The new Plug In America public service announcement (PSA) may be a satire on America’s addiction to oil, and it may be just a gimmick to get attention, but are the environmental benefits of electricity vs. gas power so clear? While the PSA raises valid discussion points about our choices, it’s not so simple a matter.
What the PSA doesn't address is that the environmental benefits of plugging in are only fully realized when the generation of electricity is from a clean and sustainable source. Solar and wind power represent two clean alternatives to coal or nuclear power.
Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of CO2 emissions in the U.S.; they emit more CO2 than residential and commercial energy use; even more than surface transport. While hydroelectric and new renewable sources account for just over ten percent of energy generation in the U.S., they emit no CO2 once installed. Considering the correlation between CO2 and global warming, electric cars are better for the environment than gas guzzlers only when the electricity is generated from a clean, renewable source (as some readers have pointed out). By fully considering the impact of our consumer choices, we become more aware of ways to reduce our carbon footprint, which is what this PSA is all about.
Image source: EPA.gov 2010 U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report (April, 2010)
©2010 Jim Hathaway for Gather.com
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 1
A lot of homes have a 100 or 200 amp service. If the charger takes them above that, their electrical panel will have to be updated to accommodate the extra load. There goes another thousand or more dollars.
Now for the cost to the utility. If just 10% of the homes have electric cars the transmission grid will have to be updated at an enormous cost that will be passed on to consumers, so electric rates will go up.
Since electricity is generated and doesn't magically appear there will have to be more generated. Currently about half of our electricity is generated by burning coal and almost all the rest is from burning natural gas or oil.
Hydro is a renewable source but there will be no more dams built because of the effect they have on fish migration. Nuclear power is another source that doesn't contribute to carbon output but there hasn't been a plant built in decades,they they would be tied up in litigation for years and become too expensive to get the necessary permits. If they did get the permits the litigation wouldn't stop. I remember an oil refinery in CA was stopped because of a "sand fly". Of course the enviros didn't care about the fly, they just wanted to stop the refinery.
That leaves alternative sources especially solar and wind and they both have their own set of problems. They both take up an enormous amount of space, are expensive to build and the electricity they produce is very expensive which again drives up the cost to consumers. Windmills kill birds, are ugly and the noise they make and the change they make in air pressure is disorienting for people who live within a few miles of them.
The other scary thing is that the cars themselves are very expensive and it seems that without government subsidies they will not sell. If they don't sell without government help they need to die a quiet death. Let the free market set the price and demand.