Electric vehicles beat gasoline cars in cradle-to-grave emissions study

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Stoaty

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 18, 2010
Messages
4,490
Location
West Los Angeles
http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-ucs-electric-vehicles-emissions-study-20151110-story.html

A cradle-to-grave analysis finds driving an electric car in California creates less greenhouse gas emissions than even the most efficient gasoline vehicle.

A car running on electricity -- even when powerplant emissions are considered -- produces pollution equivalent to a theoretical conventional car with fuel economy of 87 miles per gallon, according to the study, released Thursday by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The organization tallied all the greenhouse gas emissions from every aspect of auto manufacturing and operations and found that electric vehicles beat their gasoline counterparts in every region of the U.S.
 
Stoaty said:
http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-ucs-electric-vehicles-emissions-study-20151110-story.html

A cradle-to-grave analysis finds driving an electric car in California creates less greenhouse gas emissions than even the most efficient gasoline vehicle...
I haven't had a chance to read the study (link?) but it is good to see it also seems to have considered that some BEVs are more GHG efficient than others, and that larger battery packs have significant environmental, as well as economic costs.

...The scientific group based its modeling on the Nissan Leaf and Tesla Model S -- the two bestselling electric cars in the U.S. Each has a different greenhouse gas emissions profile because of their batteries.

The bigger the battery, the more pollution results from its production. That’s why the smaller Nissan -- which also has less than half the range of a Tesla -- offsets its excess manufacturing emissions in about 4,900 miles, or six months of driving. The Tesla offset comes within 19,000 miles, or 16 months of operation...
 
If I'm reading that map correctly, it looks like Upstate NY (NYUP) has the cleanest grid in the entire country! Wow, go us! I assume that's because of our massive use of Nuclear and Hydro (and increasingly Wind)? Frankly I would have expected the PNW to be cleaner.

As for the cars - in addition to the manufacturing expense of a larger battery, that extra weight reduces the car's efficiency. While the article doesn't mention that, I assume that the study took it into account.
 
The link to the study is in the article, but here is the direct link:

http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/11/Cleaner-Cars-from-Cradle-to-Grave-full-report.pdf
 
GetOffYourGas said:
If I'm reading that map correctly, it looks like Upstate NY (NYUP) has the cleanest grid in the entire country! Wow, go us! I assume that's because of our massive use of Nuclear and Hydro (and increasingly Wind)? Frankly I would have expected the PNW to be cleaner.

As for the cars - in addition to the manufacturing expense of a larger battery, that extra weight reduces the car's efficiency. While the article doesn't mention that, I assume that the study took it into account.

Yes, that directly affects the kW/100 miles power use which they used for various vehicles.
Obviously, the smaller/lighter the battery pack the more efficient the car.
Although, it is also important to keep in mind they used the RWD 85kW Model S. The AWD 85kW Model S is more efficient, and of course, the AWD 70kW is more efficient yet.

Of course, neither is as efficient as the Leaf.

The big take-away from this, that I hope more of the public gets, is that BEVs get more efficient (GHG wise) over time. No need to buy a new one, just focus on cleaning the grid.
 
I have a question about the greenhouse gas "content" of gasoline used in this study. Here's what it says on page 35:

Conversion of g/kWh to MPGghg
To translate electricity-related emissions intensity into driving-related emissions intensity (measured as gasoline miles-per-gallon equivalent, or MPGghg), we multiplied the EPA emissions intensity values (gCO2e/kWh) from Table A-2 and the EV average efficiency values (kWh/mile) from Table 2, resulting in a gCO2e/mile estimate. Then we used the GREET carbon intensity of gasoline (ANL 2014a) and divided by the gCO2e/mile estimate to get the estimated MPGghg for each region. This figure is an electric vehicle equivalent to the MPG of a gasoline-powered vehicle: vehicles with the same MPGghg will produce the same amount of global warming pollution for each mile traveled, regardless of fuel type.

Does the GREET system add in the energy overhead for gasoline? In other words, for all the transportation, refinement, extraction - and all the electricity and natural gas used along the way from oil in the ground to gasoline in the car's tank - needs to be included.
 
its another another weird report from UCS, its loose with choices of battery chemistry.
they modelled the 265mile battery as if its LCO chemistry instead of NCA
they modelled the 84mile battery on NMC instead of LMO (page 39 shows interesting modelling results)
 
Another study with a somewhat different conclusion (the devil being in the details), via GCC:
CMU study finds that coal retirement is needed for EVs to reduce air pollution
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/02/20160212-cmu.html

Electric vehicles charged in coal-heavy regions can create more human health and environmental damages from life cycle air emissions than gasoline vehicles, according to a new consequential life cycle analysis by researchers from Carnegie Mellon University. However, the anticipated—albeit now possibly delayed, per the recent Supreme Court decision—retirement of coal-fired power plants will make electric vehicles more competitive on an air emissions basis, the researchers found.

Among the findings of the study, published as an open-access paper in the journal Environmental Research Letters, was that battery electric vehicles with large battery capacity can produce two to three times as much air emissions damage as gasoline hybrid electric vehicles, depending on charge timing. . . .
 
GRA said:
Another study with a somewhat different conclusion (the devil being in the details), via GCC:
CMU study finds that coal retirement is needed for EVs to reduce air pollution
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/02/20160212-cmu.html
...

No, they don't have a different conclusion, because they aren't asking the same question, and are likely using different assumptions.
First, it is only for a single section of the grid, not the U.S. as a whole or multiple regions.
Second, they use 160,000 miles as the vehicle life, which is overly conservative.
Third they are using outdated 2010 grid data.
Fourth, they are using old EVs as examples. The Leaf is more efficient than their model, as is the Volt and Tesla.
Fifth, they are comparing against a hybrid, not the average car.

And of course, this is assuming the owner is using the grid without any steps taken to reduce their own use of fossil fuels.
 
Zythryn said:
GRA said:
Another study with a somewhat different conclusion (the devil being in the details), via GCC:
CMU study finds that coal retirement is needed for EVs to reduce air pollution
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/02/20160212-cmu.html
...
No, they don't have a different conclusion, because they aren't asking the same question, and are likely using different assumptions. <snip>
See ^^^ "the devil being in the details."
 
Zythryn said:
Second, they use 160,000 miles as the vehicle life, which is overly conservative.
I'm not sure what you mean by "overly conservative" in this context, but I doubt there will be many first nor 2nd generation LEAFs which will see anywhere near 160k miles on it before it needs at least one replacement battery or to be scrapped. That number might be reasonable for a Tesla Model S (the BEV comparison for the study) but that remains to be seen.

For the record, I suspect very few Gen 1 or 2 LEAf's will ever see customer purchased battery replacements as the cost will well exceed the value of the vehicle by the time the car needs one so I think we will see lots of such LEAF's scrapped well before even the100K mile mark.
 
I'm going to throw up the red flag for hawaii as inaccurate due to the number of Electric cars spread across the islands/state, the use of thermo power, and no one really gets an accurate count from the mafia style power plants on the individual islands...its a great article, but one thing no one takes into account with nuclear power..is expended fuel rod storage...
just my uneducated banter
 
jpadc said:
Zythryn said:
Second, they use 160,000 miles as the vehicle life, which is overly conservative.
I'm not sure what you mean by "overly conservative" in this context, but I doubt there will be many first nor 2nd generation LEAFs which will see anywhere near 160k miles on it before it needs at least one replacement battery or to be scrapped. That number might be reasonable for a Tesla Model S (the BEV comparison for the study) but that remains to be seen.

For the record, I suspect very few Gen 1 or 2 LEAf's will ever see customer purchased battery replacements as the cost will well exceed the value of the vehicle by the time the car needs one so I think we will see lots of such LEAF's scrapped well before even the100K mile mark.



I whole hearted agree with that 100%, junk yards are going to get full when the battery needs replacement. cause for 5-6000 bucks, you can pony up a couple more grand and get something newer, with more capabilities. I get the warranty replacement in 2 weeks, and will do a charger upgrade. I think will be worth it.
 
jpadc said:
Zythryn said:
Second, they use 160,000 miles as the vehicle life, which is overly conservative.
I'm not sure what you mean by "overly conservative" in this context, but I doubt there will be many first nor 2nd generation LEAFs which will see anywhere near 160k miles on it before it needs at least one replacement battery or to be scrapped. That number might be reasonable for a Tesla Model S (the BEV comparison for the study) but that remains to be seen.

For the record, I suspect very few Gen 1 or 2 LEAf's will ever see customer purchased battery replacements as the cost will well exceed the value of the vehicle by the time the car needs one so I think we will see lots of such LEAF's scrapped well before even the100K mile mark.

I could well be biased as most of my experience is with a Tesla.
And you could well be right, that the average battery replacement will be less than 160,000 miles.
However, even if the battery is replaced, the manufacturing cost of the rest of the car should be stretched out over the entire life of the vehicle.

If I were to keep the car that long, we would expect to replace the battery pack somewhere between 300,000 and 500,000 miles.

With the reduced number of moving parts, the EV should outlast the ICE by a great amount. As we move into the second generation of EVs, reliability should continue to go up and costs go down.
 
Zythryn said:
jpadc said:
Zythryn said:
Second, they use 160,000 miles as the vehicle life, which is overly conservative.
I'm not sure what you mean by "overly conservative" in this context, but I doubt there will be many first nor 2nd generation LEAFs which will see anywhere near 160k miles on it before it needs at least one replacement battery or to be scrapped. That number might be reasonable for a Tesla Model S (the BEV comparison for the study) but that remains to be seen.

For the record, I suspect very few Gen 1 or 2 LEAf's will ever see customer purchased battery replacements as the cost will well exceed the value of the vehicle by the time the car needs one so I think we will see lots of such LEAF's scrapped well before even the100K mile mark.

I could well be biased as most of my experience is with a Tesla.
And you could well be right, that the average battery replacement will be less than 160,000 miles.
However, even if the battery is replaced, the manufacturing cost of the rest of the car should be stretched out over the entire life of the vehicle.

If I were to keep the car that long, we would expect to replace the battery pack somewhere between 300,000 and 500,000 miles.

With the reduced number of moving parts, the EV should outlast the ICE by a great amount. As we move into the second generation of EVs, reliability should continue to go up and costs go down.


I wish there was a like icon for really awesome posts!!!!
 
The primary reason I'm not entirely thrilled by China's push for PEV at this time, via GCC:
Study finds household and outdoor air pollution contributes to more than 5.5 million premature deaths worldwide per year
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/02/20160212-ubc.html

New research shows that household (indoor) and outdoor air pollution contribute to more than 5.5 million premature deaths every year. More than half of deaths occur in two of the world’s fastest growing economies, China and India. . . .

In China, burning coal is the biggest contributor to poor air quality. Qiao Ma, a PhD student at the School of Environment, Tsinghua University in Beijing, China, found that outdoor air pollution from coal alone caused an estimated 366,000 deaths in China in 2013.

Ma also calculated the expected number of premature deaths in China in the future if the country meets its current targets to restrict coal combustion and emissions through a combination of energy policies and pollution controls. She found that air pollution will cause anywhere from 990,000 to 1.3 million premature deaths in 2030 unless even more ambitious targets are introduced. . . .
While China has been moving aggressively to add wind, nukes, solar and hydro, these aren't replacing coal, which contributes the majority (2014, 73%; 2015, 64.4%; hoping to cut it to 62.6% in 2016) of their energy and will do so for decades; it's mostly still additional capacity to meet their growing energy requirements. They've also been closing the oldest, smallest and most polluting/least efficient coal plants, but they've largely been replacing them with new larger, more efficient/less polluting coal plants rather than NG or one of the above. That being the case, ISTM that for the near-term, at least, HEVs would have a more immediate beneficial effect on air pollution than PEVs. Once China manages to reduce the amount of energy generated from coal, as opposed to just reducing its % by increasing the share from other sources, it will be time to go in for PEVs in a big way.
 
Zythryn said:
I could well be biased as most of my experience is with a Tesla.
And you could well be right, that the average battery replacement will be less than 160,000 miles.
However, even if the battery is replaced, the manufacturing cost of the rest of the car should be stretched out over the entire life of the vehicle.

If I were to keep the car that long, we would expect to replace the battery pack somewhere between 300,000 and 500,000 miles.

With the reduced number of moving parts, the EV should outlast the ICE by a great amount. As we move into the second generation of EVs, reliability should continue to go up and costs go down.
Well, unless those miles are put on in a very short time (i.e., taxi) none of these vehicles (including Teslas) are going to see anywhere near 300,000 to 500,000 miles. They may not have ICEs, but they have brakes, electrical systems, heating/cooling systems, wheel bearings, exterior body panels, frames, interior upholstery, etc. which all wear with time and use. Its not just the ICE that make cars 20+ years old with 200k plus miles no longer worth repairing.

And none of that includes the fact that as cars become more like computers, their effective life cycle shortens dramatically just like a computer's. A 20 year-old Tesla won't be viable as its primary systems will no longer be capable of interacting with the technology of the day. So I don't see a future where cars are kept longer and driven more miles, rather the opposite. I think we are just starting to see the dawn of the era of the "disposable car."
 
jpadc said:
Zythryn said:
I could well be biased as most of my experience is with a Tesla.
And you could well be right, that the average battery replacement will be less than 160,000 miles.
However, even if the battery is replaced, the manufacturing cost of the rest of the car should be stretched out over the entire life of the vehicle.

If I were to keep the car that long, we would expect to replace the battery pack somewhere between 300,000 and 500,000 miles.

With the reduced number of moving parts, the EV should outlast the ICE by a great amount. As we move into the second generation of EVs, reliability should continue to go up and costs go down.
Well, unless those miles are put on in a very short time (i.e., taxi) none of these vehicles (including Teslas) are going to see anywhere near 300,000 to 500,000 miles. They may not have ICEs, but they have brakes, electrical systems, heating/cooling systems, wheel bearings, exterior body panels, frames, interior upholstery, etc. which all wear with time and use. Its not just the ICE that make cars 20+ years old with 200k plus miles no longer worth repairing.

And none of that includes the fact that as cars become more like computers, their effective life cycle shortens dramatically just like a computer's. A 20 year-old Tesla won't be viable as its primary systems will no longer be capable of interacting with the technology of the day. So I don't see a future where cars are kept longer and driven more miles, rather the opposite. I think we are just starting to see the dawn of the era of the "disposable car."



60's technology is still happily running large hydro electrical plants, because although the technology changes the communication protocalls can remain the same so long as both systems talk the same language or close enough they will work fine, just as I can network my old 486 pc to my 2016 network because windows 95 talks tcp/ip, my windowes 7 can access the win 95, but the 95 can't see win7, but they are still able to be used to geather effectively.

So with out the harsh solvents all around the electrical wiring as with an ice, same with them not being in the passanger compartment (They are there even if you can't smell it) vastly extend the life time of the vehicle (Ignoring battery life atm)
 
XeonPony said:
60's technology is still happily running large hydro electrical plants, because although the technology changes the communication protocalls can remain the same so long as both systems talk the same language or close enough they will work fine, just as I can network my old 486 pc to my 2016 network because windows 95 talks tcp/ip, my windowes 7 can access the win 95, but the 95 can't see win7, but they are still able to be used to geather effectively.
But does your computer that can ONLY run Windows 95 have any resale value today. Not a dime (check eBay actual SALES if you doubt me). I have a PowerMacG3 Blue & White that is still working as my personal web server and if you click on the link there it will load an image of itself from that very computer today across the internet. But just because I can (and do) still make it work as a web server 17 years after it was first manufactured does not mean I can sell it to any one if they are in the market for a web server. But, hey if you want to pay me for it to be your web server in 2016, I'll take your cash and laugh like the guy who has an original iPhone for sale on eBay for 25k. I'm selling my original iPhone there if he ever sells that one.

And hydro electric plants (as is much of our national electric grid) is dangerously hackable and keeping it operational on such dated technology is incalculably stupid -- but its not a relevant caparison as they still produce power and worth the cost of upgrading which is not true of computers (and soon cars).

The issue is not can you make it still work, its is it viable in the market place. And that answer is a resounding NO
 
Back
Top