Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation Earth

Emissions Dropped 1.8% Every Year in California's Bay Area. Researchers Credit EVs (yahoo.com) 164

Posted by EditorDavid from the airing-judgments dept.
An anonymous reader shared this report from the Los Angeles Times: A network of air monitors installed in Northern California has provided scientists with some of the first measurable evidence quantifying how much electric vehicles are shrinking the carbon footprint of a large urban area. Researchers from UC Berkeley set up dozens of sensors across the Bay Area to monitor planet-warming carbon dioxide, the super-abundant greenhouse gas produced when fossil fuels are burned. Between 2018 and 2022, the region's carbon emissions fell by 1.8% each year, which the Berkeley researchers concluded was almost exclusively owed to drivers switching to electric vehicles, according to a study published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology.

In that time, Californians purchased about 719,500 zero-emission or plug-in hybrid vehicles, more than triple the amount compared to the previous five years, according to the California Department of Energy. The Bay Area also had a higher rate of electric vehicle adoption than the state as a whole.

While the findings confirm the state's transition to zero-emission vehicles is substantially lowering carbon emissions, it also reveals these reductions are still not on pace to meet the state's ambitious climate goals. Emissions need to be cut by around 3.7% annually, or nearly twice the rate observed by the monitors, according to Ronald Cohen, UC Berkeley professor of chemistry. Although cars and trucks are the state's largest source of carbon emissions, it underscores the need to deploy zero-emission technology inside homes and for the power grid.

"I think what we see right now is evidence of strong success in the transportation sector," Cohen said. "We're going to need equally strong success in home and commercial heating, and in the [industrial] sources. We don't yet see significant movement in those, but policy pushing on those is not as far ahead as policy on electric vehicles." Although cities only cover roughly 3% of global surface area, they produce about 70% of carbon emissions.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Emissions Dropped 1.8% Every Year in California's Bay Area. Researchers Credit EVs More

Emissions Dropped 1.8% Every Year in California's Bay Area. Researchers Credit EVs

Comments Filter:

  • Population loss? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ProfBooty ( 172603 ) on Monday April 15, 2024 @06:45AM (#64395132)

    Hasn't the bay area had a lot of population loss in the past few years?

    https://www.kron4.com/news/bay... [kron4.com]

    San Fran alone lost 8.6%.

    • That was my first thought as well, not just gross population but the abandonment of the downtown area for business since COVID.

      • Re:Population loss? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by fluffernutter ( 1411889 ) on Monday April 15, 2024 @07:03AM (#64395160)
        How do they know it wasn't just simply because people didn't drive to work in the pandemic and many continue to stay home? The link for this technology says a lot about how they detect greenhouse gases but not whether they count the number of cars in order to determine a baseline of traffic density. That's a pretty important factor.

        • Re:Population loss? (Score:5, Informative)

          by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Monday April 15, 2024 @08:02AM (#64395258)
          Changing population and miles driven per person don't matter to their calculations because they are based on vehicle miles traveled:

          Traffic flow data were obtained from the Caltrans Performance Measurement System (PeMS). (44) Data for 693 PeMS observation sites within the BEACO2N region of influence as of 2018 were included in our assessments. We calculated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the product of the vehicle count at each PeMS site and the segment length to the next PeMS site...

          For fVMT, the PEMS data set was used as a proxy for vehicle miles traveled in the region. (44) Preprocessing of the two data sets is described in Section 2.7. We conduct a simple multiple linear regression (MLR) to derive the coefficients m1, m2, m3, and c, using the posterior derived hourly anthropogenic emissions as emsanthro. The value of m1 was 2.3, which means about half of the observed seasonal trend is explained by the PG&E reported natural gas consumption. The constant emissions (c = econstant) were 156 tC/h. The term m2t + m3 can be factored out, and the rate at which this value changes over the 5-year study period is a reasonable proxy for the rate of change of overall vehicle fleet efficiency (average CO2 emissions per vehicle mile traveled).

          https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.10... [acs.org]

    • The bay area as a whole did not lose 8.6% over the 2018-2022 relevant period. Many SF residents don't drive in the first place, also, whether gas guzzlers or EVs. Emissions also don't proportionally diminish linearly with population. Unless buildings go vacant - which happened with offices - they continue to produce emissions. While office workers stopped coming to offices during the pandemic, most didn't leave the bay area.

    • Hasn't the bay area had a lot of population loss in the past few years?

      https://www.kron4.com/news/bay... [kron4.com] San Fran alone lost 8.6%.

      The data was: "Between 2018 and 2022, the region's carbon emissions fell by 1.8% each year."

      Over that period of time, the bay area population was nearly constant (declined by 1.1%, to be accurate). That is not enough to account for a 1.8 percent decrease in emissions per year compounded over four years.
      https://usafacts.org/data/topi... [usafacts.org]

    • Hasn't the bay area had a lot of population loss in the past few years?

      https://www.kron4.com/news/bay... [kron4.com]

      San Fran alone lost 8.6%.

      Sort of, maybe, but depending on which data source you believe, the population for the entire Bay Area has dropped by 30k in 2022 and 10k in 2023 [mercurynews.com], or it increased by 20k [sfgate.com]. Either way, from an eyeball on the ground perspective, it's quite obvious that the total population didn't change by much (aside from San Francisco).

      I live in the Bay Area (not in San Francisco). I personally know several people who have moved out in the last few years. However, there are no empty houses, and few empty apartments, even

    • My thought too. And aren't more people not buying cars because of their prices? And doesn't California fuel costs cause folks to drive less? I do not think that this is because of electric vehicles, unless there is a rise in particulate pollution due to heavier vehicles causing more microplastics/rubbers/etc. off tires - I looked at the article without reading in depth and it didn't say.

    • In that top 10, only 1 is in the Bay Area. 3 others in southern California. Meanwhile 4 others are in deep red states, 2 in swing areas. San Francisco is overpriced, period. It makes Silicon Valley look cheap. The tech is in Silicon Valley, S.F. only pretends to be techie. Bizzarely, it acts like a bedroom community with workers commuting south; I don't get it. Though more working at home now, good luck keeping that salary if the next job has a home office in a cheaper location...

      Anyway - "lot of pop

    • Can't know the population change of the entire Bay Area very well, but this random website

      https://www.macrotrends.net/gl... [macrotrends.net].

      suggests that between 2018 and 2022 the population of the state decreased by 1.01%.
      2018: 39,437,463
      2022: 39,040,616

      The OP article states about 1.8% reduction per year, over that period that's about 5% total reduction.

      The air quality sensors likely have some accommodation for pollution coming in the their area of measurement from outside it, but population change doesn't seem to explain

  • Shame they didn’t cover NOx, SOx, etc as wel (Score:3)

    by shilly ( 142940 ) on Monday April 15, 2024 @06:46AM (#64395134)

    Cleaner buildings, roads and lungs where it really matters - where people live and work — is a more immediately obvious benefit of EVs cf CO2.

  • But not practical everywhere (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jbarr ( 2233 ) on Monday April 15, 2024 @07:03AM (#64395162) Homepage

    I live in rural America, and an EV charging infrastructure is largely non-existent. In concept, EVs have their merits, but in execution, they are not usable everywhere. And frankly, I can't afford to replace 2 ICE vehicles and a farm vehicle with EVs and the supporting charging infrastructure. And besides, when the power goes out, all of my vehicles can still run.

    • I think if city dwellers and commercial fleets switched to EVs, that you wouldn't really need to worry about it much right now. Demand for oil might go down a bit and make gas cheaper for you in the short term. But long term your fuel costs are going to get pretty serious. Hopefully BEVs are better by then.

      • Re: But not practical everywhere (Score:4, Interesting)

        by madbrain ( 11432 ) on Monday April 15, 2024 @07:42AM (#64395208) Homepage Journal

        Oil consumption per capita is already on the decline. National consumption is not on a clear decline path. I don't expect gas prices will drop anytime soon. Oil producers can limit their production to avoid that. Some might go out of business. I would expect gas at the pump to get more expensive, once gas stations start disappearing. We are not there yet. Could be 1-2 decades away. We have been driving plug-ins since 2012, though. Currently one EV and one PHEV. Most of the miles on the PHEV have been electric. We do use the PHEV for road trips, and not the EV. During our last road trip, gas was $6.99/gallon.

        • With taxes and withdrawing of subsidies the retail price for fuel may very well go up significantly. But that has nothing to do with EVs. That's the reverse of supply-side economics. (actually, I'm not convinced supply-side economics works in the forward direction. but it does seem to work in reverse)

          Overall I think PHEV are the best compromise for people. They have flexibility and range because they can run gasoline, and save you money and reduce emissions because you can potentially charge them on a home

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Jzanu ( 668651 )
      Liquid fuels will remain the best way to solve the remote and detached agricultural field problems in the near and intermediate terms. In the very short term, your farm vehicles using diesel might be retrofitted to use bio-diesel (basically plant oil mixed with diesel to improve emissions). Eventually long running distributed renewable energy powered hydrogen production and conversion into syngas (easier but at the cost of different kinds of emissions), and hydrogen for binding with with liquid organic carr

    • Re:But not practical everywhere (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Junta ( 36770 ) on Monday April 15, 2024 @08:51AM (#64395330)

      I have family in rural america, and EV charging is better than city. Because no one gives a damn if your car parks right next to your house, right next to your breaker box. Adding a hardwired L2 charger to any house with 200A service is a few hundred dollars, because all you need is the EVSE, one breaker, and a trivial amount of wire. Go more city and *maybe* you can have a car nearby, but only streetside, and maybe you are allowed to install electrical gear, at some significant expense, but maybe not. The things that make home EV charging challenging for some urban people just don't apply in the country.

      On the power outage scenario, you car's battery doesn't suddenly empty, no more than your gas tanks drain. In fact, if you felt fed up with power outages, then a solar array would mean you could replenish your cars range. With plenty of land to do the panels however you feel like (much cheaper and more effective to pole mount in the country, suburban has to settle for roof mounted solar only). Of course you likely have a generator or two, that's likely a PITA because you don't run it enough and infrequently used engines have some pain points.

      In terms of replacing perfectly working vehicles, that's a bad idea to replace them if they are fine. Whether ICE or EV, best thing is to "drive it into the ground", because the difference in emissions is far less than the impact of frequently manufacturing cars. *However* when the time does come for an ICE vehicle to be put out to pasture because it's just not worth fixing anymore, an EV is actually a decent choice for rural living as a selection for the replacement.

      • Whether ICE or EV, best thing is to "drive it into the ground", because the difference in emissions is far less than the impact of frequently manufacturing cars.

        That's not true in the slightest. It's not even true in typical high turn-over scenarios. An EV will have covered its manufacturing emissions within 2 years of ownership typically. A typical car is kept for 5 years+ and operated by a variety of drivers for 10+.

        "Driving it into the ground" is nonsense because there's no limited useful life for a looked after car. There are plenty of people who trivially keep their car running for 20+ years. Shit, when I replaced my petrol car it was 15 years old and in good

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dargaud ( 518470 )
      There are plenty of missing niches for EVs. For instance our 2 cars are dying and I'm thinking about EV. BUT we are on a co-property with a small common parking lot (7 cars max). It would seem obvious to put a charging station there, and yet there's no technical solution available. Either we ask one of the commercial charging stations to build one there, but then they'll charge us through the nose each time we use it. Or one of us builds a private connector. But there's not (that I know) a simple solution w

      • commercial charging stations

        Yes

        a simple solution with a switch to select which person pays

        See above. You just buy commercial charging equipment and slap on a card reader. Use a bypass code for yourself. Pay for all the electric or put it on its own meter and power bill.

        According to ChargePoint, there's actually rebates, grants, and incentives available for multi-family properties. Not sure if any would apply to a co-owned property. The big downside is the 10s of thousands you'd be spending on commercial equipment where you'd never recoup the cost. But at least it would probably last 20+

    • I'm in a large metro area but make a 500 mile trip (1 way) every 3-4 months. The states I must drive through have almost no charging capacity. My Accord hybrid works great for that trip as I can go door to door on a single tank. The EV works for great for every local trip my wife or I make. I think we're at least a decade away from even entertaining the idea of 2 EVs but we love the hybrid.

    • I can't afford to replace 2 ICE vehicles and a farm vehicle with EVs

      At this point, where you are, it makes sense at most to have one EV and one ICE. Get all the advantages on the short commutes, and use the other vehicle for the longer stuff. Depending on the amount of driving the EV does, a standard 110V outlet might be plenty. Slow charging is better for the battery anyway. When the power goes out, the batteries stay charged. Multi-day power outages sound like a bigger problem than your car choice.

      Farm vehicles have so little competition it doesn't really matter what

    • I've seen the "when the power goes out comment before", but it makes no sense. It's not like people are driving with a bunch of extension cords. Presumably when the power goes out you didn't leave your car uncharged. Also, when the power goes out the gas pumps shut off at the gas station. You can store extra gas for your car, but you can just as easy for a generator too.

      • Also, when the power goes out the gas pumps shut off at the gas station.

        Some stations are have backup generators. They are kind of the perfect business to justify it, both for sales since people want to buy fuel when there is no power, plus infrastructure wise they already have a big tank of generator fuel on site that gets turned over regularly.

        Also I understand in some jurisdictions is is actually required by law.

    • >> I can't afford to replace 2 ICE vehicles and a farm vehicle with EVs and the supporting charging infrastructure

      You can get a level 2 charger on Amazon for under $500 and charge your vehicles at home. The fuel savings will pay that off rapidly.

      >> when the power goes out, all of my vehicles can still run

      When the power goes out your EV's will still run as well. They don't just shut down because you don't have electricity. And if its a regional power outage you won't be able to get gasoline becau

      • You are grossly under-estimating the process of having a level 2 charger by saying just $500. I already am through this process: If you need a 200amp service installed, thats like $4k; if you already have 200amp service, and need a bigger panel for more slots (future upgrades to reduce nat gas usage): $1700 installed. Another $1700 (for my situation) to run the 50amp line: $1700. Than you add in cost of the charger. These are up-front cost not many would want to fork out, if a toyota hybrid exists tod

        • >> You are grossly under-estimating the process

          You are grossly overstating the costs, or maybe you paid that much and got snookered. There is absolutely no need for 200 amp service. Level 2 chargers costing under $500 will let you dial in the maximum amount of current going to the car, and it can be set to whatever your existing panel will comfortably allow. I'm seeing one on Amazon for $200 with that feature.

    • And a hundred years ago, you'd have said 'I live in rural America, and a gasoline pumping infrastructure is largely-nonexistent.'

      Actually, you'd have said 'a paved road infrastructure is largely non-existent.'

      You'd also have argued the merits of horses versus cars for most of the same arguments you make here.

      Which is what many people at the time actually did.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      I live in rural America, and an EV charging infrastructure is largely non-existent. In concept, EVs have their merits, but in execution, they are not usable everywhere. And frankly, I can't afford to replace 2 ICE vehicles and a farm vehicle with EVs and the supporting charging infrastructure. And besides, when the power goes out, all of my vehicles can still run.

      In the late 19th century, there was little infrastructure for ICE vehicles. I mean, you had to run to a pharmacy and buy it in single gallon bottl

    • Indeed, in my state the electric charging infrastructure is pretty sparse. And since I WFH I don't drive that much anyway so why buy a rolling laptop?

    • I live in rural America, and an EV charging infrastructure is largely non-existent. In concept, EVs have their merits, but in execution, they are not usable everywhere.

      I live in rural America, and EVs are great here. Oh, public charging infrastructure mostly doesn't exist, but that's fine because I have electricity -- get this -- at my house!. I even have flush toilets, 'cause we're high class. The nearest Supercharger is ~100 miles away, but I have a garage, and a barn, and I put EV chargers in both. For normal daily driving, it works fine to just charge at home -- car is fully charged every morning -- and when I go on a long trip, well, the Supercharger network has me

    • There need to be more PHEVs for the transition. After researching cars for the last year, I've decided that my next one will be a PHEV of some kind, because none of the errands I run will ever take me more than the 60km-ish range of the battery, and then when I do actually have to drive somewhere far away (my Mother lives 1000km away), I don't have to worry about fuelling. I'm also planning to lease it, because the landscape will be completely different in 3 years.

      FWIW, when the power goes out, a lot of mod

  • The Owens Corning factory near the airport used to make my throat hurt when I worked in Santa Clara, that's closed now. A lot of industrial sites have closed up in the last 10 years to make way for more office buildings, and the air quality has noticably improved in the South Bay.

  • First off, there was Covid - in most urban areas traffic decreased as a result. Do variations in the reading correlate with that?

    Second, did they monitor and account for any population changes in the area? TFA - if it can be called an article, which I question - doesn't mention that. Third, did they analyze Bay-area car registrations to see if there was an uptick in replacing older ICE vehicles with new ones? That alone could account for a non-trivial decrease in emissions.

    It's great that emissions dropped

  • From the paper [acs.org]:

    We find a decreasing emissions trend of 1.8 ± 0.3%/year over the region from 2018 to 2022.

  • How many people were born?

    Normally when pollution goes up, I hear how many people will die. So now that it's lower will we see an increase from all these magical human years that just got poofed into the world?

    • Clean air has nothing to do with increasing births. It increases average life expectancy. California cares more about the health of their living population than the number of unborn fetuses. Unlike some other states...

  • being brought on line daily. [npr.org]

    They do this while gaslighting (pun intended) the ignorant in to thinking they're amazingly progressive on green energy initiatives as well.

    I will give them credit for excellent disinformation campaigns which open societies are more vulnerable to than ones with entirely state run media.

  • There's almost no decrease during COVID lock down (Score:3)

    by CQDX ( 2720013 ) on Monday April 15, 2024 @11:02AM (#64395668)

    The ACS paper about this study mentions a dip in CO2 emissions during the height of the lockdown but if you look at the graphs in the paper it is very minor compared to the seasonal variations over this 4-year study. What this tells me is that these sensors are not sensitive to CO2 from auto emissions or rather the bulk of CO2 emissions seen with these sensors are not from cars so you can't draw any conclusions the EVs are helping.

  • Say what? Now 0.04% is "super-abundant."

  • The pandemic and working from home have probably been the biggest effect during that period.

    • And that's the most useful from a pragmatic common sense position, too. I'm sorry, if companies are going to croon about how 'green' they are and want thousands of employees who work in front of screens to travel to an office, it's the height of hypocrisy. Fewer people needing to travel really cuts down on fuel uses and tailpipe emissions, whether it be from a car or a power station.

  • It's easy to get biased when you get together a bunch of EV enthusiast scientists and ask them for conclusions. We need a team of sociopathic, distances scientists to have a multi-paradigm study and to draw objective conclusions instead.

Slashdot Top Deals

Some people manage by the book, even though they don't know who wrote the book or even what book.

Close