Does coal mean electric cars are bad? No, it's the other way around.

Coal may make electric cars dirtier to run in the short term, Voelcker writes. But, in the long term, its electric cars that help make the case for rendering coal obsolete.

Ina Fassbender/Reuters/File
A car drives past shovelled earth in an open-cast lignite coal mine west of Cologne, Germany.

Every so often, electric-car skeptics will attack the idea of using grid electricity to power a car by bringing up coal.

"Yeah," the argument goes, "but you're just burning coal instead of gasoline in your electric car--so how's that any better?"

There is, of course, a fair amount of science that shows it actually is better when measured by wells-to-wheels carbon emissions.

The most recent study came from the Union of Concerned Scientists last year, complete with a neat little map looking at each state's electric grid.

The conclusion: Even in the few states with the very dirtiest grids, driving a mile on grid electricity is barely worse than the most fuel-efficient non-hybrid car (roughly 34 mpg). 

And in states with the cleanest grids, there's no combustion-engine vehicle that can match an electric car for low carbon emissions.

A landmark 2007 study jointly produced by the Electric Power Research Institute (the research arm of the electric utility industry) and the Natural Resources Defense Council comes to broadly similar conclusions.

It's also worth noting that the majority of electric cars operate in states with very low-coal grids: California, Washington, and New York among them.

And most state grids are slowly getting cleaner.

Natural gas is cheap and readily available, more wind and solar are being added, and some of the most antiquated coal plants will be shut down or converted to natural gas in the years to come.

But what really sparked this article was an article in Mother Jones magazine, entitled "How Green is A Tesla, Really?"

It's conceptually quite similar to one we published in May by David Noland, who extensively analyzed whether his 2013 Tesla Model S pollutes as much as a sport-utility vehicle.

Hint: It doesn't.

But the Mother Jones piece contained this wonderful concluding paragraph:

To use the nation's reliance on dirty coal as an argument against electric cars is to get things backward. Rather, the prospect of making cars far greener than they are today should count as yet another argument against the nation's continued reliance on dirty coal.

We couldn't have said it better ourselves.

We should note, however, that for certain non-carbon smokestack emissions--including nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2)--that mile driven in an electric car is worse than one in a modern gasoline car.

[hat tip: John C. Briggs]

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.