Electric Cars and Pollution in Indiana - Indiana University

INDIANA UNIVERSITY – SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS

Electric Cars and Pollution in Indiana

An Undergraduate Honors Thesis by:

Nicholas R. McKay

Faculty Advisor: Dr. Henry K. Wakhungu

Spring 2012

P a g e | 1

Electric Cars and Pollution in Indiana

Nicholas R. McKay Environmental Management

Junior Abstract submitted for SPEA Undergraduate Honors Thesis Presentations

Dr. Henry K. Wakhungu

Senior Lecturer School of Public and Environmental Affairs

Faculty Mentor Despite the fact that many people are familiar with the negative effects associated with the use of gasoline such as, air pollution, fluctuating costs, and reliance on foreign oil, it is still the most commonly used transportation fuel in the United States. In an attempt to mitigate some of the issues created by gasoline use, the U.S. government has made efforts to transition away from gasoline by promoting various alternative fuels. Until recently, the biologically-derived fuel, ethanol, was the primary alternative fuel promoted by the U.S. government. Now, electric cars are considered to be a realistic alternative to gasoline powered vehicles. Americans are becoming more interested in electric cars. They have already been exposed to vehicles that use electricity as a means of propulsion in the form of hybrid vehicles, such as the well-known Toyota Prius. The increased interest in electric vehicles is due largely to rising gasoline prices, increasing concerns about the environment, and the introduction of new electric cars that have overcome the problems of limited range and poor performance. Although very few electric cars are currently available to consumers in the United States, projections show that in the near future it is likely that many electric vehicles will be offered by a wide variety of manufacturers, from traditional automakers such as General Motors to relatively small and new companies such as Tesla Motors. Although electric cars have many advantages over conventionally powered vehicles, they may present unique environmental problems. Although electric vehicles do not produce tailpipe emissions like conventionally powered vehicles, they still contribute to air pollution through the use of the electricity used to charge the vehicle’s batteries. The amount of pollution that electric cars produce is, therefore, directly tied to the source of electricity that charges the vehicle’s batteries. In the state of Indiana, where electricity comes predominately from coal-fired power plants, electric cars may contribute to greater air pollution through their use of coal-derived electricity than comparable vehicles using gasoline would. If it is demonstrated that electric vehicles will generate more pollution than gasoline-powered vehicles, then policies that either bring about a change in the state’s electricity generation profile, or that limit the number of electric cars that may be sold in the state should be considered. If it is demonstrated that electric vehicles will produce less pollution than gasoline powered vehicles, then policies that encourage consumers to purchase electric vehicles should be considered.

P a g e | 2

Table of Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 4

Problem ......................................................................................................................................................... 5

U.S. Dependence on Foreign Oil .............................................................................................................. 5

Global Security ......................................................................................................................................... 6

OPEC .................................................................................................................................................... 6

Gasoline Prices ...................................................................................................................................... 8

Iran and the Strait of Hormuz ............................................................................................................... 9

Pollution .................................................................................................................................................. 10

Carbon Dioxide ................................................................................................................................... 10

Nitrogen Oxides .................................................................................................................................. 11

Sulfur Dioxide ..................................................................................................................................... 12

Solutions ..................................................................................................................................................... 14

Politicians ................................................................................................................................................ 14

Biofuels ................................................................................................................................................... 15

Electric Vehicles ..................................................................................................................................... 17

Electricity Sources .................................................................................................................................. 22

Electric Vehicle Pollution ........................................................................................................................... 24

1. Number of Electric Vehicles ............................................................................................................... 24

2. Emissions from Electricity Production ............................................................................................... 28

Rate of electricity production growth ................................................................................................. 28

Sources of Electricity .......................................................................................................................... 30

3. Electric Vehicles – Amount of Electricity Used ................................................................................. 30

4. Electric Vehicle Emissions ................................................................................................................. 32

5. Emissions from Gasoline Vehicles ..................................................................................................... 32

6. Comparison of Emissions from Electric Vehicles and Gasoline Vehicles ......................................... 34

Carbon Dioxide ................................................................................................................................... 34

Nitrogen Oxides .................................................................................................................................. 38

Sulfur Dioxide ..................................................................................................................................... 40

Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 43

Works Cited ................................................................................................................................................ 44

P a g e | 3

Table of Figures Figure 1 - U.S. Petroleum Trends1 ................................................................................................................ 6 Figure 2 - OPEC Oil Reserves7 ..................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 3 - Gasoline Prices in 201011 ............................................................................................................. 9 Figure 4 - Gasoline Price in the U.S. 2000-201111........................................................................................ 9 Figure 5 - Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Sector17 ...................................................................................... 11 Figure 6 - Nitrogen Oxide Emissions by Sector19 ....................................................................................... 12 Figure 7 - Sulfur Dioxide Emissions by Sector21 ........................................................................................ 13 Figure 8- Sources of Electricity in the U.S.45 .............................................................................................. 22 Figure 9 - Sources of Electricity in Indiana46 .............................................................................................. 23 Figure 10 - Number of Electric Vehicles on the Road ................................................................................ 27 Figure 11- Electricity Generation in Indiana46 ............................................................................................ 29 Figure 12 - Electricity Generation from Coal in Indiana46 .......................................................................... 29 Figure 13 - Electricity Generation from Natural Gas in Indiana46 .............................................................. 29 Figure 14 - Carbon Dioxide Comparison (Scenario 1) ............................................................................... 35 Figure 15 - Carbon Dioxide Comparison (Scenario 2) ............................................................................... 36 Figure 16 - Carbon Dioxide Comparison (Scenario 3) ............................................................................... 36 Figure 17 - Carbon Dioxide Comparison (Scenario 4) ............................................................................... 36 Figure 18 - Carbon Dioxide Comparison (Scenario 5) ............................................................................... 37 Figure 19 - Nitrogen Oxides Comparison (Scenario 1) .............................................................................. 38 Figure 20 - Nitrogen Oxides Comparison (Scenario 2) .............................................................................. 39 Figure 21 - Nitrogen Oxides Comparison (Scenario 3) .............................................................................. 39 Figure 22 - Nitrogen Oxides Comparison (Scenario 4) .............................................................................. 39 Figure 23 - Nitrogen Oxides Comparison (Scenario 5) .............................................................................. 40 Figure 24 - Sulfur Dioxide Comparison (Scenario 1) ................................................................................. 41 Figure 25 - Sulfur Dioxide Comparison (Scenario 2) ................................................................................. 41 Figure 26 - Sulfur Dioxide Comparison (Scenario 3) ................................................................................. 41 Figure 27 - Sulfur Dioxide Comparison (Scenario 4) ................................................................................. 42 Figure 28 - Sulfur Dioxide Comparison (Scenario 5) ................................................................................. 42

P a g e | 4

Introduction Despite the fact that many people are familiar with the negative effects associated with

the use of gasoline such as, air pollution, fluctuating costs, and reliance on foreign oil, it is still

the most commonly used transportation fuel in the United States.

In an attempt to mitigate some of the issues created by gasoline use, the U.S. government

has made efforts to transition away from gasoline by promoting various alternative fuels. Until

recently, the biologically-derived fuel, ethanol, was the primary alternative fuel promoted by the

U.S. government. Now, electric cars are considered to be a realistic alternative to gasoline

powered vehicles. Americans are becoming more interested in electric cars. They have already

been exposed to vehicles that use electricity as a means of propulsion in the form of hybrid

vehicles, such as the well-known Toyota Prius. The increased interest in electric vehicles is due

largely to rising gasoline prices, increasing concerns about the environment, and the introduction

of new electric cars that have overcome the problems of limited range and poor performance.

Although very few electric cars are currently available to consumers in the United States,

projections show that in the near future it is likely that many electric vehicles will be offered by a

wide variety of manufacturers, from traditional automakers such as General Motors to relatively

small and new companies such as Tesla Motors.

Although electric cars have many advantages over conventionally powered vehicles, they

may present unique environmental problems. Although electric vehicles do not produce tailpipe

emissions like conventionally powered vehicles, they still contribute to air pollution through the

use of the electricity used to charge the vehicle’s batteries. The amount of pollution that electric

cars produce is, therefore, directly tied to the source of electricity that charges the vehicle’s

batteries. In the state of Indiana, where electricity comes predominately from coal-fired power

plants, electric cars may contribute to greater air pollution through their use of coal-derived

electricity than comparable vehicles using gasoline would.

If it is demonstrated that electric vehicles will generate more pollution than gasoline-

powered vehicles, then policies that either bring about a change in the state’s electricity

generation profile, or that limit the number of electric cars that may be sold in the state should be

considered. If it is demonstrated that electric vehicles will produce less pollution than gasoline

powered vehicles, then policies that encourage consumers to purchase electric vehicles should be

considered.

P a g e | 5

Problem

U.S. Dependence on Foreign Oil Americans are extremely reliant on gasoline as a relatively inexpensive source of

transportation fuel in order to maintain their way of life. The United States is the world’s largest

consumer of oil, using approximately 19.1 million barrels per day, which was approximately 20%

of the world’s oil supply in 2010.1 The U.S. is heavily reliant on foreign sources of oil, importing

11.8 million barrels of oil per day and exporting only 2.3 million barrels per day in 2010.1 The

demand for oil in the U.S. has been increasing since the late 1940’s. During the early 1950’s,

increasing demand and decreasing oil production forced the United States to import greater

amounts of petroleum.2,3 In 1970, the production of oil in the U.S. peaked, reaching a maximum

of 11 million barrels (equivalent to 426 million gallons) of oil per day. The decrease in oil

production in the U.S. has further increased the need to import foreign oil.3

Although many people believe that the U.S. is dependent solely on foreign oil from

highly volatile regions, such as the Middle East, almost half of the U.S.’s petroleum imports

come from the western hemisphere, from countries such as Canada and Mexico.1 In fact, Canada

and Mexico account for 34% of the U.S.’s net imports.1 The U.S. has become less dependent on

foreign oil in recent years, decreasing net imports from a high of 60% in 2005 to 45% net

imports in 2011.4 The U.S.’s prodigious appetite for oil does come at a price, costing

approximately $180 billion per year.3

To make matters worse, some experts believe that the world will reach peak oil

production before 2030.5 This would have a significant impact on the world economy, especially

since the demand for oil in developing countries such as China and India are projected to

increase greatly. Although reaching peak oil does not mean that oil and gasoline will no longer

be available to consumers, the price of all oil products would increase, eventually to a point

where many consumers would not be able to purchase it. However, many of these estimates rely

on the world’s proven reserves, which are constantly increasing due to new discoveries of oil and

new technologies capable of extracting oil from previously unreachable or economically

infeasible locations, such as the oil sands of Canada.

P a g e | 6

Figure 1 - U.S. Petroleum Trends1

Global Security

OPEC The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is a global organization that

has a significant impact on both the amount and price of oil and gasoline worldwide. According

to some estimates, OPEC member countries control approximately two-thirds of the world’s oil

supplies.6 According to OPEC, more than 80% of the world’s proven oil reserves are located in

OPEC member countries, 65% of which is located in the Middle East.7 OPEC was formed in

1960, by five countries: Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela.8 Currently, OPEC has

12 member countries (the founding five members of OPEC are still member countries). The

OPEC member countries listed in order by the amount of their proven crude oil supplies are:

Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar,

Algeria, Angola, and Ecuador.7

P a g e | 7

Figure 2 - OPEC Oil Reserves7

OPEC’s dominance over the worldwide oil market has cost the U.S. greatly; according to

the U.S. Department of Energy, price manipulation by OPEC member states has cost the United

States almost two trillion dollars from 2004 to 2008.9 There have been numerous oil price spikes

in the United States since 1970. Two major oil crises that occurred in the 1970’s, one in 1973

and the other in 1979, were caused by the actions of OPEC member countries.6 The first major

oil price spike occurred in 1973 due to OPEC’s oil embargo in response to some countries (the

U.S. included) involvement in the Yom Kippur War. The oil embargo directly affected the U.S.,

Japan, and parts of Europe and lasted 5 months. Due to the oil embargo, the price of oil

quadrupled in the United States and, although the embargo lasted for only 5 months, oil

remained at an increased price for significantly longer. In response to this oil embargo, the

United States, and many countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and

Development (OECD) developed reserves of crude oil that could be used to counteract short-

term supply disruptions and price spikes.10 The U.S.’s strategic petroleum reserve is the world’s

largest, with a capacity of 727 million barrels.

The second major oil price spike occurred in 1979, and carried over into 1980.9 This

price spike was due to the Iranian revolution. Before the revolution, Iran was one of the world’s

largest suppliers of oil, but during, and after, the Iranian revolution the supply of crude oil

exported from Iran decreased dramatically. Iranian oil production dropped from approximately 6

million barrels per day in 1978, to less than 1 million barrels per day by October 1980. In 1978,

P a g e | 8

Iran supplied nearly 10% of the world’s oil, and although many countries increased their oil

supply due to the decrease in Iranian supply, the world’s oil production decreased by 4%. This

significant decrease in supply caused oil prices to nearly triple by the beginning of 1981.

The most recent oil price spike was more gradual than the spikes in the 1970’s, occurring

from September 2003 and finally peaking in July 2008. This price spike was more severe than

either of the spikes in the 1970’s, representing an almost five-fold increase in crude oil prices.

This price spike was not due to a major supply disruption or OPEC intervention, but rather a

number of factors, including: increased growth of oil demand, low investment in the 1990s,

refinery capacities that were not easily increased, geopolitical concerns and the relatively weak

state of the U.S. currency.9

The oil price spikes in 1973 and 1979 were followed by a global recession. The 2003-

2008 gasoline price spike also led to a global recession, however, the most recent price spike

occurred during the worst economic downturn in the United States since the Great Depression.

Although many factors contributed to the recession in the U.S., including the housing crisis and

various financial problems, the increasing cost of oil likely played a significant role.9 This is

because the price of oil not only affects the personal transportation sector, but every sector of the

economy. Nearly all transportation is achieved by using products originating from oil, therefore

the price of any good or service that requires some method of transportation will likely be

influenced by the price of oil.

Gasoline Prices Figure 4 shows the increasing cost of gasoline from 2003 until late 2008, when the price

began to decrease.11 The price dropped dramatically until late 2009 when it began to increase at a

rate similar to the increasing rate during the years 2003-2008. Figure 3 shows the price of

gasoline in 2010 and demonstrates that the price of gasoline is highly volatile. The high

variability in the price of gasoline influences the prices of many goods and services and can

make it difficult for both consumers and producers to predict future prices.

P a g e | 9

Iran and the Strait of Hormuz Currently, Iran is attempting to produce nuclear weapons and many countries, including

the United States, are vehemently opposed to this.12 Many foreign policy and military experts

believe that military intervention is necessary to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons,

but many of these experts do not believe that simple tactical bombing strategy can reduce Iran’s

nuclear production capabilities to the point where it is no longer feasible to construct nuclear

weapons. Iran has responded to these threats of military intervention by threatening to close the

Strait of Hormuz.13,14 The Strait of Hormuz is the primary access point to the Persian Gulf, which

is where approximately 20% of the world’s oil supply travels through daily. Certainly, a

disruption of 20% of the world’s supply would result in drastic price increases.13 According to

some experts, if the United States took military action against Iran, and even if Iran did not

threaten to close the Strait of Hormuz, increased speculation in the world oil market could

greatly increase the price of oil, which could cause a worldwide economic crisis.

Figure 4 - Gasoline Price in the U.S. 2000-201111 Figure 3 - Gasoline Prices in 201011

P a g e | 10

Pollution The combustion of gasoline results in many kinds of air pollutants. Although the

emissions from an individual car are generally low, the personal vehicle is the single greatest

source of air pollution in many locations in the U.S., especially in large cities.15 According to the

EPA, driving a personal vehicle is probably a typical person’s most polluting daily activity. This

paper considers three airborne pollutants: carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide.

The Clean Air Act requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set

standards, referred to as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), for pollutants

that are harmful to human health and the environment.16 The EPA has set NAAQS for six

pollutants, referred to as criteria pollutants. The six criteria pollutants are: 1) Carbon monoxide 2)

Lead 3) Nitrogen dioxide 4) Ozone 5) Particle pollutants and 6) Sulfur dioxide. Two of the three

pollutants considered in this paper (nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide) are criteria air pollutants

under the NAAQS, while the other pollutant, carbon dioxide, is not.

Carbon Dioxide Carbon dioxide is a colorless and odorless gas, and although it is generally considered to

be harmless to human health, it is the largest contributor to global climate change.3 Because

carbon dioxide is not considered to be directly harmful to human health, it is not regulated by

NAAQS or any other kind of government regulation in the United States. Although the

increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will result in negative environmental

effects through climate change, there have been few successful efforts in the U.S. or worldwide

to decrease the production of CO2.3

Most anthropogenic carbon dioxide is produced by the combustion of fossil fuels. In fact,

since the beginning of widespread fossil fuel use during the Industrial Revolution in the 1700’s,

carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have increased by 35%.17 As Figure 5

demonstrates, the transportation sector is the second largest source of carbon dioxide emissions

in the United States. Personal vehicles account for almost two-thirds of emissions from the

transportation sector and emissions have steadily grown since 1990.

P a g e | 11

Figure 5 - Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Sector17

Nitrogen Oxides Nitrogen oxides are a group of highly reactive gases that include a number of different

chemical compounds of oxygen and nitrogen, but primarily refer to the compounds, nitric oxide

(NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2).18 These two compounds are collectively referred to as NOx.

As a criteria air pollutant, nitrogen oxides levels have been monitored and regulated by the EPA

since 1971. According to the EPA, all areas in the U.S. currently meet the NAAQ standards for

nitrogen oxides. Like carbon dioxide, nitrogen dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

Exposures to high levels of nitrogen dioxide can cause adverse health effects in people;

short-term exposure can cause airway inflammation in healthy people and increased respiratory

symptoms in people with asthma.18 After being emitted, nitrogen oxides can react with many

other compounds in the atmosphere to create harmful pollutants.3,18 For example, nitrogen oxides

can combine with a number of compounds to form small particles. These small particles can

harm human health by damaging the lungs and can cause or worsen respiratory disease, such as

emphysema and bronchitis, and can aggravate existing heart disease. Another criteria air

pollutant under NAAQS, ozone, is formed when nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds

react in the atmosphere with heat and sunlight.18 Ozone exposure in at-risk individuals can cause

respiratory issues.

Nitrogen oxides can enter the atmosphere and react with water vapor to create nitric acid,

which is a major contributor to acid rain. Acid rain causes significant damage to both the

P a g e | 12

environment and human structures, such as acidification of lakes and streams, and damage to

trees.

The transportation sector is a large contributor to nitrogen oxides emissions. Figure 6

demonstrates that, in Indiana, the largest source of nitrogen oxides emissions is electricity

generation. The second largest source of nitrogen oxides emissions in Indiana is from mobile

sources, which includes all vehicles used for transportation.19

Figure 6 - Nitrogen Oxide Emissions by Sector19

Sulfur Dioxide Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless and corrosive gas with a pungent odor that is created

from the combustion of fossil fuels.3 As a criteria air pollutant, SO2 levels have been monitored

and regulated by the EPA since 1971.20 According to the EPA, there are no locations in the

United States that do not meet the current SO2 NAAQ standards. Unlike carbon dioxide and

nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide is not a greenhouse gas.

Sulfur dioxide can have many negative effects on human health, the environment, and

various materials.3,20 Like nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide can react with other compounds in the

atmosphere to form small particles. These small particles can harm human health by damaging

the lungs and can cause or worsen respiratory disease, such as emphysema and bronchitis, and

can aggravate existing heart disease. Also like nitrogen dioxides, sulfur dioxide can enter the

atmosphere and react with water vapor to create sulfuric acid, which is a major contributor to

P a g e | 13

acid rain. Acid rain causes significant damage to both the environment and human structures,

such as acidification of lakes and streams, and damage to trees.

Figure 7 shows that, in Indiana, the largest source of sulfur dioxide emissions is

electricity generation.21 The second largest source of sulfur dioxide in Indiana is from industrial

processes. The third major source of sulfur dioxide is mobile sources, which includes all vehicles

used for transportation. Unlike carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides, which are emitted in large

amounts by the transportation sector, sulfur dioxide is not emitted in large amounts by the

transportation sector. The reason for this is that there is very little sulfur naturally occurring

within gasoline compared to other fossil fuels.22 The EPA’s Tier 2 Gasoline Sulfur Program

reduces the sulfur content of gasoline by up to 90% percent, so before gasoline is combusted,

most of the sulfur has already been removed.23

Figure 7 - Sulfur Dioxide Emissions by Sector21

P a g e | 14

Solutions There have been a number of potential alternatives to gasoline proposed in the United

States and the world, including: electric vehicles, biofuels, hydrogen fuel cells, natural gas,

compressed air, and many others. Until recently, the primary alternative transportation fuel in the

U.S. was biofuels. After attempting to transition to biofuels, the U.S. and many other countries

have begun to attempt to switch to different sources of energy, such as electricity. Government

policy has a great deal of influence on what fuel source is used; this is apparent from the current

production levels of biofuels.

Politicians The knowledge of the United States’ dependence on foreign oil has influenced many

politicians, from across the political spectrum, to proclaim that the U.S. should decrease its

dependence on foreign oil. In 1974, President Nixon promised that energy independence would

be reached within 6 years, in 1975, President Ford promised energy independence in 10 years

and in 1977, President Carter warned Americans that the world’s oil supply would begin running

out within the next ten years. President Carter went as far as to exclaim that the energy crisis that

was affecting America at the time was the “Moral equivalent of war.”2

Not much has changed since the 1970’s; the U.S. still heavily relies on petroleum imports

for use as a transportation fuel. Also, politicians are still extolling the benefits of energy

independence and warning of the consequences of continued dependence. For example,

President Barack Obama declared in 2007 that “Now is the time for serious leadership to get us

started down the path to energy independence”; in the same year, Presidential hopeful, Hillary

Clinton, said that the U.S. should be “Energy independent and free from foreign oil.”2 The

presidential hopefuls for the Republican Party shared many of the same beliefs and hopes as the

Democratic Party. For example, in 2007, Arizona Senator John McCain said that “We need

energy independence”; also in 2007, Rudolph Giuliani said that the federal government “Must

treat energy independence as a matter of national security.”2 Similar rhetoric has been applied to

the issue of foreign oil in the 2012 Presidential race. For example, President Obama, who is

running for reelection, stated in his 2012 State of the Union Address that there is a need for an

“All-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy,”

which included an increase in allowed offshore drilling and tapping of natural gas resources.24

Mitt Romney, the likely Republican nominee for President, has stated that he supports ethanol

P a g e | 15

production as an alternative transportation energy source, and that “A Romney administration

will pave the way for the construction of additional pipelines that can accommodate the expected

growth in Canadian supply of oil and natural gas in the coming years.”24 Similarly to Mitt

Romney, most of the other possible Republican nominees stated their support for increased oil

trade with Canada and the need for increased infrastructure to transport Canadian crude oil to the

U.S. where it could be refined.

Governmental policies have been put in place to reduce the amount of petroleum used in

the transportation sector, including mandates and incentives to reduce vehicle fuel consumption,

such as the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standard, which requires automakers to meet

efficiency goals.3 Although government regulation has been somewhat successful at improving

the average fuel efficiency in the U.S., the total amount of fuel used nationally has steadily

increased.3,11

Biofuels Although biologically-derived fuels (commonly referred to as biofuels) have been

available since the invention of the internal combustion engine, the United States has recently

increased its efforts to encourage ethanol use as an alternative transportation fuel to gasoline.4 In

the United States, almost all of the biofuels used and produced originate from corn-based ethanol.

The domestic supply of ethanol in the United States was 10.8 billion gallons in 2009; a 220%

increase over the domestic supply of 4.9 billion gallons in 2006.25 The United States does import

a small amount of ethanol, 0.2 billion gallons, which accounts for 1.85% of the total ethanol

supply.25 Ethanol is mixed into regular gasoline, accounting for up to 10% of the fuel available at

gas stations by volume. This is because vehicles require no modifications in order to combust a

10% ethanol mix. After modifications, a vehicle can use higher percentages of ethanol, then

being considered a flex-fuel vehicle, the most common being 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline, a

mix commonly referred to as E85.26

The driving force behind the production and use of biofuels in the United States is the

Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which mandates that renewable fuel be mixed into gasoline.

The RFS is handled by the Environmental Protection Agency. In 2006, it mandated that 4.0

billion gallons of renewable fuel be added to gasoline, 9.0 billion gallons in 2008, and, by 2022,

36 billion gallons of renewable fuel be added to gasoline.2,27 The RFS was established by the

Energy Policy Act of 2005, §1501 and was expanded by the Energy Independence and Security

P a g e | 16

Act of 2007, §202. The RFS mandates that by 2022, more than 21 billion of the 36 billion

gallons of biofuel required must originate from a non-food source feedstock.27

Corn-based ethanol presents many problems as an alternative to gasoline. Although corn-

based ethanol is ubiquitous across the U.S., it is not cost-effective when compared to

conventional fuels such as gasoline. The price that people pay at the pump for ethanol is not the

entirety of what they are paying. Between 1995 and 2005 the total for federal corn subsidies

reached $51.3 billion.28 In 2005 corn subsidies reached $9.4 billion.29 In 2010, the Congressional

Budget Office concluded that displacing one gallon of gasoline with corn-based ethanol cost

taxpayers $1.78.25

Another significant problem with the majority of biofuels in the U.S. is that potential

food is being used to power vehicles. Using a possible food source as fuel poses many ethical

questions. According to the Earth Policy Institute, the amount of grain needed to make enough

ethanol to fill a 25-gallon SUV tank would feed one person for a full year.2 Ethanol production

does use a significant amount of potential food; in 2010 approximately 40% of the corn crop was

used as a feedstock for ethanol.25 Iowa State University’s Center for Agricultural Rural

Development found that between July 2006 and May 2007, when only approximately 20% of the

corn crop was being used for an ethanol feedstock, the food bill for Americans increased by an

average of $47 due to the rising price of corn.2 Iowa State University’s Center for Agricultural

Rural Development also found that ethanol production resulted in higher prices for cheese, ice

cream, eggs, poultry, pork, cereal, sugar, and beef.30 The European Parliament has recognized

that biofuels are currently competing with food and they have agreed that biofuels are likely

causing food prices to rise. European governments have pledged that by 2015 they will have at

least 5% of their transportation fuels to be derived from biofuels that do not compete with food.2

There are many reasons for the current failure of biofuels. Most of the problems that

plague biofuels have to do with net energy balance. Net energy balance is a comparison of the

amount of energy inputs and the energy outputs of a fuel.31 Biofuels are very inefficient in terms

of how much energy is gained compared to how much energy is put in to its production. There

are numerous studies that claim that biofuels have a wide range of efficiencies, but the fact

remains that, in even the most optimistic of studies, biofuels cannot match the efficiency of

conventional fuels like gasoline. Gasoline yields energy profits of about 600 to 700 percent.2 If

the gasoline is produced from oil that is easily extracted from the earth and does not require

P a g e | 17

much refining, then the energy profit can be substantially higher, up to 2,000 percent. David

Pinentel, a professor from Cornell University, and Tad Patzek, a professor at the University of

California Berkeley, co-wrote a report in 2005 that found that corn-based ethanol production

results in a net energy loss of 29%, meaning that ethanol produces 29% less energy than required

to produce it.28 A study conducted by Oregon State University found that ethanol’s net energy

gain was 20.3%, even though there was a net energy gain, the researchers concluded that corn-

based ethanol was “significantly more costly that gasoline.”2

Electric Vehicles Much like vehicles powered by ethanol, vehicles powered by electric motors are not a

new technology. In fact, unlike today, where electric cars remain somewhat of a novelty, in 1900,

28% of all cars in the United States were powered by electricity.32 After the 1920’s, the

popularity of electric cars declined drastically due to many factors, primarily due to the limited

range of electric vehicles and the increasing availability and decreasing price of gasoline.33

Recently Americans have become increasingly interested in electric cars and hybrid-electric

vehicles, such as the Toyota Prius. This is due to a number of factors including: high gasoline

prices, increasing concern about the environment, and new electric cars that break the common

stereotypes associated with electric cars, such as limited range and poor performance. Despite

this interest, very few electric cars, offered by very few manufacturers, are currently available to

Americans.

Electric vehicles can be separated and classified under two distinct categories, fully

electric vehicles (FEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). Fully electric vehicles are

fairly simple. FEVs use a number of batteries which supply electrical power to a motor which

drives the vehicle’s wheels. The second category of electric vehicle, the PHEV, is similar to

conventional hybrid vehicles (HEVs) in that both types of vehicles incorporate both an electric

motor and an internal combustion engine for powering the vehicle. The primary difference

between PHEVs and HEVs is that PHEVs use onboard batteries to power the vehicle for a

certain distance (generally close to 30 miles) and once the battery is depleted, an onboard

internal combustion engine provides power to the electric motor through an onboard electric

generator. This means that, in a PHEV, the internal combustion engine is not directly attached to

the vehicles drive-train, while in a HEV, the primary means of propulsion is met with a relatively

small internal combustion engine that is coupled with an electric motor that provides additional

P a g e | 18

horsepower when the driver needs it. Therefore, PHEVs are not simply more efficient versions of

conventional fossil fuel powered vehicles, like HEVs are.34

There are currently a small number of electric vehicles available to consumers in the

United States. Some of these vehicles are competitively priced with conventional vehicles and

others are extravagantly expensive supercars that can compete with the fastest conventionally

powered vehicles.

One of the most exciting recent developments in electric vehicles was the release of the

Chevrolet Volt, a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, developed by General Motors. The Volt, as a

PHEV, uses onboard batteries to power the vehicle for a certain distance and once the battery is

depleted, an onboard gasoline powered 3-cylinder engine provides power to the electric motors,

which extends the driving range indefinitely, and also allows the Volt to refuel quickly using

gasoline instead of forcing the driver to wait for the onboard batteries to be recharged.35

According to GM, the Volt can drive 600 miles or more before needing refueling or recharging

and the batteries store enough energy to drive for approximately 35 miles while in fully-electric

mode. The fact that the Volt’s driving range is not limited makes it a reasonable alternative to

gasoline vehicles for drivers who are concerned about the range of their vehicle. To reduce

gasoline consumption, drivers plug the Volt into a standard 110-volt electrical outlet to recharge

the batteries, which takes approximately six hours. The Volt is competitive with similar gasoline

powered cars in terms of performance, accelerating from 0 to 60 in less than 8.5 seconds.

According to Chevrolet, “The Chevy Volt is designed to move more than 75 percent of

America's daily commuters without a single drop of gas. That means for someone who drives

less than 40 miles a day, the Chevy Volt will use zero gasoline and produce zero emissions.” The

Volt has a MRSP of approximately $40,000. Although the Volt is substantially cheaper to

operate than a gasoline powered vehicle, it has not been selling well. In fact, General Motors

temporarily halted production of the Volt on March 16, 2012.36 Chevrolet is expected to resume

production on April 23, 2012. The halted production is due primarily because demand for the

Volt has been lower than General Motors (GM) predicted, selling only 1,023 Volts in February,

while having approximately 3,600 unsold Volts. GM predicted that 10,000 Volts would be sold

in 2011, while a total of only 7,671 were sold.37

Another electric vehicle that is currently available in the United States is the fully electric

Nissan Leaf. Unlike the PHEV Volt, the FEV Leaf uses only electricity as an energy source.38

P a g e | 19

This allows the Leaf to operate more efficiently, primarily due to a lower weight because the

Leaf does not have an onboard internal combustion engine or any of the related components. The

Leaf has a MSRP of approximately $35,000. Unlike the Volt, the Leaf has a limited driving

range of between 70 and 100 miles before the batteries need to be recharged. Nissan sold 9,674

Leafs in North America in 2011, which is similar to the number of Volts sold in the U.S. in

2011.37

Two electric vehicles that go against the commonly held perception that EVs are

generally slow and have poor performance are the fully electric Tesla Roadster and the soon to

be available, Jaguar C-X75. These two vehicles can accurately be described as “supercars,” by

having performance characteristics similar to the highest-priced sports cars on the market today.

The Tesla Roadster is a FEV that has a range of approximately 245 miles, and can accelerate

from 0 to 60 mph in 3.7 seconds.39 The Roadster has an MSRP of $100,000. The Jaguar C-X75

is a PHEV that has a fully-electric range of approximately 30 miles and an essentially unlimited

range when using its onboard internal combustion engines. The C-X75’s four electric motors

generate 780 brake horsepower, helping the vehicle accelerate from 0 to 60 in under 3 seconds.40

There are a number of electric vehicles that experts believe will become available for sale

in the United States. Some companies that are expected to release EVs within the next two years

are: Audi (R8, a FEV), BMW (ActiveE, a FEV), Cadillac (ELR, a PHEV), Fiat (500 EV, a FEV),

Fisker (Karma, a PHEV), Ford (Focus, a FEV), Honda (Fit and Accord, a FEV and PHEV

respectively), Infiniti (LE, a PHEV), Mercedes-Benz (SLS E-cell, a FEV), Mitsubishi (“i”, a

FEV), Tesla (S, a FEV), and Toyota (Prius V, a PHEV).33,41 Many of these vehicles are very

expensive and can be considered luxury cars, but some, including the Tesla S, Fiat 500 EV,

Mitsubishi “i”, and Toyota Prius V, are priced similarly to average conventionally powered cars.

The current consumer-focused government policies designed to increase the sales of

electric cars are primarily financial incentives to the consumer offset the higher purchase price of

EVs. The Recovery Act modified the tax credit for qualified EVs purchased after Dec. 31,

2009.41,42 The minimum amount of the credit for qualified EVs is $2,500, and the credit tops out

at $7,500, depending on the battery capacity. The $7,500 tax credit is substantial, but considering

the cost of electric cars (approximately $40,000 for a Chevrolet Volt, $35,000 for the Nissan

Leaf, and over $100,000 for the Tesla Roadster) the credit does not bring the initial cost down to

a level competitive with conventionally powered vehicles. Some government officials have

P a g e | 20

realized this. For example, President Obama has recommended that the current $7,500 tax credit

for purchasing an EV be converted into a rebate, which would make the discount apply

immediately.42

Although electric vehicles are generally more expensive than gasoline powered vehicles,

they are much less expensive to operate. A driver of a PHEV, like the Chevrolet Volt, can be

expected to pay less than half the price for fuel than a driver of a gasoline vehicle which has a

fuel economy of 30 miles per gallon.43 A driver of a fully electric vehicle, like the Nissan Leaf,

can be expected to pay less than one-third of the price for fuel than a driver of a gasoline vehicle

which has a fuel economy of 30 miles per gallon. Fully electric vehicles are generally cheaper to

operate than PHEVs because FEVs are smaller and weight less because they do not have to have

an onboard internal combustion engine. Despite the operating cost advantages that EVs have

over gasoline powered vehicle, inexpensive and fuel efficient vehicles like the Chevrolet Cruze

can decrease the demand for electric vehicles. This is because vehicles like the Cruze Eco can

achieve 42 miles per gallon on the highway, while having an MSRP of as low as $17,000.44

Vehicles like this drastically increase the payback period on vehicles like the Volt and the Leaf,

due to the large initial investment required for EVs.

Table 1 below displays the operating costs of gasoline vehicles under a number of cost

and fuel efficiency scenarios. Table 2 displays the cost of operating EVs, both a PHEV

(Chevrolet Volt) and a FEV (Nissan Leaf). The resulting cost per year assumes a driving distance

of approximately 17,000 miles per year.

P a g e | 21

Table 1 - Cost of Operating Gasoline Vehicle Table 2 - Cost of Operating Electric Vehicle43

P a g e | 22

Electricity Sources Although electric vehicles do not emit pollution directly like vehicles powered by

gasoline, so called “zero tailpipe emissions,” they are not truly “zero emissions vehicles.” EVs

contribute to pollution indirectly through the use of the electricity used to charge the vehicle’s

batteries. Therefore, the amount of pollution generated (albeit indirectly) by EVs is inexorably

tied to the source of the electricity used to charge the EV’s batteries.

On the national level, the United States has a diverse mix of electricity generating sources,

including sources that do not create emissions while generating electricity, such as nuclear and

hydroelectric.45 In fact, over 28% of the energy produced in the U.S. did not create emissions at

the electricity generation facility; however, these sources of electricity contribute to emissions

production indirectly. For example, wind and photovoltaic energy create emissions through the

production of the wind turbines and photovoltaic panels, and nuclear power contributes to

emissions through the mining and refining practices in order to create fissionable uranium.

Additionally, only 45% of the U.S.’s energy was derived from coal in 2010. Figure 8 shows the

sources of electricity in the U.S. in 2010.

Figure 8- Sources of Electricity in the U.S.45

Unlike the United States on a national level, Indiana does not have a diverse mix of

electricity generating sources.46 Almost all of the electricity (over 96% in 2010) generated in

Indiana is generated by combusting coal. Indiana’s reliance on coal as its primary source of

electricity creates issues due to the amount of emissions that the combustion of coal creates.

P a g e | 23

Compared to natural gas, coal generated electricity emitted (in 2010) 2.2 times more carbon

dioxide, 1,903 times more sulfur dioxide, and 4.56 times more nitrogen oxides per unit of energy

created, in Indiana (see Table 3). Compared to other sources of electricity generation, such as

nuclear or wind power, the emissions from coal are even more severe. The chart below shows the

amount of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides created by both coal and natural

gas for various levels of electricity output. Figure 9 shows the sources of electricity in Indiana in

2010.

Figure 9 - Sources of Electricity in Indiana46

Table 3 - Emissions from Coal and Natural Gas46

P a g e | 24

Electric Vehicle Pollution In order to determine if electric vehicles will produce less pollution than the gasoline

vehicles that they are replacing in the state of Indiana, a number of steps, each incorporating a

number of estimations and predictions, need to be completed. The steps used in this analysis

were as follows:

1. Estimate the number of electric vehicles on the road in each year.

2. Estimate the emissions resulting from electricity production under a number of plausible

scenarios.

3. Estimate the demand for electricity due to electric vehicles operating in each year.

4. Estimate the emissions that result from the electricity used to power electric vehicles in

each year.

5. Estimate the total amount of emissions created by gasoline vehicles in each year.

6. Calculate the amount of emissions that are mitigated by the reduction in size of the

gasoline vehicle fleet (which are replaced by electric vehicles).

7. Compare the emissions values for the replaced gasoline vehicles and the emissions

resulting from the electric vehicles.

1. Number of Electric Vehicles In order to establish an estimate for the number of electric vehicles on the road every year

from the current year (2012) to the year 2030, the Bass model of technology adoption was used.

The Bass model, developed in 1969, is used to predict the adoption of new technology, from

computers to kitchen appliances.47,49 The Bass model uses three inputs to forecast the annual

number of adopters of a new technology. The three inputs are: the maximum number of potential

adopters of a new technology, the positive feedback associated with exposure to the technology

through those who have already adopted the technology, and the external sources of technology

adoption such as advertising. The Bass model is well suited for estimating the number of electric

vehicles in the future because it works well for products that have not begun to be produced, or

produced at a high capacity. Another advantage of the Bass model is that it overcomes the

startup problem of the logistic innovation diffusion model because the adoption rate due to

advertising efforts is not dependant on the current number of adopters.

P a g e | 25

The first input that must be determined is the number of potential adopters.47,48 This value

can be difficult to determine because electric vehicles are not widespread enough to definitively

establish how receptive the population of Indiana will be towards them. Many factors can

influence the number of potential adopters, such as: the price of gasoline, the public’s concern

over environmental pollution, the number of miles driven daily, brand loyalty, the price of

electricity, etc.33 Under a scenario where the price of gasoline does not increase dramatically and

the inclusion of PHEVs (which reduce the public’s concern over driving range) the maximum

market penetration in the year 2030 can be estimated to be approximately 70%.47 This means that

by the year 2030, 70% of vehicle owners in Indiana will be willing to purchase an EV.

In order to estimate the total number of passenger vehicles in the year 2030, a simple

linear regression analysis of the data (from the years 1980 to 2011) for the number of passenger

vehicles in the state of Indiana and the population of Indiana was conducted. The following

equation was then established.50,51

• Number of Passenger Vehicles = ((Population) x (0.8642425)) - (1,677,587)

The resulting R2 value of 0.9914 demonstrates that, given the data, the total population of

Indiana is a strong predictor of the number of passenger vehicles in Indiana. Using the predicted

value for the state population in the year 2030, the number of passenger vehicles in the year 2030

can be estimated. According to Indiana University’s STATS Indiana population projection, the

total population of the state of Indiana in 2030 is estimated to be slightly over 7 million people

(7,018,710).50 This is an increase of 8.25% in the population of Indiana compared to 2010. This

increase in population will likely result in an increase in both the number of passenger vehicles

and number of miles driven within the state, because, according to the Energy Information

Administration, population growth is one of the primary drivers of growth in both the number of

miles driven and the amount of gasoline consumed by passenger vehicles.52 The total number of

passenger vehicles in 2030 can be estimated by the following equation:

• (Number of passenger vehicles) = ((7,018,710 people) x (0.8642425)) + (-1,677,587)

= 4,388,280 passenger vehicles in Indiana in 2030

P a g e | 26

The second input that must be determined is the coefficient of innovation.47,48 This

coefficient incorporates the adopters who purchase an EV due to external influences, without the

influence of other adopters; they may be influenced by advertisements and marketing by the

suppliers of EVs. These consumers may purchase EVs due to a number of reasons, but, by

definition, they are not influenced by other adopters. The first adopters must purchase an EV due

to external factors, because there is no potential for positive feedback from previous adopters.

Historically, the coefficient of innovation for most goods is between 0.01 and 0.03.49 For this

estimate, a value of 0.01 was used, which is low, due to the current relative ineffectiveness of

advertising for EVs such as the Chevrolet Volt.36,37

The third input that must be determined is the coefficient of imitation.47,48 This

coefficient incorporates the adopters who purchase an EV due to interactions with previous

adopters. For example, if an individual’s friends, neighbors, co-workers, or other acquaintances

purchase an EV, then that person may then also purchase an EV. Historically, the coefficient of

imitation for most goods is between 0.3 and 0.7.49 For this estimate, a value of 0.3 was used,

which is low, due to consumers’ anticipated unwillingness to adopt quickly.36,37

Using the previous three inputs in the Bass model, and the year 2014 as the first year of

possible adoption, both the total number of electric vehicles and the number of new electric

vehicles per year can be estimated. Figure 10 below shows the distinctive “S” shaped curve of

the number of adoptions. The slow initial growth is due to the limited influence by the

coefficient of imitation and the relatively small influence of the coefficient of innovation. The

growth rate begins to increase when more initial adopters interact with potential adopters,

therefore making the coefficient of imitation relevant. The growth rate of the number of

technology adopters begins to slow when the number of total adopters approaches the number of

potential adopters. Table 4 below displays the results from the Bass model for the following

years: the first year of adoption (2014), 2017, 2020, 2023, 2026, and the final year of adoption

considered (2030).

P a g e | 27

Figure 10 - Number of Electric Vehicles on the Road

Table 4 - Number of Electric Vehicles on the Road

Year Total Number of

Adoptions

New EVs per

Year

EVs Percentage of

Potential Adopters

Percent of Total

Vehicles EVs

2014

30,000.00

30,000.00

1.00% 0.68%

2017

180,873.40

62,837.23

6.03% 4.12%

2020

479,866.54

121,158.24

16.00% 10.94%

2023

996,138.79

197,785.64

33.20% 22.70%

2026

1,690,804.32

240,249.97

56.36% 38.53%

2030

2,497,055.23

161,900.03

83.24% 56.90%

P a g e | 28

The results from this model of technology adoption are certainly optimistic, especially

when the current sales of EVs are currently so low nationally. However, in a report released by

the Electric Power Research Institute and the Natural Resource Defense Council, it was

estimated that PHEVs could account for, as high as, 80% of the new vehicle market share in

2050.53 The report also stated that EVs could make up over 60% of the light-vehicles in the

United States by the year 2030. The estimated number of electric vehicles sold per year may be

high due to consumers’ unwillingness to purchase, but the number of EVs sold is reasonable

considering the number of vehicles historically sold in Indiana. In 2007, over 250,000 vehicles

were sold in Indiana, and in 2010, over 177,000 vehicles were sold.54 The estimates gained from

the Bass model predict no more EVs sold in Indiana in any year (even during the peak sales

years) than conventional vehicles sold in 2007.

2. Emissions from Electricity Production

Rate of electricity production growth From the year 1990 to 2010, electric utility electricity generation increased by an average

of 0.554% per year in Indiana.46 There is some variation in terms of the percentage growth each

year, with some years having negative growth rates, but the general trend has been that of

increasing generation. The one major exception to this trend of growth is the electricity

generation during the year 2009, which fell by 10.608%. This major decrease in electricity

generation is likely due to the worldwide recession that was taking place during that year.55 If the

decrease in generation for the year 2009 is omitted from the average electricity generation for the

past 20 years, the average rate of growth would be 1.084% per year. This demonstrates that a

significant economic disturbance is able to drastically influence the amount of electricity

generated.

Figure 11 below shows the generally stable and increasing trend of electricity generation

in Indiana. As discussed above, a major reduction in electricity generation occurred in 2009,

which can be seen on this graph. Figure 12 shows that most electricity produced in Indiana

originates from coal.46 Because of this, the amount of electricity produced by combusting coal is

very similar to the total amount of electricity produced by all sources. Figure 13 shows that,

although most electricity generation in Indiana originates from coal, the use of natural gas has

increased dramatically in Indiana. This is due, in part, to the decreasing cost of natural gas. The

rapid increase in the use of natural gas in 2009 and 2010 demonstrate that natural gas may

P a g e | 29

become a major source of electricity in Indiana in the future, especially if the rate of growth

remains high.

Figure 11- Electricity Generation in Indiana46

Figure 12 - Electricity Generation from Coal in Indiana46

Figure 13 - Electricity Generation from Natural Gas in Indiana46

P a g e | 30

Sources of Electricity In order to estimate the fuel mix in a given year from the current year to 2030, 5 possible

scenarios were considered. The scenarios use an average growth rate of electricity generation of

0.554% per year. The average growth rate influences the rate at which the electricity generation

source mix can change. This means that if the 10.608% decrease in electricity generation for the

year 2009 was omitted, therefore resulting in an average growth rate of 1.084% per year, the

resulting electricity generation mix in a given year could be different depending on the scenario.

The scenarios are as follows:

1. The coal and natural gas mix remains constant, with 95.69% of generation originating

from coal and 3.51% of generation coming from natural gas each year.

2. The amount of natural gas used remains constant, while all new production originates

from coal. This scenario would yield a 96.86% coal and 3.14% natural gas mix by 2030.

3. The amount of coal used remains constant, while all new production originates from

natural gas. This scenario would yield an 85.75% coal and 14.25% natural gas mix by

2030.

4. The amount of coal used decreases by 1% per year and is replaced with natural gas, while

all new production originates from natural gas. This scenario would yield a 70.13% coal

and 29.87% natural gas mix by 2030.

5. The amount of coal used decreases by 1% per year and is replaced with natural gas, while

50% of new production originates from natural gas and 50% of new production originates

from wind power (or other non-polluting source of energy, such as solar energy). This

scenario would yield a 70.13% coal, 14.93% natural gas and 14.93% wind power mix by

2030.

3. Electric Vehicles – Amount of Electricity Used In order to estimate the amount of electricity needed for electric vehicles, estimates using

current EVs and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Mobile Vehicle Emissions

Simulator (MOVES) were used (see section 5 “Emissions from Gasoline Vehicles” for

information about MOVES).

The EPA’s MOVES system was used to estimate the total number of miles driven by the

gasoline powered personal vehicle fleet (See Table 7).56 Using the estimates for the number of

EVs on the road in a given year from the Bass model, the number of miles driven by EVs can be

P a g e | 31

Year Miles Driven2012 - 2013 - 2014 457,117,587.46 2015 1,062,419,658.73 2016 1,866,164,705.00 2017 2,918,448,214.28 2018 4,280,640,335.19 2019 6,021,172,817.87 2020 8,210,952,118.38 2021 10,940,413,469.98 2022 14,244,579,220.15 2023 18,137,920,986.37 2024 22,582,079,258.18 2025 27,473,169,673.34 2026 32,587,453,759.32 2027 37,748,325,499.48 2028 42,730,846,525.88 2029 47,343,074,397.57 2030 51,458,391,780.64

Miles Driven by Evs

estimated. This analysis used a 1:1 mile replacement of gasoline vehicles with electric vehicles.

This means that if the average distance driven by a gasoline vehicle in a specific year was 15,000

miles, then an EV replacing the gasoline vehicle would drive 15,000 miles in that year. Table 6

shows the number of miles estimated to be driven by EVs in each year. Once the miles driven by

electric vehicles are estimated, the fuel efficiency of the EVs must be considered. In this analysis,

it is assumed that 50% of the EVs replacing gasoline vehicles are PHEVs with a fuel efficiency

similar to that of the Chevrolet Volt and the other 50% are FEVs with a fuel efficiency similar to

that of a Nissan Leaf. The Volt is less efficient (2.1875 miles per kWh) than the Nissan Leaf

(3.125 miles per kWh). Since the EV fleet is estimated to be an even mix of PHEVs and EVs, the

average fuel efficiency is projected to be approximately 2.656 miles per kWh.37,38

The next factor to consider is the charging efficiency of EVs. According to Tesla Motors,

the company’s high-efficiency battery charging unit charges at up to 90% efficiency.39 However,

current users of the Tesla Roadster, Chevrolet Volt, and Nissan Leaf report an efficiency of

approximately 80%, which is the average efficiency used for this analysis.37,38 The results for the

amount of electricity needed to power the EVs on the road in each year can be seen in Table 5

below.

Year MWh2012 - 2013 - 2014 206,509.59 2015 479,963.70 2016 843,067.35 2017 1,318,451.90 2018 1,933,842.22 2019 2,720,153.37 2020 3,709,418.37 2021 4,942,492.67 2022 6,435,198.14 2023 8,194,072.54 2024 10,201,786.39 2025 12,411,408.42 2026 14,721,861.46 2027 17,053,361.17 2028 19,304,288.31 2029 21,387,930.08 2030 23,247,085.23

Electricity Needed to Charge Evs

Table 6 - Miles Driven by EVs Table 5 - Electricity Demanded by EVs

P a g e | 32

4. Electric Vehicle Emissions After estimating the amount of electricity EVs will use in a given year, the amount of

pollution emitted due to the generation of that electricity can be estimated under the five

previously discussed scenarios. This analysis assumes that the emissions per unit of electricity

generated from both coal and natural gas remain constant. The overall emissions per unit of

electricity generation do change under all scenarios except for the first, where the percent of

energy coming from both natural gas and coal remains constant. The emissions from electric

vehicle use can be seen on the graphs in section number 6.

5. Emissions from Gasoline Vehicles In order to estimate the amount of emissions from gasoline vehicles in the state of

Indiana per year, from the current year (2012) to the year 2030, the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency’s Mobile Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) was used.

The EPA’s Mobile Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) is a computer modeling

software that estimates emissions from vehicles.56 MOVES uses EPA’s estimates and analysis of

millions of emissions test results in order to estimate emissions for the user specified: 1) vehicle

types 2) time periods 3) geographical areas 4) pollutants 5) vehicle operating characteristics and

6) road types. The specification for the necessary inputs for the MOVES simulation for this

analysis were 1) all gasoline powered personal transportation vehicles (which includes light-

trucks) 2) a full-year estimate 3) the state of Indiana 4) carbon dioxide, carbon dioxide equivalent

(which is a way to estimate the relative impact of the total greenhouse gas emissions in terms of

the warming potential of carbon dioxide), nitrogen dioxide, nitric oxide, nitrous oxide, total

nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide 5) all operation of vehicles (including idling) and 6) all road

types.

The outputs for the years 2012, 2015, 2020, 2025, and 2030 can be seen in Table 7 below.

Perhaps most importantly, the results show an increase in the number of miles driven, from

approximately 64 billion miles in 2012 to over 90 billion miles in 2030. Even with this increase

in miles driven, the amount of nitrogen oxide emissions is decreasing.

Table 8 shows that, although the amount of pollution per year is increasing for both sulfur

dioxide and carbon dioxide, the amount of emissions per mile is decreasing. For example, in

2012, vehicles, on average, are estimated to produce approximately 0.92 pounds of carbon

P a g e | 33

dioxide per year, while in 2030, vehicles, on average, are estimated to produce approximately

0.70 pounds of carbon dioxide per mile. A similar trend of decreasing emissions per mile can be

seen for both nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide. This decrease in emissions can be attributed to

the natural turnover of the personal vehicle fleet; essentially people buying newer vehicles that

will be, on average, more efficient and may have more effective emissions control systems. The

EPA’s tier 2 standards also apply to any vehicle that was or is manufactured after 2002.23 These

standards, along with significantly increased fuel economy, are the primary cause for the

decrease in emissions per mile.

Table 7 - Emissions from Gasoline Vehicles

Table 8 - Emissions per Mile from Gasoline Vehicles

P a g e | 34

6. Comparison of Emissions from Electric Vehicles and Gasoline Vehicles

Carbon Dioxide The graphs (Figures 14-18) below show the amount of carbon dioxide produced by EVs

predicted to be on the road in a given year (by the Bass model) versus the emissions that are no

longer produced by gasoline powered vehicles because of their 1:1 mile replacement by the EVs.

In the first scenario considered (The coal and natural gas mix remains constant, with

95.69% of generation originating from coal and 3.51% of the generation coming from natural gas

every year), the amount of carbon dioxide produced by EVs is less than the amount produced by

the gasoline vehicles (GVs) they replace in the years 2014 and 2015. However, starting in the

year 2016, the use of EVs would produce more carbon dioxide than GVs. This is primarily due

to the increasing efficiency of GVs, leading to less pollution per mile, while EVs in this scenario

are not becoming either more efficient or receiving the electricity used to power their batteries

from a less polluting source.

In the second scenario considered (The amount of natural gas used remains constant,

while all new production originates from coal. This scenario would yield a 96.86% coal and 3.14%

natural gas mix by 2030), the amount of carbon dioxide produced by EVs is less than the amount

produced by the GVs they replace in the first year of large-scale EV adoption, 2014. However,

starting in the year 2015, the use of EVs would produce more carbon dioxide than GVs. This is

primarily due to the increasing efficiency of GVs, leading to less pollution per mile, while the

EVs in this scenario are not becoming more efficient and are receiving the electricity used to

power their batteries from an increasingly more polluting source of electricity each year (an

increasing use of coal).

In the third scenario considered (The amount of coal used remains constant, while all new

production originates from natural gas. This scenario would yield a 85.75% coal and 14.25%

natural gas mix by 2030), the amount of carbon dioxide produced by EVs is less than the amount

produced by the GVs they replace in the years 2014, 2015, and 2016. However, starting in the

year 2017, the use of EVs would produce more carbon dioxide than GVs. This is primarily due

to the increasing efficiency of GVs, leading to less pollution per mile, and although EVs are

using an improving source of electrical energy (in terms of emissions) the EV emissions would

not decrease as rapidly as the GV emissions.

P a g e | 35

In the fourth scenario considered (The amount of coal used decreases by 1% per year and

is replaced with natural gas, while all new production originates from natural gas. This scenario

would yield a 70.13% coal and 29.87% natural gas mix by 2030), the amount of carbon dioxide

produced by EVs is less than the amount produced by the GVs they replace in the years 2014,

2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018. However, starting in the year 2019, the use of EVs would produce

more carbon dioxide than GVs. This is primarily due to the increasing efficiency of GVs, leading

to less pollution per mile, and although EVs are using an improving source of electrical energy

(in terms of emissions) the EV emissions would not decrease as rapidly as the GV emissions.

In the fifth scenario considered (The amount of coal used decreases by 1% per year and is

replaced with natural gas, while 50% of new production originates from natural gas and 50% of

new production originates from wind power. This scenario would yield a 70.13% coal, 14.93%

natural gas and 14.93% wind power mix by 2030), the amount of carbon dioxide produced by

EVs is less than the amount produced by the GVs they replace in all years from 2014 to 2030.

This is due primarily to this scenario estimating that wind power (which produces no carbon

dioxide) will provide approximately 15% of the electricity used to power EVs by the year 2030.

Figure 14 - Carbon Dioxide Comparison (Scenario 1)

P a g e | 36




P a g e | 37


P a g e | 38

Nitrogen Oxides The graphs (Figures 19-23) below show the amount of nitrogen oxides produced by EVs


longer produced by gasoline powered vehicles because of their 1:1 ratio mile replacement by the

EVs.

Under all five scenarios considered, electric vehicles will produce more nitrogen oxides

than the GVs that they replace. This is due to the fact that Indiana’s source of electricity

generation is almost exclusively coal, which when combusted, emits large amounts of nitrogen

oxides. Even under the best case scenario (the fifth scenario), where 15% of electricity originates

from wind (which does not emit nitrogen oxides), and 15% of electricity originates from natural

gas, using EVs would still result in greater nitrogen oxide emissions. This is primarily due to the

widespread use of coal in all scenarios and the increasing efficiency of GVs, leading to less

pollution per mile.

Figure 19 - Nitrogen Oxides Comparison (Scenario 1)

P a g e | 39




P a g e | 40


Sulfur Dioxide The graphs (Figures 24-28) below show the amount of sulfur dioxide produced by EVs


longer produced by gasoline powered vehicles because of the 1:1 ratio mile replacement by the

EVs.

Under all five scenarios considered, electric vehicles will produce more sulfur dioxide

than the GVs that they replace. This is due to the fact that Indiana’s source of electricity

generation is almost exclusively coal, which when combusted, emits large amounts of sulfur

dioxide. Even under the best case scenario (the fifth scenario), where 15% of electricity

originates from wind which does not emit sulfur dioxide, and 15% of electricity originates from

natural gas, using EVs would still result in greater sulfur dioxide emissions. This is primarily due

to the widespread use of coal in all scenarios, and the fact that gasoline contains very little sulfur,

and therefore does not emit much sulfur dioxide when combusted. This, combined with the

increasing efficiency of GVs, leading to less pollution per mile, would result in EVs producing

much more sulfur dioxide emissions than GVs.

P a g e | 41

Figure 24 - Sulfur Dioxide Comparison (Scenario 1)



P a g e | 42



P a g e | 43

Discussion Electric vehicles may be a possible alternative to gasoline vehicles in the United States.

Electric vehicles certainly have to capability to reduce the United States’ dependence on foreign

oil and reduce the cost of transportation fuel, but they may be less environmentally friendly than

gasoline vehicles in some states. The results of this analysis demonstrate that electric cars

replacing gasoline powered vehicles in Indiana would result in higher levels of carbon dioxide,

nitrogen oxide, and sulfur dioxide emissions. This is primarily due to two factors: 1) Gasoline

vehicles are polluting less per year because old, heavily polluting vehicles are being replaced

with more efficient and more environmentally friendly vehicles and 2) Coal will be the main

source of energy for electric vehicles in Indiana. Switching from a GV to an EV in Indiana

would be essentially like switching from a gasoline-powered vehicle to a coal-powered vehicle.

However, this analysis did not consider exposure scenarios for possibly affected

populations. Although electric vehicles will pollute more, the impact on certain populations may

actually be decreased. For example, people living in a large city with a large number of gasoline

powered vehicles may benefit from electric vehicles because there will no longer be a large

amount of “tailpipe” emissions, instead the emissions will essentially be transferred to an

electrical generating station which can be located far outside of the city.

As this analysis demonstrates, the amount of pollutants created by electric vehicles is

inexorably tied to the source of the electricity charging the vehicle’s batteries. In order for

electric vehicles to be a good solution to the problems that gasoline vehicles create, the

electricity generation within Indiana must transition to less polluting sources, such as natural gas

or a renewable source, such as wind. Unfortunately, the states with the cheapest electricity are

also generally the most polluting, Indiana being no exception, and if Indiana decreased its levels

of pollution, the electricity prices would likely rise, making electric cars a much cleaner option,

but a less economical one.

If Hoosiers want electric vehicles, then they will either have to ensure that their

electricity sources become more environmentally friendly or understand that the environment

could be negatively impacted by a technology that is meant to be “green.”

P a g e | 44

Works Cited 1. "How Dependent Are We on Foreign Oil?" EIA's Energy in Brief. Energy Information

Administration. Web. 15 Jan. 2012.

<http://205.254.135.7/energy_in_brief/foreign_oil_dependence.cfm>.

2. Bryce, Robert. Gusher of Lies. New York: Public Affairs/Perseus Book Group, 2008.

3. Hinrichs, Roger A. 2006. Energy: Its Use and the Environment, Fourth Edition. Thomson

Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA.

4. "The White House Blog." Our Dependence on Foreign Oil Is Declining. Web. 10 Mar. 2012.

<http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/03/01/our-dependence-foreign-oil-declining>.

5. Greene, David L., Janet L. Hopson, and Jia Li. "Have We Run out of Oil Yet? Oil Peaking

Analysis from an Optimist's Perspective." Energy Policy 34 (2006): 515-31.

6. Kesicki, Fabian. "The Third Oil Price Surge - What's Different This Time?" Energy Policy 38

(2010): 1596-606.

7. "OPEC Share of World Crude Oil Reserves." OPEC. Web. 05 Apr. 2012.

<http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/data_graphs/330.htm>.

8. "Member Countries." OPEC. Web. 05 Apr. 2012.

<http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/about_us/25.htm>.

9. "Reduce Oil Dependence Costs." Fuel Economy. Department of Energy. Web. 10 Mar. 2012.

<http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/oildep.shtml>.

10. "DOE - Fossil Energy: U.S. Petroleum Reserves." DOE. Department of Energy. Web. 03 Feb.

2012. <http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/reserves/>.

11. "U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis."

Petroleum & Other Liquids. Web. 15 Jan. 2012. <http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/>.

12. "Briefing Attacking Iran: Up in the Air." The Economist (2012): 27-32.

13. "Iran's UN Envoy Says Closing Strait of Hormuz Is an Option If Threatened." Bloomberg.

Web. 10 Apr. 2012. <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-19/iran-s-un-envoy-

says-closing-strait-of- hormuz-is-an-option-if-threatened.html>.

14. Kronenig, Matthew. "Time to Attack Iran." Foreign Affairs (2012): 76-86.

15. "Automobile Emissions: An Overview." U.S. EPA. Environmental Protection Agency. Web.

12 Jan. 2012. <http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/05-autos.pdf>.

P a g e | 45

16. "National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)." EPA. Environmental Protection

Agency. Web. 03 Feb 2012. <http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html>.

17. "Human-Related Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide." EPA. Environmental Protection

Agency. Web. 03 Apr. 2012.

<http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html>.

18. "Nitrogen Oxides: Health." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 03 Feb 2012.

<http://www.epa.gov/airquality/nitrogenoxides/health.html>.

19. "Nitrogen Oxide Sources." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 02 Feb 2012.

<http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/broker?_service=data>.

20. "Sulfur Dioxide." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 03 Feb 2012.

<http://www.epa.gov/air/sulfurdioxide/>.

21. "Sulfur Dioxide Sources." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 02 Feb 2012.

<http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/broker?_service=data>.

22. "Gasoline Sulfur Standards." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 03 Feb 2012.

<http://www.epa.gov/otaq/standards/fuels/gas-sulfur.htm>.

23. "Tier 2 Gasoline Sulfur Program." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 03 Feb

2012. <http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/gasolinefuels/tier2/index.htm>.

24. "Presidential Candidates on Energy Policy." Council on Foreign Relations. Web. 03 Feb

2012. <http://www.cfr.org/united-states/candidates-energy-policy/p26796>.

25. Congressional Budget Office. Using Biofuel Tax Credits to Achieve Energy and

Environmental Policy Goals. July 2010.

26. Mussato, Solange I., Giuliano Dragone, Pedro M.R. Guimaraes, Joao Paulo A. Silva, Livia M.

Carneiro, Ines C. Roberto, Antonio Vicente, Lucilia Domingues, Jose A. Teixeira.

Technological Trends, Global Market, and Challenges of Bio-Ethanol Production. 2010.

Biotechnology Advances 28, 817-830.

27. Yacobucci, Brent. Biofuels Incentives: A Summary of Federal Programs. 2010.

Congressional Research Service. < http://www.stoel.com/files/R40110.pdf>

28. Giampietro, Mario, Kozo Mayumi. The Biofuel Delusion. Sterling Virginia: Earthscan, 2009.

29. Khanna, Madhu, Jurgen Scheffran, David Ziberman. Handbook of Bioenergy Economics and

Policy. New York: Springer, 2010.

P a g e | 46

30. Campbell, Elizabeth. U.S., European Ethanol Boosts Food Costs. Bloomberg. 2010.

<http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-10-19/u-s-european-ethanol-boosts-food-

costs-goldin-says.html>

31. Cleveland, Cutler. Net Energy Analysis. 2010. The Encyclopedia of Earth.

<http://www.eoearth.org/article/Net_energy_analysis>

32. PBS. Timeline: History of the Electric Car. 2009.

<http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/223/electric-car-timeline.html>

33. “Plug-in Electric Vehicles: A Practical Plan for Progress. Indiana University School of

Public and Environmental Affairs. February 2011.

34. Stephan, Craig H., and John Sullivan. "Environmental and Energy Implications of Plug-In

Hybrid-Electric Vehicles." Environmental Science and Technology 42 (2008): 1185-1190.

35. “2012 Chevy Volt | Electric Car | Chevrolet." 2012 Cars, SUVs, Trucks, Crossovers & Vans.

Chevrolet. Web. 15 March 2012. <http://www.chevrolet.com/volt-electric-car/>.

36. Bunkley, Nick. "GM Suspends Production of Chevrolet Volt." New York Times. Web. 15

Mar. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/business/gm-suspends-production-of-

chevrolet-volt.html?_r=2>.

37. "Chevy Volt a Bad Sign for Electric Car Sales?" CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 05 Mar. 2012.

Web. 15 March 2012. <http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505145_162-57390448/chevy-

volt-a-bad-sign-for-electric-car-sales/>.

38. "Nissan LEAF." Nissan Leaf Electric Car: 100% Electric. Zero Gas. Zero Tailpipe. Nissan.

Web. 15 March 2012. <http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/index>.

39. "The Tesla Roadster - The Electric Supercar." The Electric Tesla Roadster. Web. 15 March

2012. <http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster>.

40. "JAGUAR TO BUILD C-X75 HYBRID SUPERCAR." Jaguar USA. Web. 15 March 2012.

<http://www.jaguar.com/us/en/about_jaguar/news_pr/project_c-x75>.

41. "The Plug-Ins Are Coming: New Cars That Pass the Pump as They Celebrate the Socket."

The Plug-Ins Are Coming. New York Times, 19 Feb. 2012. Web. 15 March 2012.

<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05E7DC103FF93AA25751C0A9649

D8B63>.

41. U.S. Department of Energy. Consumer Energy Tax Incentives. 2010.

<http://www.energy.gov/taxbreaks.htm>

P a g e | 47

42. Canis, Bill. "Battery Manufacturing for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles: Policy Issues."

Congressional Research Service (2011).


Electric Sales, Revenue, and Average Price 2010- November 2011,. Energy Information

Administration. Web. 12 January 2012.

<http://www.eia.gov/electricity/sales_revenue_price/index.cfm>.

44. "2012 Chevy Cruze | Compact Car | Chevrolet." 2012 Cars, SUVs, Trucks, Crossovers &

Vans. Chevrolet. Web. 06 April 2012. <http://www.chevrolet.com/cruze-compact-car/>.


Electricity. Energy Information Administration. Web. 12 January 2012.

<http://www.eia.gov/electricity/>.

46. "U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis." EIA:

Indiana. Energy Information Administration. Web. 12 January 2012.

<http://www.eia.gov/state/state-energy-profiles.cfm?sid=IN>.

47. Becker, Thomas A. "Electric Vehicles in the United States." Center for Entrepreneurship &

Technology (2009).

48. Sterman, John D. “Business Dynamics”. McGraw Hill. 2000.

49. Mahajam, Vijay. “Diffusion of New Products: Empirical Generalizations and Managerial

Uses.” Marketing Science (1995).

50. "Population Projections Data Output: STATS Indiana." STATS Indiana: Data Everyone Can

Use. Web. 13 March 2012. <http://www.stats.indiana.edu/pop_proj/>.

51. "Indiana QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau." U.S. Census. Web. 13 March 2012.

<http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/18000.html>.

52. "EIA Transportation Forecasting." EIA. Web. 15 Apr. 2012.

<ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/forecasting/2008_sp_02.pdf>.

53. "Environmental Assessment of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles." Electric Power Research

Institute - Natural Resource Defense Council. Web. 15 Feb. 2012.

<http://mydocs.epri.com/docs/CorporateDocuments/SectorPages/Portfolio/PDM/PHEV-

ExecSum-vol1.pdf>.

P a g e | 48

54. "NADA Data - State of the Industry Report 2011." National Automobile Dealers Association.

Web. 10 Feb. 2012. <http://www.nada.org/NR/rdonlyres/0798BE2A-9291-44BF-A126-0

D372FC89B8A/0/NADA_DATA_08222011.pdf>.

55. Baron, Richard. "Climate, Energy and Electricity." IEA. Web. 12 Apr. 2012.

<http://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/climate_elec_annual2011SUM.pdf>.

56. "Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator." United States Environmental Protection Agency

(2010).

Electric Cars and Pollution in Indiana - Indiana University

Documents

Transcript of Electric Cars and Pollution in Indiana - Indiana University