John Steck wrote: >Ok, agree to let them build a coal plant or a battery plant in your backyard >then. Plug-ins and hybrids just transpose the pollution problem away from >where actual consumption is taking place.
That is incorrect for two reasons that we have often discussed here, and that you will find at the plug in hybrid web sites: 1. Plug-in hybrids and regular hybrids use far less energy per mile, so even with coal-based electricity they produce less CO2 and other pollution per mile. 2. In California, where the Google plug-in hybrid initiative is being launched, they do not have any coal-fired electricity. It is all natural gas, hydro, fission and wind. Therefore it produces much less pollution per mile. At Google headquarters they will use solar electricity to recharge the plug-in hybrids, so there will be virtually no pollution per mile. Overall, about half of U.S. electricity comes from coal, but the other half does not. If you recharge a plug in hybid overnight, the chances are you are using fission power and no coal. The U.S. could easily reduce the amount of coal-fired electricity by reducing demand with better efficiency, and by building fission and wind generators. It cold even do this while putting 10 million plug in hybrids on the road because, as we have discussed here, electric cars use only moderate amounts of electricity, that can easily be met with today's generating capacity. More electricity could be saving by replacing lightbulbs and refrigerators than the 10 million cars would use. 100 million plug-in cars would require expanded generating capacity, but as I said, this could easily be met with non-polluting sources. - Jed
