Pondering the True Meaning of Zero Emissions Vehicle

By Christof Demont... · September 19, 2011

Zero emissions badge

An electric car has no tailpipe and the car itself doesn’t emit any pollutants directly into the air. But an electric car is not truly a zero emission vehicle because the electricity that fills its battery pack has to be generated somehow and this is often by burning coal.

Of course, if the electricity in an EV’s battery is produced directly by 100 percent renewable energy forms such as wind, solar and hydroelectric power, an electric car might in fact be accurately called a zero emission vehicle. Then again, maybe not.

Solar, Wind and Air Pollution

Renewable energy forms such as solar, wind and hydro do technically contribute to air pollution. Air pollution is produced when the raw materials needed to build renewable energy producing devices are harvested, when renewable energy devices such as solar modules are produced, and when they are transported to the place where they’re installed.

Once these renewable energy producing devices have achieved what’s called “energy payback”—the time it takes for them to produce as much energy as it took to produce them—they begin to create pollution-free electricity. And, if you plug an electric car into an electricity stream solely produced by devices that have achieved energy payback, you will in fact be driving a 100 percent zero-emission vehicle.

Of course, the scenario in which an electric car owner might end up driving around in an EV whose batteries have been charged 100 percent by renewable energy-producing devices that have achieved energy payback is a rare occurrence.

Pacific Northwest and Hydro Power

In the U.S., those who live in the Pacific Northwest, where a large percentage of electricity is generated by hydro power and who also have home solar, residential wind, residential geothermal electricity—or all three of these—are among those most likely to achieve true 100 percent air pollution-free electric driving.

Those who have home solar but who live in places like, for instance, Colorado—where I happen to live—are less likely than folks with solar in hydro-producing regions to achieve that “pure” zero emissions driving experience. This is especially true if the electric car gets plugged in at night, when there is no sun, and the EV owner is using solar to offset electricity generated during the day to power the vehicle.

In this case, most likely the EV will be fueled with a mixture of coal and natural gas generated electricity and, perhaps if you’re lucky, via a smattering of wind-generated electricity as well.

If you plug that same EV in during times when a home solar system is producing enough electricity to meet the EV’s full electric draw plus the rest of the household electricity use at that moment in time, you are indeed back to true zero emissions driving.

However, just one puff cloud that reduces your solar output enough to force your household to temporarily draw some electricity from the general electric grid, and poof. Just like the appearance of the cloud itself, your claim to true 100 percent zero emissions driving becomes a passing thing.

Renault Fluence electric car

The Z.E. used to market the Renault Fluence electric car stands for Zero Emissions. Does it make sense to use Z.E. in the very name of the car?

Putting Your Car Through a Greenwash

If 100 percent zero emissions driving is rare, why call it zero emissions in the first place? To me, zero emissions feels like an attempt at greenwashing, or an attempt to make people forget the often dirty energy sources used to generate the electricity EVs run on, even if only part of the time.

It’s difficult to believe such greenwashing works—especially given the volume of fervent anti-EV rhetoric out there that so often attacks the term “zero emission.” In fact, I believe “zero emission” backfires. In its attempt to obscure the original fuel source, the term ends up drawing extra attention to the fact that the electricity powering an EV’s batteries is usually generated by a mix of electricity.

Again, for most people, this mix is likely a mixture of coal, natural gas and nuclear with perhaps a smattering of renewable energy—though grid mix varies widely based on where you live in the U.S. (EV critics tend to ignore regional and local grid mix variability).

Gas Cars Have Long Tailpipes Too

It is important to point out that gasoline cars are also connected to the coal smokestack via the electricity intensive oil refining process—a key point that 99 percent of EV critics ignore.

However, the fact that gasoline cars also run partially on coal doesn’t erase the fact that virtually every EV out there will be running on electricity generated at least some of the time via coal and/or natural gas. This includes my own future solar-charged EV because I will sometimes be plugging in when our 5.59 kW home solar system isn’t producing enough electricity, meaning at night, when it’s cloudy, when snow covers our panels, etc.

On the other hand, the whole thing can be pushed to absurdity: For instance, if an EV can’t be called zero emission because it’s got a long tailpipe, does this mean we need to be talking about long tailpipes for refrigerators, computers, clothes dryers, and desk lamps.

Zero Tailpipe Emissions

In the end, I don’t feel comfortable with the term zero emission. It just doesn’t seem fully accurate. Where does this leave us then? What if we amend the term to this: Zero tailpipe emission vehicle?

Zero tailpipe emissions accurately captures the fact that an individual EV has no tailpipe and emits no pollutants directly into the air where it is being driven. And, no matter how you look at things, zero tailpipe emissions is a huge advantage. Just ask the millions of people sitting in a traffic jam somewhere in the world right now breathing in the fumes from the hundreds, even thousands, of vehicles around them.

What do you think? Is “zero emission” vehicle accurate, or do you prefer “zero tailpipe emissions?” Or maybe you have a better term for the EV community to consider.

About the author

Christof is the founder and editor of SolarChargedDriving.Com, a web site devoted to covering and promoting the exciting synergy between plug-ins and solar energy. A longtime journalist, he's an assistant professor in the Department of Media, Film and Journalism Studies at the University of Denver.

Full bio · 66 posts

Comments

· Norbert (not verified) · 35 weeks ago

With solar power well on its way to grid parity, and other renewables making progress as well, the same EVs which we buy today, will allow zero emissions in the future, to the same degree as electricity generation becomes cleaner. So EVs do much more than have zero emissions at the tailpipe (which however in itself is a great thing). I don't mind at all if that draws attention to the need for clean electricity, since that is something we want in any case. In fact, I see that as a positive.

· indyflick · 34 weeks ago

You're conflating two concepts and leaping to an illogical conclusion. The LEAF is absolutely a zero emissions vehicle, period. The electrical grid' which the LEAF uses to charge it's batteries, refineries use to make gasoline, and families use to light their homes and to cook with in most cases isn't zero emissions. We certainly need to reduce emissions from our vehicles and as well as our grid.

A better question is the energy used to refine gasoline. Do you consider the extra emissions required to refine the gasoline when you examine ICE vehicle pollution? The US DoE claims it takes roughly 6 kWh of energy (electricity and/or natural gas) to refine a gallon of gasoline. If that 6 kWh was electricity used instead to charge a LEAF, it could propel the LEAF over 20 miles! Think about that for a moment.

· abasile · 34 weeks ago

I am glad you mentioned refrigerators, computers, and other electrical appliances. The EV can be thought of as just another electrical appliance. In the course of use, it outputs no more pollutants than your computer does. Just as the computer does not pollute the air in your home, the EV does not dirty the air in your local community. Yes, in spite of the fact that we need to clean up our electricity generation, I'd call that "zero emissions". It is easier to improve emissions from a smaller number of large power plants than from millions of tailpipes...

· Michael Chiacos (not verified) · 34 weeks ago

I speak frequently about EVs through my work with Plug in Santa Barbara and I always say "zero tailpipe emissions". Here in California we have a very clean grid, and an EV reduces GHGs by 75% compared to gasoline. Our local utility, Southern California Edison, has almost 20% renewables, 50% natural gas, the rest nukes and large hydro with very little coal. Another good point is that EVs get cleaner as they age and the grid cleans up over time (most states have Renewable Portfolio Standards, ours is 33% by 2020) while gas cars get dirtier as they age and emission control devices fail and we exploit more dirty tar sands, deep water oil, Arctic oil, etc.

You missed a huge benefit of EVs, which is that they process energy three times more efficiently than gas cars, thus why the EPA rates them around 100 mpg equivalent. This is a huge benefit that needs more publicity.

My "one sentence" for summing up the enviro-benefits of EVs is "EVs achieve around 100 mpg equivalent, produce zero-tailpipe emissions, and on California's green grid reduce greenhouse gases by 75%." Depending on the audience I also talk about getting off of foreign oil, economic benefits of local production, etc.

On the solar charged driving, this is also something we promote - EV+PV = zero emissions driving. I see your point about being a purist in that you can only claim solar charged if you are plugging in during the day, but I'm fine with the idea of "net solar driving" In my book it's totally fine, or even preferred if people size their PV system for their car and their house, then give solar energy to the grid during peak daytime when its needed, and charge up at night when there is plenty of extra capacity. A purist would say - hey, you're charging up on night time fossil fuels, but if you contribute an equal amount of solar to the grid, and are providing a societal benefit by charging at night when it is least impactful, claiming "driving on sunshine" status is fine with me!

· dgpcolorado · 34 weeks ago

I'm going to agree with Christof that I am a bit uncomfortable with the "zero emissions" tag on the Leaf. In my part of this major coal-producing state, our local power plant is coal-fired, from coal strip-mined just a few miles away.

I've been mulling over whether to charge up late at night when the grid is under-utilized or during the day on sunny days when I can use my solar power, and that of my neighbors — PV is spreading in my neighborhood — directly. Where I live, noon to five PM is considered "off-peak", so even the local power co-op would approve of using the solar electricity directly. (It is very different from places that use AC during the day.)

With net metering it doesn't really matter, as Michael Chiacos suggests. So I guess it is more of a psychological game to try to use my solar directly.

· Mr. Fusion · 34 weeks ago

Wow, not even the Leaf will satisfy the greenie weenies.
From what some of you are saying, we should all just shoot ourselves because everything we own was produced with some form of electricity, delivered in a truck that burns fuel to a store or your home that uses...gasp...electricity. Horrible!

· indyflick · 34 weeks ago

I think one of the most interesting aspects of this article is that it highlights most peoples ingrained mental model of what a car is and how they should interact with it. The author suggests ,“What if we amend the term to this: Zero tailpipe emission vehicle?” Well that, by definition, would infer a car is associated with a tailpipe, when in fact it's not. It's akin to the early days of the automobile when peoples mental model was that a horse, and only a horse, could power your carriage. So the automobile was referred to as a “horseless carriage”. As an aside, cars at the turn of the 20th century cars were considered very clean because they didn't have horse manure “emissions”! How about we rename EVs to be “tailpipeless carriages”. To be clear, all EVs are zero emission vehicles. It's silly to drag a tailpipe into the discussion because EVs don't have tailpipes.

There are numerous other examples of mental model issues, with regards to EVs. I've heard people say they wouldn't want to get stuck it a massive traffic jam in an EV because, with it's range, they would be stuck. Their mental model is that cars idle. EVs don't idle and have maximum range at very low speed. Or there's this one. It takes a very long time to charge up an EV. Their mental model is that they're standing next to their car while it fills up, like you do for an ICE vehicle. But in reality you charge it at night, while you're asleep, which is far more convenient.

My point is that I believe the biggest barrier to success of the electric car is actually consumers ingrained mental models of what a car is. These mental models are based solely on their experience with ICE vehicles. So they can't make the leap and see the tremendous advantages of EVs because they're obsessed with the EVs perceived detriments which don't exist, like tailpipe emissions.

· Eric (not verified) · 34 weeks ago

I've discussed this with Christof before, and this is where I'm at right now with it.

If your only goal is to reduce oil consumption, because of energy security, concerns about scarcity, or price, you can just get an EV and be done.

But if your goal is to reduce CO2 or other pollutants, I think it is a trickier question, because where and when you charge up has a real effect on the outcome.

For example, if you go "net-zero solar charged driving" but plug in at night, you are probably offsetting more natural gas than coal, because the peaker plants are running during the day, and that's what your panels are probably offsetting.

If you live in a particularly dirty-electricity state and plan to trade in your current small/midsized car for something new, and get solar panels to go with it, I think it's at least possible that getting a Prius + Solar PV has a better net effect than EV+PV; that way you reduce a fair bit of gasoline usage and a significant amount of coal, whereas EV+PV would remove all gasoline usage, but be "net zero" on coal.

In general, I don't think we can go too wrong on an EV revolution, unless we start building new coal plants to charge them. EVs can be charged with renewables today, though the devil is in the details. And one of the biggest problems with renewables is storage, and a million new four-wheeled storage devices might even help with that, assuming we can apply the right bits of technology and infrastructure.

· Anonymous (not verified) · 34 weeks ago

What if you charge at night off baseload power? That utilizes energy that would otherwise be wasted into the ground and emissions that would be generated anyway (coal or not). That makes it essentially emission free energy (when looking at it as utilizing waste), truly like taking a car off the road. The story only gets better as coal is gradually replaced by renewables.

I buy 100% renewable _and_ charge at night. No I don't have a separate power line coming to my house, but 100% of my bill pays for renewable generation, not coal.

· Eric (not verified) · 34 weeks ago

@Anonymous, do they -really- heat the ground with excess coal baseload at night? Got any reference on that? I'm genuinely curious.

There's also the issue of yes, the 1000 EVs on the road today might be able to utilize wasted/curtailed nighttime power, but that changes if/when there are a million or two, right?

· Tom Moloughney · 34 weeks ago

Eric: Yes, we most definitely ground an enormous amount of electricity during the evening hours. That's one of the main reasons why the time of use rates for overnight electricity are so low, the utilities want us to buy the electricity that they would otherwise dump.

We can't power down power plants to a level that would match usage because they take a while to power back up and by the morning they wouldn't be providing enough to supply the 6am power spike. They can scale the plants back a little, but not nearly enough to match the surplus.

Every article I've ever read on this issue estimates that we can power at least 100 million EV's with what we simply ground every night. The article below claims we can power 220 million vehicles

Here's an article from Scientific American on the issue: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=spare-power-sufficient-to

· priusmaniac (not verified) · 34 weeks ago

Come on now that’s really an exaggeration. Let’s put that same flawed logic at work to the extreme to show how exaggerated it is. So if an electric car running on solar electricity is not zero fossil emissions, what could be? Perhaps one may say that a walking pedestrian is zero emissions? Well, let’s take a closer look. The shoes he has on its feet’s was made using petroleum based rubber, that’s bad for a zero emission. The road on which he walks was made with asphalt, that bad oh so bad. What about where its energy comes from, he probably had an hamburger and a Cola made from phosphoric acid extracted from a far away mine in Morocco, men that’s bad, so bad. The grain needed to make the hamburger was harvested with machines running on diesel, man that’s bad so bad. Well, you see the picture whatever you want to inspect to the extreme has some bad in it, so let’s get serious again an electric car running from solar panels IS a zero emission vehicle, point.

· VoltSkeptic (not verified) · 34 weeks ago

Reading the Scientific American article he cited you can see that Tom Moloughney is confusing capacity with extra electricity in the grid. For the most part coal and gas generators spin down during off peak hours, they are not perfect, but only a small percentage of electricity is put "into the ground". Capacity means is that if 84% of all cars were EVs and they charged off peak, we wouldn't have to build any more plants. We still would have to burn more coal or gas to charge those cars in areas that power came from coal/gas plants.

Nuclear power plants are a different story. They are either off or on and cannot be spun down significantly, so heat energy that would have been used to spin generators is vented into the atmosphere during off-peak hours (wasted). As Lamar Alexander notes, we could power more than half the vehicles in the US without using any more uranium than we do today. http://www.torquenews.com/397/senator-alexander-unused-electricity-our-g...

Getting that electricity from areas served by nukes to other areas is not trivial but hopefully it will improve with the 'new' grid (if the Tea Party lets us rebuild it).

Even if if EV's result in more coal being burned they are a good thing, because when cleaner technology is discovered, it's a hell of a lot easier to clean up a few 100 power plants than several million cars. Moreover power plants convert energy more efficiently than an ICE car that stops and starts many times a day. And gasoline well to wheel has a higher pollution cost than coal or natural gas (fracking for NG sounds like its pretty nasty but oil wells are too).

· Tom Moloughney · 34 weeks ago

VoltSkeptic: I've read many articles about the electricity we literally ground because we have no use for it. I can't really search for them now, but I know at least one of them was from the DOE and this was a few years back (I think Clinton was in office) and I was shocked to see how much we do simply dump. I don't recall exactly how much, but it was pretty significant. The main reason cited was the inability to ramp up power quickly so they intentionally over produce during the overnight hours. Again, I don't have the facts to produce but I know it was a DOE report that I was reading. I'll try to look it up when a have a bit more time and post a link here.

· spicoli · 34 weeks ago

Sprinkle the country with small thorium reactors for big centralized industrial and commercial power and use small non precious metal membrane fuel cells as load balancers for de-centralized residential power, done. Or bail out banks and cool stuff like that instead.

· Chris T. (not verified) · 34 weeks ago

Suggestion: instead of "tailpipes", call them "poop chutes". "Your car poops all over the road when you go, and mine doesn't."

(Note: not *entirely* kidding. :-) )

· JRP3 · 33 weeks ago

Tom,
I've discussed this with enough people in the industry to know that's not really accurate. Nukes are baseload so they do not ramp, coal plants can and do ramp down slowly overnight, and gas plants being peakers can ramp up and down quickly to fill in. There may be some amount of dumping for frequency regulation but it's only a very small amount of the total. Bottom line is a fleet of EV's plugging in at night will increase emissions in coal areas by using excess capacity, not excess power. I'm not sure how it works in hydropower areas, I think they can either use excess capacity at night for pumped storage or simply bypass the water flow, which means increased demand could be met with using that flow, not increasing emissions.

Add comment

·

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.

All Discussions

It's Official: Ford Now Shipping Focus Electric to US Dealerships

Ford Focus Electric Article · 19 comments

Eric Loveday says:
Over the weekend, Ford Motor Company started shipping its Focus Electric to dealerships in three US states.

Washington Senate Passes Bill to Charge Electric Vehicle Owners a $100 Annual Fee

Article · 49 comments

Eric Loveday says:
If Washington state lawmakers agree, owners of electric vehicles would be charged $100 per year to make up for the lack...

First Tesla Model S Deliveries Scheduled for June 22

Tesla Model S Article · 0 comments

Eric Loveday says:
Tesla Motors officially announced that "several" paying customers will receive the first batch of Model S sedans on...

Drive Report: Electric Renault Twizy Is Cool, But Hard to Love

Article · 1 comment

Laurent J. Masson says:
The Renault Twizy has to be experienced to be understood. It's an Unidentified Driving Object which doesn't try to show...

Dump The Pump

Discussion · 0 comments

Moto_Electric says:
Dump The Pump For the seventh straight year, Americans will celebrate Dump The Pump Day. This year, the “holiday”...

Does EV Quick-Charging By the Minute Make Sense?

Nissan LEAF Article · 23 comments

Brad Berman says:
When drivers of gas-powered cars fill up at the gas station, they know they are paying a certain price for a clear and...

Plug-in Car Sales Get Off to Slow Start in 2012

Chevy Volt Article · 37 comments

Eric Loveday says:
January was not a strong month for plug-in vehicle sales in the US. Nissan reported sales of the all-electric LEAF at...

Leviton Unveils 40-Amp, 6-Hour Charger for Toyota RAV4 EV

Toyota RAV4 EV Article · 15 comments

Eric Loveday says:
Leviton engineered a 240-volt, 40 amp charger for the upcoming Toyota RAV4 EV. Leviton's powerful setup is capable of...

Nissan's Fourth Electric Vehicle to be PIVO-Inspired Urban Commuter

Article · 15 comments

Brad Berman says:
Reports suggest that Nissan's fourth electric-only automobile will be a funky high-tech PIVO-inspired urban commuter...

Most Electric Vehicles Sold Are For Commercial & Industrial Applications

Discussion · 0 comments

Moto_Electric says:
In an October 24, 2011 article, Electric Vehicles Research indicated that currently 60% of the value of the electric...