ShareThis Page

A charging conundrum: Electric car fallacies

| Wednesday, Aug. 12, 2015, 9:26 p.m.

That “eco-friendly” car you plug in every night might not be the environmental bargain you think it is, based on a recent study. And depending on where you live, it could be worse than a gas guzzler.

The study by the National Bureau of Economic Research focused on five major “pollutants,” including carbon dioxide and particulate matter. Researchers found that in the Eastern United States, charging up a car overnight does more harm to the environment — based on regional power generation — than filling up at a gas station. Overall, electric cars are about half-a-cent worse per mile environmentally than gas-powered cars, the Daily Mail reports.

Actual “environmental damage” tends to be worse in the Midwest and Northeast, researchers found. But electric cars are better, environmentally, than gas cars in the West, such as Los Angeles, where air tends to trap the latter's emissions, according to the study.

Additionally, federal subsidies for electric vehicles do not help matters because these vehicles, on average, “generate greater environmental externalities” than gasoline vehicles, the authors note.

Simply put, “It's kind of hard to beat gasoline” for public and environmental health, said Julian Marshall, an engineering professor at the University of Minnesota, in a prior study.

Based on the latest study's conclusions, Pennsylvanians who pay a premium for electric vehicles, and taxpayers who subsidize them, are not getting the presumed eco-return on their investment.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.