It’s not surprising that there’s currently pretty hard working campaigning going on to discredit the energy efficiency and environmental benefits from introducing EV’s (Electric Vehicles). The smear campaigns focus on questioning the energy consumption and carbon footprint for the EV manufacturing process Vs the potential and hypothetical emissions savings by then driving such a vehicle. Talk to almost anyone on the street about their opinion on EVs and they’ll usually spruik concern about the precious metals required and manufacturing emissions. Not to say those concerns aren’t based on some sort of reality – but the naysayers have somewhat exaggerated the cons, and tried to hide to pros. Even the Union of Concerned Scientists have to acknowledge that manufacturing an EV will emit between 15% and 68% more carbon than producing a petroleum car of the equivalent size. But that’s only half the story.
A while ago we did a comprehensive comparison of EVs to combustion engine vehicles using a life cycle analysis model and our resident mathematician, engineer and Founder Ben Gilkes. You can find that here, but let’s recap and also explore some important updates.
Most of the increase in emissions for the manufacture of EVs is due to the exotic materials for the batteries – like lithium and cobalt, for example. As I’m sure many of you are already aware, we believe in transparency, and presenting both sides to each story. At the moment the large scale mining and refining of such products isn’t great for the environment. And in some cases (accessing cobalt, also used in the batteries), is particularly horrendous from a human rights perspective, with a current landmark law suit underway by the families of children who’ve been killed or maimed in cobalt mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo, against tech giants such as Apple, Microsoft, Dell and Tesla. For Tesla’s part, who are certainly always trying to be lead the way in tech developments, Elon Musk has said via Twitter that his batteries use less than 3% cobalt and the next gen will use none.
Lithium is mined without human rights issues, but does use an exorbitant amount of water and produce hefty GHGs and chemical waste. In Tibet there have been reports of mass fish killings from the lithium mining, and excessive removal of freshwater supply for the mining is leading to Chilean farmers and the very fragile ecosystem of the Atacama desert desperate for the precious resource (1/4 of the world’s lithium comes from Chile). So a few months back when I discovered start up Lilac Solutions, and what they’re doing to hugely improve extraction of this commodity, I was obviously excited. So this venture is going to scale and that will ensure that most of the issues around lithium are eradicated. And before we fixate upon lithium for EVs, let’s not forget it’s a necessary component in most electronics, like cell phones. And once again, Elon Musk claims that he’s aiming to use less lithium for his next batteries (and will also look at mining a lithium clay deposit in Nevada himself).
So let’s take the vehicles to the road. We need a metric which applies to both types of engine: MPG for petroleum fueled cars and MPGe for electric: this meaning the equivalent MPG it would have used, based on the kWh it consumes during each charge and how far it can travel on one charge. The exact figures are going to vary from one location to the next due to differences in how the electricity is sourced, how efficient the electricity distribution network is and the time of day or night that the charging takes place. For example, if you’re in Indiana, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky or New Mexico, over 95% of your power comes from fossil fuel sources – so this means owning an electric vehicle offers little benefit to the environment than owning a combustion engine car. But, on the other hand, if you’re in Maine, Illinois, Idaho, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, South Dakota or Washington, you can rest easier, as more than 50% of your energy comes from renewable sources.
But state variations aside, let’s use some averages, from the EPA. The average MPGe of a pure EV is 104; for a hybrid vehicle it’s 76. But the most alarming number is from your average American gasoline powered vehicle…which is a low 24.7 MPG!! So these numbers more than make up for the slightly higher manufacturing energy consumption for an EV. In fact, by the end of the third year of running your EV you’ll be in the black (green?) on that. And with the fast moving changes in this sector, we’ll expect the disparity between manufacturing energy/emissions of petrol Vs electric vehicles to keep decreasing, and therefore an even shorter period of ownership before you’re returning a positive balance for the planet.
And now you can have even more certainty and comfort from the decision to choose an EV over a traditional combustion, or petroleum, engine vehicle. A very recent study lends further support to long term environmental benefits. The Universities of Exeter and Cambridge in the UK, and Nijmegen in the Netherlands, joined forces to study the potential emissions benefits of electrifying the transportation and household heating sectors. They divided the globe into 59 regions based and looked at current and future emissions trade offs. The results were overwhelmingly positive: even in this current state of carbon intensity, 53 of these regions – which includes China and the United States – produce less lifetime emissions for EV’s than their fossil fuel alternatives. These 53 regions represent 95% of the world’s transport demands! The same results were mirrored for household electric heat pumps Vs their fossil fuel powered heating counterparts. This group of researchers recommend in no uncertain terms that we need to fast track the move to electrifying transportation and heating.
Taking into account emissions from manufacturing and ongoing energy use, it’s clear that we should encourage the switch to electric cars
Florian Knobloch, Lead Author of Net emission reductions from electric cars and heat pumps in 59 world regions over time.
In countries like Sweden and France, where there is heavy reliance on nuclear and renewable energy sources, the team found that lifetime emissions from EVs compared to gasoline cars were 70% lower! And in the UK that figure could be 30% lower for EVs. They predict that with the current trajectory of EV uptake, by 2050 every second car on the road could be electric, which would mean that global CO2 emissions would be reduced by 1.5 Gigatons per year…and for perspective, that’s the current annual emissions of Russia! Once you do the math (or find validated research which has), it seems that the arguments for not transitioning to EVs are pretty empty and perhaps based on fear of change or financial bias – certainly not science.
