Few are fooled by Nissan's claim that the LEAF is a zero emissions vehicle. The argument that emissions are simply shifted from the tailpipe to the smokestack is also incorrect and oversimplified.

In the end, the answer depends on a number of factors and is much more complicated than just saying zero emissions or all emissions are shifted to the smokestack.

Hi, this is an interesting point.

It is said that electric vehicles do not contaminate because the motor used to move the vehicle is electric and it does not burn gasoline. That point is not correct because that electric power is generated with a conventional power plant (coal, natural gas, etc.) so the CO2 production is not eliminated.

Furthermore things are even more complicated. To know if an electric vehicle contaminate more or less than a conventional one we have to compare how much CO2 is generated with the conventional power plants and with the conventional cars.

In favour of the electric vehicles I can say that:

- The profited energy in a battery totally charged is 8 times bigger than the energy profited in a full deposit of gasoline (the mechanical performance conversion factor is bigger with an electric motor). Also, the performance of a power plant is 5 times better than a combustion car motor.

- According to the “Carbon Monitoring for Action of the Center for Global Development” data base, the European power plants mean emissions of CO2 are about 445 g/kWh. With a battery of 50 kWh (for an electric car) you can road about 350 km, resulting on an emission of 63g/km. A very good data for a new gasoline car is about 139 g/km.

- The emissions produced by a power plant are more centralized, more controlled and are easier to reduce than the ones produced by conventional cars. Also, renewable energies are more and more used and they do not produced CO2 during the generation of electricity, reducing the mean global CO2 emissions and then the electric vehicles emissions.

Charging via Solar or Wind would decidedly reduce CO2.... but would likely be done overnight (or via exchanged batteries in the case of solar).
Coal via the electric grid is not a terrific gain... especially if the plant is a great distance from the charging station (the grid is less than 80% efficient at transmitting power thru substations and transformers).
Natural Gas generation would be easier to control emissions. (I'd like to see a NatGas/electric hybrid... why is this so late in coming?)
Ethanol is sadly still a fuel that requires burning... thus contributing to climate change... twice if you count food and land disruption.

Electric vehicles can be used also to storage renewable energy (vehicle to grid) and use this energy to regulate the central electric grid.
This is the most important problem that renewable energies have today, to help the grid to regulate the over demands or to storage the energy when there are excess of energy production.

Your article, Josh, is on point! Few are convinced that tailpipe emissions equals all emissions.

I make a similar argument re:ethanol. As an alternate liquid fuel, OK. It is now used to dilute gasoline as well as jet fuel. So there is less demand for petroleum. But how much goes IN before something comes OUT? Also, it is still burned. So the "green" argument is very weak, as it still contributes to climate change.

As for a better grid:
Not frequently offered as an alternate... Kinetic (Flywheel) storage.
As example: solar to flywheel to grid. This enables transferal of consumption from day to night. Yet another method to reduce CO2 and gain flexibility over time of consumption.
In a similar vein, Hydro power companies (Niagara Mohawk, for one) pump water to a storage site for peak hour release. If pumps could be as efficient as flywheels... or are they?

Alberto's comment to transfer back to the grid could be useful in disasters... when the grid fails - bring the cars nearby, and power pumps and refrigeration from them.

Each facet requires work... each has an efficiency to contribute... and consumption efficiency could reduce demand on combustion, making all this cleaner.

If only each LEAF vehicle came with its own wind turbine.

The answer is relatively straightforward if you have a solar installation on your house that is sized correctly to offset the electrical needs of your home as well as your car. Most homes have sufficient rooftop real estate to accomplish this. In my opinion, you are not taking full advantage of the environmental benefits of electric vehicles unless you address this energy issue on the demand side. Demand-side generation is much more efficient than central plant distribution in terms of line-losses as well, not to mention reduced impact on transmission line carrying capacities. My moral: If you got an EV, get some PV.

I should add that charging your vehicle this way would have to be done during peak daylight hours to avoid the transmission and storage debate and create the lowest net emissions.

I work for an automation company who design and create the control panels and generators for the latest formula E racing cars, nothing is as yet similar in the way of pricing or efficiency but the chance for advancement within this set up will push towards the correct outcome.

The cars are very similar to a laptop in theory, lithium ion battery with a plug in cable which allows the cars to last for an acceptable and more realistic distance before needing to be plugged in again.

The technology will advance and hopefully Formula E will be at the forefront of eco development, eventually filtering down in to the more affordable market but with the correct appeal, as that is where it will be most affective.