don't recycle their cans, bottles and papers for the money, as much as for the notion that they are doing something positive for the planet and cleaning up after themselves.
[Sources: EDTA via The Auto Channel]
London 2008: Honda OSM concept roadster says, "Cheerio!"
London 2008: Lotus unveils the Evora
2010 Chevy Camaro - Official Details and Images
2010 Chevy Camaro - LIVE from the reveal
Volkswagen unveiling two-door Elise fighter in LA, new sports car
First Drive: Maserati Quattroporte S in Europe
First Drive: 2008 MINI Cooper S JCW
In the Autoblog Garage:2009 Nissan GT-R
North American Exclusive First Drive: Alfa MiTo
First Drive: 2009 Kia Borrego
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Mikeeeeeeeeeeee @ Dec 12th 2006 8:34AM
If this report is true and the grid can handle the extra load, why do we have brownouts and blackouts during very hot weather in some cities. With the additional load of millions of "plug-ins" wouldn't that create more of these.
Jim @ Dec 12th 2006 8:38AM
"if 84 percent of our 220 million vehicles were running on electricity, our carbon dioxide emissions could drop by 5 percent"
WHAT?
84% of 220 million vehicles is 184.8 million vehicles. At $6000 per vehicle (the low number given) that means an extra $1,108,800,000,000 (that's $1.1 TRILLION!) in car prices to save 5% on our CO2 emissions?
Not much to get excited about there, even for the greenest of greenies. There are better ways...
Peter @ Dec 12th 2006 8:49AM
Sooo, if 100% of the vehicles were EVs that would reduce emissions by a whopping 6%? Switch from a 20 mpg car to a 40 mpg one and you get 50%...
Mikeeeeeeeeeeee @ Dec 12th 2006 8:54AM
What is the big deal!!!!!!!!! I drive a 2002 GMC Sanoma 4cyl. 5 speed. I use e-85. Here is the last figures on my mpg. Tank # 1 15.6 gal of e-85 ='s 2.34 gal of gas / 265 miles ='s 113.2 mpg. Tank# 2 14.3 gal of e-85 ='s 2.15 gal of gas / 263 miles ='s 122.3 mpg
Maybe more people should go out of their way to BUY and USE e-85. As they say "every little bit helps" By the way, GM has 2.3 million e-85 vehicles on the road right now!!!!!!!!!!!!
mcqueen @ Dec 12th 2006 8:55AM
I'm with Jim, having the exact same immediate reaction to the statistics (WHAT?!). What a waste of time and money. Plug-in hybrids are clearly not the answer.
And any manufacturer touting this technology is clearly being disingenuous.
ripplingeffects @ Dec 12th 2006 9:00AM
"if 84 percent of our 220 million vehicles were running on electricity, our carbon dioxide emissions could drop by 5 percent"
An unrealistic goal with a pretty lackluster results, but it's a start. Not only do we need to start buying more hybrids but we need to sign the Koyoto treaty and make industries and utility companies look for more renewable, globally sustainable sources of energy.
mavkato @ Dec 12th 2006 9:14AM
this would only work if everyone plugged their cars in at night, but we all know that people will think "everyone else plugs theirs in at night so i don't have to."
bad blooooood @ Dec 12th 2006 9:22AM
It is very simple. We have to do more than just hybrid cars. DOE did a study that said that if every household in USA will replace one regular lightbulb with one flouriesent, that will be enough to close 70 power plants in USA. I believe that in California everyone uses flouriecent bulbs now, so imagine in entire nation will use those bulbs (i am talking about those weird white bulbs) we will free up extra power needed for these Plug Ins.
Also the Efficiency game does not need to stop, i am sure that Civic plug in will get 50 miles per Megawat (or whatever they measure it in) and Ford and GM will once again get 9 in City and 12 on hi way of MPM.
Picture this, 20 year down the road, your kids will be coming here and writing same bull you do......"OH YEAH, MY F-250 GETS BETTER MPM THAN YOUR CAMRY, YEAHHHHHH,FORD RULES"
hmm.. @ Dec 12th 2006 9:22AM
"if 84 percent of our 220 million vehicles were running on electricity, our carbon dioxide emissions could drop by 5 percent"
5% is still something... right?
Kansei @ Dec 12th 2006 9:45AM
Mikeeeee - are you retarded? Yes, I understand that you're doing some silly math to suggest that you are making a better use of gasoline than anyone else on here can claim to. Barring the talk of WHY most people on here won't buy GMs (terrible quality, reliability, crap-tastic designs that lack any emotion, awful handling, the list goes on and on), you do realize that to produce a gallon of ethanol much more than a gallon of gasoline and/or diesel is used in the production, right?
It's a totally inefficient process, causing more waste and more negative environmental impact than I care to think about.
Get your head on straight!
Oh and by the way.. I bet ford has more e-85 vehicles on the road right now.. they've been selling them since the early 90s. "flex-fuel" anyone? I know the Mazda B3000 with the 3.0 v6, the taurus with the 3.0v6, and probably any other car with that engine can run E-85.. but it's a freakin waste to.
Joseph @ Dec 12th 2006 9:46AM
1) We have brownouts during peak usage hours on hot days. Plug-ins would charge during the nigth while electricity usage is much lower.
5) Plug-ins are an answer, but you are looking ta the wrong question. Plug-ins aren't the answer to Global Warming, because you are increasing coal usage (to create the electricty). Plug-ins are the answer to a different problem, Peak Oil. Plug-ins mean that we can substitute other forms of energy for petroleum. If we want to reduce carbon emmisions iwe need to deploy nuclear, wind, solar (instead of coal), then you will see something better than 5%.
Seymore @ Dec 12th 2006 10:26AM
"Just like most people don't recycle their cans, bottles and papers for the money, as much as for the notion that they are doing something positive for the planet and cleaning up after themselves."
Recycling? cleaner for the environment? Better for the planet? What lies...
Please listen/watch this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7734998370503499886&q=recycling+bullshit
My extra $6,000 to $10,000 vehicle price should go into investing in better technologies; not mating two sub-par ones.. to get some feel-good factor that could be hade just as easily if I had some money left over after contributing to this degrading overly harsh consumeristic society of gluttons. Maybe we could all afford a bit more education, and help support people who aren't so fortunate... sheesh.
mike @ Dec 12th 2006 10:38AM
If the plan calls for plugging in your electric at night, then we need to pass a law to mandate when you can plug in your electric car.
While we are at it, we need to pass a law OUTLAWING all SUVs. In a few years we can outlaw all V-8s and sportscars (what a waste!!). I mean, do you really NEED to drive a Mustang GT?
We need to sign Kyoto, so that only the fastest growing polluters (India and China) are exempt. Damn the costs. Damn the consequences.
We need to shutdown all nuclear power plants, all coal plants, and all other carbon based power generation.
I have my horse and cart ready, do you?
mike @ Dec 12th 2006 10:38AM
The above was tongue in cheek. Did anyone else read the UN report that downgraded man's effect on 'global warming?' That followed the report last week that stated forestation is on the upswing worldwide. And I wondered why we stopped hearing about deforestation.
Howard Kerr @ Dec 12th 2006 11:31AM
If 80% of the cars on America's roads could "magically" be replaced over night with plug-in hybrids we could reduce CO2 output by 5%. Does this include the increase in CO2 output that electrical power stations would be forced to generate to produce the power to recharge batteries? Or the amount of CO2 burned by trains bringing more coal to power stations? Or the CO2 burned by trucks and earth movers mining the coal?
What happens when all those TRILLIONS of batteries need to be recycled? It's unfortunate, by no one would really want to pay $6,000 to $10,000 just to reduce CO2 emissions by such a small amount...would they? Surely ther are better ways to reduce CO2 output...none of them would be popular, and ALL will cost the buyer of a car or truck money. But this idea seems a bit far fetched.
Z @ Dec 12th 2006 11:54AM
Seymour: I agree, I would like you to get a Phd in engineering so you can support me. I am very unfortunate in that I can't get anyone to give me any money, I have to earn every dime myself.
UltraP @ Dec 12th 2006 12:00PM
This article is poorly worded, confusing and damaging to say the least.
What is "5% of our CO2 emmissions?" Is that just car emmissions or total human caused CO2 emmissions? Is this a worldwide or US only figure?
Given the facts I have to believe the 5% CO2 drop is calculated from the TOTAL EMMISSIONS. Even if all of our cars cut CO2 emmissions by 50%, the effect on TOTAL emmissions would only be about 5% since cars only produce about 13% of CO2 emmissions produced by humans.
I think electric cars are a great idea. Think of all the maintanence savings...no oil changes, no replacing a rusted out exhaust system, no catalytic converter, no O2 sensors, etc. All of those parts won't need to manufactured in the first place, further reducing CO2 emmissions related to manufacturing.
Richard Warren @ Dec 12th 2006 12:26PM
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt! Sorry you're in the dark, we miscalculated.
Charles S @ Dec 12th 2006 1:02PM
I think before people get all hung up about CO2 emissions, costs, and statistical numbers, they need to UNDERSTAND the mechanisms that drive for the push for PHEVs.
First we need to look at the power side of the equation:
Power plants run best when output is constant. But in reality, the peaks occurs during times of high activities, and power plants have to THROTTLE back during the night. What most do not realize is that we are LOSING energy when power plants powers up and down.
ADVANTAGE: Night time plug-ins will use energy that would have been lost.
Second, incentives for more efficient power plants:
Coal plants today are dirty, but new ones will be cleaner, and by selling MORE electricity, money for oil infrastructure will be shifted to investment into newer, cleaner, and more efficient power plants. Energy sources will be diversified, and consumers will be motivated to invest into local, decentralized, smaller scale (at home, city-scale) power generation.
ADVANTAGE: Money is invested back into local economies, and we can gain what we have loss in terms of energy security.
Third: Emission controls:
It's impossible to regulate every single car on the street, but much easier to control emissions at the power plant. Instead of millions paying money yearly for emission testing, it would cost less to control emissions from a few hundred power plants. No top of it all, with higher concentration of CO2 at the power plant site, we can collect it and reuse it for other industrial purposes, and even make more money, while control the levels of CO2 releasing into the atmosphere.
ADVANTAGE: win-win-win for all sides (environment, gov't spending, and business profits).
Personally, simply using less oil, and thus importing less oil, is already a "feel good" value for me. I don't care if people want to argue about labels such as being Green, Red, or Blue, cause it is pointless. All will suffer when our economy tanked, because of a future energy crisis caused by foreign influences.
John @ Dec 12th 2006 1:59PM
Recent experience here in the Midwest with two multi-day power losses effecting as many as 1 million people has taught me that until our utility infrastructure has a long way to go before it can handle this. What happens when a thunderstorm or ice storm knocks out big chunks of the power grid? Not only will you lose power at home, but also the ability to leave your home for work, temporary shelter, etc.