Is it more environmen friendly to keep driving your old ICE car vs. buy new EV? (no for most people)

[printf42]

I saw all the time an EV naysayer will throw these negative points about environmental impact of buying a new EV:

1. Manufacturing EV battery does more emission than an EV can save over it's lifetime.
2. Electricity comes from Coal anyway so driving EV does not save emission.
3. Keep driving the ICE you already have will have less emission than buying a new EV.

I know most people here are knowledgeable enough to know these points are false(for most people at least).
But it has been difficult to argue these point with someone has not closely followed EV and got these ideas from mainstream media.

Recently I saw a very nice and concise calculation to debunk these points:

It's from an Youtuber "Engineering Explained", I have been following his channel for a while, he is a real car guy, and really gets his numbers.

Some key points from the video:

• For most costal stats(where most population resides) that power is not solely generated from coal, the low emission from operating an EV can easily offset the extra emission caused by manufacturing the battery.
• Even if your power were solely generated from coal, EV still have lower emission(because power plants has higher efficiency than ICE engines), just that the difference is not very big, that offsetting initial emission delta will take a longer time.
• For coal powered stats, drive a PHEV which has smaller battery will still breakeven quickly.
• For most people, the emission for building a whole new EV can be easily offset in a few years, so it's actually greener to buy a new EV, (sell or give the old ICE to someone else, so there will be one less new ICE sold, there are still people that EV does not fit their needs and have to have a ICE, be it price or charging reasons)

Foot note: The calculation he did is actually the worst case and unfavorable for EVs, since he was calculating the battery manufacturing emission as the delta between manufacturing ICE vs. EV. But in reality, ICE engines are vastly more complex to manufacture than EV motors, so the real emission delta between making an ICE vs. EV would be much smaller than these calculations, if exists at all.


Please reply if you found these helpful, thanks!

 

[acoste]

They are not that far away.

See the image attached, this was calculated in 2017 based on an MIT research and published in Financial Times.

This research did not include the emission for recycling the batteries and also it only uses 1 battery, however an EV needs 2 batteries for a car's lifetime. Also the numbers are for US average. If we pick mid-west for example, where the green energy ratio is low, it may be better to keep a small ICE car for now versus an EV with a large battery. It also doesn't calculate with vampire current that is higher in a hot climate. This can add 15% to the total annual electricity consumption.

Thankfully the percentage of the green electricity generation is growing every year so numbers are getting better and better.

 

[ewoodrick]

But the whole fallacy is that when you switch cars, your old car is no longer used. Since it will be gong to someone else, the whole discussion really doesn't make sense.

 

[nwdiver]

Thankfully the percentage of the green electricity generation is growing every year so numbers are getting better and better.

View attachment 357238

Grid mix is also not an accurate indication of the energy an EV would use. Off-peak energy is often a higher percentage of wind. As demand response programs become more common EVs could use wind or solar energy that would have been curtailed if there wasn't an EV waiting to take a charge. We'll likely see ~90% clean energy to EVs before grid average hits ~30% clean energy.

 

[Vinc]

But the whole fallacy is that when you switch cars, your old car is no longer used. Since it will be gong to someone else, the whole discussion really doesn't make sense.

On that note, you can also buy a used EV these days. You get both the clean and the recycled part of the equation...

 

[juliusa]

A whole bunch of obviously false assumptions.

Less than 30% of electricity comes from coal in the US. In California, where a large % of the EVs in the US are, 0% comes from coal.

They are not that far away.

See the image attached, this was calculated in 2017 based on an MIT research and published in Financial Times.

View attachment 357238

They forgot to put a bicycle to the right of the Mirage. And a pair of sneakers to the right of the bicycle. And bare feet to the right of the sneakers.

 

[Vinc]

A whole bunch of obviously false assumptions.

Less than 30% of electricity comes from coal in the US. In California, where a large % of the EVs in the US are, 0% comes from coal.


They forgot to put a bicycle to the right of the Mirage. And a pair of sneakers to the right of the bicycle. And bare feet to the right of the sneakers.

Yep. There are truths, there are lies and then there are numbers. You can make anything sound real if you throw enough numbers at it.

I have solar panels and I have been told by some that they are wasteful because I am not using the grid that is already installed and paid for. And when you factor in the production cost that goes into them and blah, blah, blah... they are worse for the environment.

So... yeah, wrap your head around that.

 

[Brisket5652]

My perspective has always been this..... let's assume that manufacturing an ZEV and batteries and charging them regularly uses more fossil fuels than the process of making and refilling a ICE car, so what? That's today. What about tomorrow? We have to start somewhere. Tesla has decided to focus on one segment of the "chain of energy usage" - consumer cars.

Then, other companies can focus on electricity generation, and others on improving various manufacturing processes that use no/less fossil fuels, etc.

Like cleaning out a garage - it's going to get even messier before its gets tidier.

 

[nwdiver]

Like cleaning out a garage - it's going to get even messier before its gets tidier.

Not even that bad... we're already adding wind/solar ~20x faster than additional EV consumption

 

[Brisket5652]

Not even that bad... we're already adding wind/solar ~20x faster than additional EV consumption

Agree 100%. I just say to that to those who question the validity of ZEV.

 

[acoste]

A whole bunch of obviously false assumptions.

Less than 30% of electricity comes from coal in the US. In California, where a large % of the EVs in the US are, 0% comes from coal.


They forgot to put a bicycle to the right of the Mirage. And a pair of sneakers to the right of the bicycle. And bare feet to the right of the sneakers.

And you forgot about the 32% natural gas share.

 

[acoste]

Not even that bad... we're already adding wind/solar ~20x faster than additional EV consumption

One difficulty with these is that they depend on the weather. It is difficult to store the produced energy if it is not used immediately.
Norway is super lucky with their mountains. They can store energy by pumping back the water to the reservoirs at high elevation and drain them through the hydropower stations when needed.
I saw a similar plan in California. The plan is to push up large weights on railroads on the side of the mountain with excess electric energy and roll them down, when needed. Looking forward to it.

 

[Xenoilphobe]

They are not that far away.

See the image attached, this was calculated in 2017 based on an MIT research and published in Financial Times.

This research did not include the emission for recycling the batteries and also it only uses 1 battery, however an EV needs 2 batteries for a car's lifetime. Also the numbers are for US average. If we pick mid-west for example, where the green energy ratio is low, it may be better to keep a small ICE car for now versus an EV with a large battery. It also doesn't calculate with vampire current that is higher in a hot climate. This can add 15% to the total annual electricity consumption.

Thankfully the percentage of the green electricity generation is growing every year so numbers are getting better and better.

View attachment 357238

Did you see the little tiny footnote: "All data is from vehicles driven in the US Mid-West" - This heavily favors the best MPG that a ICE can get (Highway MPG). Take that BMW 750 and put it in stop and go traffic in any of these cities and watch the efficiency drop by half, conversely in a Tesla in a highly congested route at low speed in stop in go traffic the efficiency is higher.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-mileage-of-an-electric-car-greater-in-the-city-than-on-a-highway

 

[nwdiver]

One difficulty with these is that they depend on the weather. It is difficult to store the produced energy if it is not used immediately.

...... EVs ARE storage....

 

[Xenoilphobe]

...... EVs ARE storage....

it funny that most people don't understand that.
The Correct Answer

 

[acoste]

...... EVs ARE storage....

Solar doesn't work at night.

 

[nwdiver]

Solar doesn't work at night.

wind does. That's the great thing about EVs... they're flexible demand. When is it sunny? Ok, that's when I'll take electrons. When is it windy? Ok, that's when I'll take electrons.

 

[Ludalicious]

They are not that far away.

See the image attached, this was calculated in 2017 based on an MIT research and published in Financial Times.

This research did not include the emission for recycling the batteries and also it only uses 1 battery, however an EV needs 2 batteries for a car's lifetime. Also the numbers are for US average. If we pick mid-west for example, where the green energy ratio is low, it may be better to keep a small ICE car for now versus an EV with a large battery. It also doesn't calculate with vampire current that is higher in a hot climate. This can add 15% to the total annual electricity consumption.

Thankfully the percentage of the green electricity generation is growing every year so numbers are getting better and better.

View attachment 357238

Just roll my eyes at every time I see a vehicle comparison to a Tesla. Absolutely incorrect comparison.

The P100D should not be compared to a BMW 750I Xdrive. Absolutely no comparison.

The more realistic comparison is the 2018 BMW M5

Let's look at the stats because these comparisons are not done by individuals who own and race these vehicles.

2018 BMW 750I Xdrive
1/4 mile time 12.7 seconds
16/25 mpg gas consumption

2018 BMW X5
1/4 mile time 10.9 seconds
15/21 mpg gas consumption.

Worlds away from eachother.

Tesla Model S P100D
1/4 mile 10.7 seconds.

Please check your facts before posting these ridiculous comparisons. Because it's truly misleading.

 

[acoste]

Just roll my eyes at every time I see a vehicle comparison to a Tesla. Absolutely incorrect comparison.

I do not understand your complaint. No one said these cars are equal.These are just reference points. Did you think Mirage is equal to any of these?

 

[Ludalicious]

I do not understand your complaint. No one said these cars are equal.These are just reference points. Did you think Mirage is equal to any of these?

Why even post vehicles that's not comparable? why not post stats of 2 smart cars beside it?

If we dont know the stats on a equal performance vehicles Emissions over its life time what are we even looking at then?