HEV (gasoline consumption for the EV is reduced 100
percent relative to HEV, while the PHEV is reduced 47
percent) (Moyer 2010). In another regional scenario,
where the regional power grid is supplied by 75 per-
cent coal and 25 percent natural gas, the EV carbon
emission is 36 percent worse than the HEV, while the
PHEV is 12 percent worse (relative gasoline consump-
tion same as previous case) (Moyer 2010).
By reducing the demand for petroleum, both sce-
narios offer significant improvements with regard to
energy independence. However, only the first scenario
offers an improvement with regard to GHG emissions,
while GHG emissions in the second scenario are con-
siderably worsened by adding EV and PHEV vehicles.
Given this data, it is understandable that the President
consistently couples climate change with energy inde-
pendence, so that the latter is not optimized without
consideration for the former, consistent with the two
tenets of the Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future pre-
viously described. Given the current mix of energy
sources supplying the U.S. power grid, it makes sense
to replace as many non-hybrid vehicles as possible
with PHEV or EV. It is also clear that to obtain the
greatest reduction of GHG, reducing the percentage
of coal and increasing the percentage of clean sources,
such as nuclear and renewable energy sources, is nec-
essary; though this may change if a practical clean coal
technology is developed.
Despite the potential positive impact to the envi-
ronment of replacing fossil fuel generated electricity
with nuclear produced electricity, there are several
more points to consider. Depending on the design of a
nuclear plant’s cooling system, large amounts of wa-
ter can be required; hence nuclear plants are normally
located near large readily available bodies of water.
sharon
(sharon)
#1