A lot to respond to! About the comments from GregRF and ReddyLeaf. Take a look at Table 5 in our paper. On average in the US, electric cars cause 2.5 cents
per mile damages, of which 1.62 cents come from local pollutants (S02, NOx, etc) and the rest from the global pollutant (C02). On average in the US, gas cars
cause 2.0 cents per mile damages, of which 0.54 come from local pollutants and the rest from C02.
So we found that, on average, electric cars are better on C02 and worse on local pollution. But again, our paper is really about how much this
can vary from place to place. In the best county for EVs they only cause 0.67 cents per mile damages. In the best county for gas vehicles, they cause 1.13 cents per mile
damages. The worst county for EV's is a bit worse than the worst county for gas vehicles (4.72 vs 4.47)
Right, so the mapping to damage in terms of $ is extremely important to the conclusions of this study, even given the gross negligence of skipping the emissions of upstream processes. Which is more important, increased GHG emissions or non GHG emissions? It seems that the mainstream press can't distinguish between the two. What is the effect of just getting all the coal plants to install advanced pollution control equipment? Stepping outside of transport, isn't it important for our health to have the 40% of electric generating units (EGUs) that do not have this equipment install it as soon as possible? Once that is done or if the plant is too old anyways and is retired, then what is the resulting impact on transport?
Cleaner Power Plants | Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for Power Plants | US EPA
It seems the problem is that the Clean Air Act hasn't been fully implemented and the various interests have successfully fought the regulations and the regulators to delay its effects. We have been paying for that with our health and with climate change in the meantime, regardless of the issues in transport.
Further, there should be a premium placed on the ability to shift emissions from the point of the vehicle, out of where most of us live (hence ZEV credits). The study ignores this in the economic model. The study also ignores the fact that combustion inside these vehicles is heavily dependent on the tuning of the vehicle and worsens with age, while it takes real world emissions data from many old power plants.
Also, to put more color onto the difference in vehicle emissions with better data, look at this comparison on fueleconomy.gov:
Compare Side-by-Side
Switch to the "Energy and Environment" tab and select tailpipe and upstream GHG which uses the Argonne National Labs GREET model for CO2 emissions and using annual electricity production mix. Here's the results:
2015 Toyota Prius: 218 g/mile
2015 BMW 535i: 453 g/mile
2015 Audi RS7: 572 g/mile
Now, a Model S 85 kWh in:
San Francisco, CA: 150 g/mile
Los Angeles, CA: 150 g/mile
New York, NY: 150 g/mile
Boston, MA: 160 g/mile
Seattle, WA: 170 g/mile
Washington, DC: 190 g/mile
Miami, FL: 250 g/mile
Dallas, TX: 250 g/mile
Atlanta, GA: 270 g/mile
Chicago, IL: 300 g/mile
Now, since this data uses annual production mix, it doesn't reflect the reality that in many of the power generation districts, the super-off-peak production is dominated by hydro, nuclear, and wind power. So the actual emissions from charging at super-off-peak is far less. Even in Chicago, where the power generation in that district is dominated with coal production, the CO2 emissions is lower than a BMW 535i by a significant margin. A family choosing a Model S over a BMW 535i, even in Chicago, will have a minimum of a 33% lower CO2 emissions level after 5,000 or so miles. Now, to compare it against a Prius, it is higher if one charges a lot during the day from the grid. Of course, if one has solar panels and is charging off them during the day, then emissions are again far lower.