-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Carbon Footprint report from Volvo
- Thread starter debrooker
- Start date
A quick scan of the doc does make the point that breakeven depends on electricity source i.e. global average is 148k miles but only from wind turbines is 46k (if I remember the numbers)
Terry F
Model 3 owner
The 146,000Km figure is worst case based on the vehicle using electricity generated 'Globally' (average worldwide emissions - and some countries use a lot of coal still). If you take the average emissions of EU produce electricity (EU28) then this falls to 84,000Km and if it were all green electricity (the study uses Wind but I would imagine that solar is not too different) then it falls to only 47,000Km or only around 3 years of average UK driving.
Well worth a read/scan if you are interested in this sort of thing.
Well worth a read/scan if you are interested in this sort of thing.
Terry F
Model 3 owner
I don't think so, this is a comprehensive report where the project was started back in 2019. Even with the use of dirty Global electricity where the EV needs to drive 146,000Km before the emissions equal the ICE version, the average life of the vehicle means that the ICE still produces more during its lifetime. It is just that the EV produces more emissions up-front as the battery manufacture causes a lot of emissions so at the 'new car' point the EV is already ahead. However, If you assume that the EV uses only green electricity then the lifetime emissions of the EV are only half of the ICE version. So this just shows how important it is to get the electricity generation side of things sorted out as much as to push the move to EVs.
mangrove79
Member
This thread will be interesting. Does Tesla have this kind of carbon footprint analysis? If anyone can share a link that would be great.
Volvo decided to believe that both their ICE and Electric cars achieved the WLTP values for MPG/Range, which is largely what creates the atypical figures they have used in their comparison, this favours the ICE way more than the EV. They also don't adequately consider the carbon cost upstream of the petrol pump. Also EVs built from the ground up are likely to be better than their ICE with a battery strapped on XC range.
Even with that, their EU28 figure of break even is 84K KM, so 52K miles. Given any car is likely to do at least twice that the better headline is that "Volvo show EVs full lifetime cost shown to be half that of a petrol car". The breakeven point is used by anti-EV camps as some kind of argument against electrification, mystifies me.
Even with that, their EU28 figure of break even is 84K KM, so 52K miles. Given any car is likely to do at least twice that the better headline is that "Volvo show EVs full lifetime cost shown to be half that of a petrol car". The breakeven point is used by anti-EV camps as some kind of argument against electrification, mystifies me.
Tesla's Impact report calculates the figure for equivalence being 5340 miles.
However, rather like my 13 yo they don't really show their working, and instead point out why other people's reports are likely to be wrong.
You can get a figure for the gco2/mile over a cars lifetime, and see their expected lifetime is 150K miles in Europe, so from that maybe work out that a Model 3 costs then 10.35 Tonnes CO2 Equivalent, which would put them at nearly half of Volvo's factory for EVs, and even lower than their ICE. This isn't entirely unreasonable, Volvo didn't build their manufacturing for CO2 efficiency.
Tesla's report is here -> https://www.tesla.com/ns_videos/2020-tesla-impact-report.pdf
However, rather like my 13 yo they don't really show their working, and instead point out why other people's reports are likely to be wrong.
You can get a figure for the gco2/mile over a cars lifetime, and see their expected lifetime is 150K miles in Europe, so from that maybe work out that a Model 3 costs then 10.35 Tonnes CO2 Equivalent, which would put them at nearly half of Volvo's factory for EVs, and even lower than their ICE. This isn't entirely unreasonable, Volvo didn't build their manufacturing for CO2 efficiency.
Tesla's report is here -> https://www.tesla.com/ns_videos/2020-tesla-impact-report.pdf
sparkymark75
Member
There’s also this independent study from Yale university.
environment.yale.edu
YSE Study Finds Electric Vehicles Provide Lower Carbon Emissions Through Additional Channels | Yale School of the Environment
A recent YSE-led study published in Nature Communications found that the total indirect emissions from the supply of chain of electric vehicles pale in comparison to the same indirect emissions from fossil fuel-powered vehicles.
Rustybkts
Member
Surely what really matters is that EV's reduce emitted pollutants to a barely measurable amount which will allow us all to breathe clean air in built up areas.
It will also reduce the way we currently waste resources as most of the materials in an EV can and will be recycled along with the fact that electricity will never run out if we generate it using the power of the sun.
All these "studies" can be made to read however you wish them to read.
Me, I just love driving EV's!
It will also reduce the way we currently waste resources as most of the materials in an EV can and will be recycled along with the fact that electricity will never run out if we generate it using the power of the sun.
All these "studies" can be made to read however you wish them to read.
Me, I just love driving EV's!
mangrove79
Member
I'm guessing Volvo's numbers would be a good representation for ICE OEMs using their existing factories, or new factories built using their ICE methodologies, to build their new EV's. This would apply to Audi, Mercedes, Ford, GM, Kia, etc. But for companies like Tesla, and to some extent Lucid, Rivian, who don't have the old ICE baggage to carry around, the manufacturing facilities probably already have carbon footprint in mind when they were built.
Wol747
Active Member
I haven't the time to read the report but one I saw recentlyestimated the incresed CO2 emissions from build at plus 20% but this was fully offset after about 18000Km with - obviously - a bigger saving the further you go. However all these studies have so many variables and assumptions you can cherry pick anything you want!
page3
Member
Unless I’ve missed something the report does not include the exploration, extraction, refinement, transportation, storage and delivery of petrol/diesel. If so this makes the whole report flawed.
Exactly Lookup Engineering Explained on youtube he did a video where he went through the numbers and included all CO2 released by the petrol refining process etc. legacy auto companies will continue to fudge the numbers to encourage those that are on the fence to continue buying their product. As with climate change studies you need to understand who is paying for the report.
Yale Study: Gas Cars Produce More Supply Chain Emissions Than EVs
Regardless of mining, manufacturing, and charging practices, the lifespan emissions of an EV are minimal.
Yale Study: Gas Cars Produce More Supply Chain Emissions Than EVs
Skeptics claim EVs are actually dirtier than gas cars, but we know that's not true. A new study dives deeper to prove that it's not even close to the truth.
insideevs.com
Terry F
Model 3 owner
Not true, see section 3.4 on page 20. They state that the report uses Well-to-Tank to include all environmental impact caused by production and distribution of the fuel (both oil and electricity).
I couldn't find what figure they use though, or any specific working to reach their lifetime in use cost. If we work backwards from 41tonnes of CO2 over 150,000miles that gives 273gCO2/mile. If we take the advertised emission figure for the XC40 T4 is 304gCO2/mile using WLTP figures.
They are very selectively providing figures in their appendices. Who knows what model they are comparing.
Similar threads
