As I am a child of the 80′s I still awaiting the ubiquitous use of hover boards. Since that does not look like a viable scenario in the near future what other options are there? An IEEE article, Unclean at any speed, debates the push toward electric cars as an environmentally friendly solution to reduce pollution. A case in point would be hybrid electric vehicles as they are promoted as ‘green technology’ when compared to fossil fuel combustion engines.
An environmental assessment of plug-in electric vehicles promotes a large decrease in carbon dioxide emissions compared to conventional vehicles. But what does this mean in the overall scheme of things? An Electric Power Institute report from 2007 states an average of ~45kg CO2e /100 miles for conventional vehicles and ~29kg CO2e /100 miles for hybrid vehicles. Whilst hybrid vehicles emit almost one third less carbon dioxide per 100 miles travelled compared to conventional vehicles we are still looking at significant levels of emitted carbon dioxide. Perhaps the more pressing issue is the environmental and human health impact of all forms of emissions from transport vehicles (not just CO2 effects). When lifecycle costing is taken into account the effect of emissions such as sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrous oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) from the production, distribution, use and disposal of vehicles can be accounted for. The destructive effects on both the environment and human health can be monetised (ExternE), importantly, neither the producer nor the consumer of the technology pay for these effects. A report by the US National Academies states very little overall difference between the lifecycle costing of hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) and conventional vehicles effect on the environment and human health. The greenhouse gas damage estimates are remarkably similar regardless of the combination of fuels/vehicle technologies used in 2005 and the projected estimates for 2030.
In 2003, the human health ‘gross economic burden’ due to transport pollution in all Australian capital cities was estimated at ~$3.3 billion/year. In addition, the number of traffic pollution-induced deaths was calculated as marginally higher than the number of traffic fatalities.
An environmental assessment of plug-in electric vehicles promotes a large decrease in carbon dioxide emissions compared to conventional vehicles. But what does this mean in the overall scheme of things? An Electric Power Institute report from 2007 states an average of ~45kg CO2e /100 miles for conventional vehicles and ~29kg CO2e /100 miles for hybrid vehicles. Whilst hybrid vehicles emit almost one third less carbon dioxide per 100 miles travelled compared to conventional vehicles we are still looking at significant levels of emitted carbon dioxide. Perhaps the more pressing issue is the environmental and human health impact of all forms of emissions from transport vehicles (not just CO2 effects). When lifecycle costing is taken into account the effect of emissions such as sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrous oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) from the production, distribution, use and disposal of vehicles can be accounted for. The destructive effects on both the environment and human health can be monetised (ExternE), importantly, neither the producer nor the consumer of the technology pay for these effects. A report by the US National Academies states very little overall difference between the lifecycle costing of hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) and conventional vehicles effect on the environment and human health. The greenhouse gas damage estimates are remarkably similar regardless of the combination of fuels/vehicle technologies used in 2005 and the projected estimates for 2030.
In 2003, the human health ‘gross economic burden’ due to transport pollution in all Australian capital cities was estimated at ~$3.3 billion/year. In addition, the number of traffic pollution-induced deaths was calculated as marginally higher than the number of traffic fatalities.
No comments:
Post a Comment