3 ms·
At least in the US, that statement was much more true 20 years ago than it is today [0]. Today, swapping “natural gas” out for coal is more accurate. There are
by ddulaney 6y ago
At least in the US, that statement was much more true 20 years ago than it is today [0]. Today, swapping “natural gas” out for coal is more accurate. There are three big points to consider:
- Overall, the (US) electricity mix is lower-emitting than gasoline.
- The US electricity mix is trending greener. (Gasoline cars are also getting more efficient, but many of those changes also apply to electric cars)
- The electricity sector is easier to move than automobiles. We’ve already seen a couple of major shifts (coal->nat gas->renewables), while we’re still very slow on the first big paradigm shift for cars.
[0]: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-...
- bagacrap 6y ago4. whatever particulate matter is produced is emitted much farther from my lungs
- ddulaney 6y agoYep! Moving air pollution sources somewhere else is always good (though coal is so much worse than gasoline that any increase in coal burning might be a net negative). This is one reason to be super excited about coal plant shutdowns: often coal plants (even “clean coal”) represent the largest point sources of PM2.5 in a whole region. It’s worth remembering that this does have the effect of concentrating pollution. If a coal plant opens near you, that might be worse on your health than even a broad change to EVs. Happily, nobody is really building much coal anymore, and natgas/renewables are much better for air quality than either coal plants or gasoline engines.