Snowdog
Member
Calm down ... reading source publications critically is not a crime.
Read the publications of the US national energy labs, get familiar with GREET, understand the underlying methodologies and their differences. Fwiw I am not impugning the scientists at UCS by disagreeing with your conclusions from their data. And since very good science disagrees with their underlying methods when the question is CO2 advantage, I'll just politely suggest that you read more and mumble less. Your advocacy will be the stronger for it.
I do read multiple sources, including the GREET work. In fact the UCS model is based on GREET.
How do you calculate an electric vehicle’s CO2e emissions?
To calculate an EV’s emissions, we first identify where the car is charged. This tool matches a ZIP code with an electric grid region, which in turn is matched with an average emissions number (expressed as CO2e). The average emissions are calculated using data from the Environmental Protection Agency’s eGrid for direct emissions and the GREET model (Argonne National Laboratory) for indirect emissions (such as mining and the delivery of fuels to powerplants).
I see little difference between your offhand dismissal of such complex modeling based on your assumptions than I do, when I see AGW deniers dismiss the work of the IPCC by claiming "Sun Cycles" are responsible for GW.
Also the grid getting cleaner is not driven primarily by natural gas, most new capacity is renewable:
Solar and wind comprise 61% of 2015 capacity additions, gas contributes 35%