Every time I hear someone argue that electrical vehicles (EVs) have no benefit because they only shift the point of pollution from the vehicle to the powerplant, I want to mock that person using the same voice that Eddie Murphy used in Beverly Hills Cop to say, “I’m not falling for the banana in the tailpipe.” You see, the Long Tailpipe hypothesis as it is called, is a very weak argument and I would like to tell you why.
The Long Tailpipe is merely a factoid–an idea repeated so often that it is assumed to be true. In short, the Long Tailpipe argues that powering an EV changes the energy source from one fossil fuel to another; from petroleum-based gasoline to coal, natural gas and petroleum which supply 70% of the power to the electrical grid [Wikipedia:Generation].
Let’s look at some counter-arguments that will dispel the Long Tailpipe theory.
It is true that switching vehicles from using a gasoline-based internal combustion engine (ICE) to an electric drivetrain shifts the energy demand from petroleum to the electrical grid. This, turns out to be a very good thing from nationalistic, economic and efficiency standpoints.
In the U.S.A., we currently import 58% of the petroleum that we use [EIA2008] at a cost of $350B – $700B per year [Pickens] and we use 70% of our oil for transportation [BTS]. Whereas the energy created for our electrical system comes from largely domestic sources. So switching from petroleum to electricity is buying local. Some argue that we don’t have enough domestic electrical energy to power all of our cars. That’s true for right now (we can only power 84% of them), but there are at least three plans to address this: The Pickens Plan, America 2050 and Better Place. Rather than argue about which plan is better, I simply assert that EVs can be made an integral part of our transportation system and breaking our dependency on foreign oil will keep a significant portion of our national wealth within our borders.
Efficiency is another reason the Long Tailpipe argument doesn’t hold up. The state-of-the-art ICE is at best 43% efficient [Wikipedia:ICE]. So only 43% of the energy in the gasoline is converted to mechanical energy at the engine’s output. This assumes the vehicle is in tip top shape, which is rarely the case. Most drivers do not perform standard maintenance on their vehicles and as a consequence operate below peak efficiency. Whereas state-of-the-art combined-cycle gas fired plants reach 50% efficiency [Wikipedia:FossilPower]. Furthermore, a power company achieves optimum profit by employing engineers and technicians to monitor and maintain the plants to run at peak performance so that fuel costs are minimized. So, more energy is derived from fuels burned in a power plant than in a number of ICEs burning the same amount of fuel.
Regenerative braking puts the nail in the coffin of the Long Tailpipe. An EV can recapture a significant portion of its kinetic energy using regenerative braking; whereas a typical vehicle with an ICE loses its kinetic energy every time the brakes are used. While braking, kinetic energy turns into waste heat in the break pads and drum. This means an EV is going to inherently need less energy to go the same distance as an ICE vehicle in stop-and-go situations like typical city driving (assuming vehicles of equivalent mass). So even if coal were to maintain its current percent share of power generation, the use of EVs in place of cars with an ICE is going to be significantly more power efficient.
The last argument I make against the Long Tailpipe is one of perspective. To say that an EV will run on electricity made from mostly coal is to assume the electrical grid of today, rather than the electrical grid of the future when more EVs will be in service. Yes, coal is the major component of today’s electrical energy production and its use won’t go away overnight, let alone a decade. However, finite natural resources and future increases in demand for energy require that more renewable energy sources be developed and used as time passes. Austin Energy is thinking ahead and establishing a Renewable Portfolio Standard which sets a goal of using 20% renewable sources by 2020 [Strategic Plan p. 4]. Indeed, it should be a goal to grow both renewable energy and EV use across the U.S.A. simultaneously. Couple that with a nationwide push for reducing usage and increasing efficiency and we can have EVs that depend on clean renewable energy and still keep the A/C on during Houston’s summers.