New Study Proves EVs Are Always Cleaner Than Gas Cars (thedrive.com)
- Reference: 0178980076
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/25/09/02/1921238/new-study-proves-evs-are-always-cleaner-than-gas-cars
- Source link: https://www.thedrive.com/news/new-study-proves-evs-are-always-cleaner-than-gas-cars
> It's broadly understood that electric vehicles are more environmentally friendly than their counterparts that burn only gasoline. And yes -- that includes the impact of manufacturing batteries and generating power to charge them. But even then, such generalizations gloss over specifics, like which EVs are especially eco-friendly, not to mention where. The efficiency of an electric car varies greatly depending on ambient temperature, which is less compromising for gas-burning vehicles.
>
> We now have the data and math to answer these questions, courtesy of the University of Michigan. Last week, researchers there [2]released a study along with a calculator that allows users to compare the lifetime difference in greenhouse gas emissions of various vehicle types and powertrains from "cradle to grave," as they say. That includes vehicle production and disposal, as well as use-phase emissions from "driving and upstream fuel production and/or electricity generation," per the university itself.
>
> What's more, these calculations can be skewed by where you live. So, if I punch in my location of Bucks County, Pennsylvania, I can see that my generic, pure-ICE "compact sedan" emits 309 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent (gCO2e) per mile. A compact hybrid would emit 20% less; a plug-in hybrid, 44% less; and an EV with a 200-mile range, a whopping 63% less. And, if I moved to Phoenix, the gains would be even larger by switching to pure electric, to the tune of a 79% reduced carbon impact.
[1] https://www.thedrive.com/news/new-study-proves-evs-are-always-cleaner-than-gas-cars
[2] https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.5c05406
but what about the tires? (Score:2)
Can't wait for the lies about smog being entirely BEV tire particles.
Re: (Score:2)
> Can't wait for the lies about smog being entirely BEV tire particles.
To do so, they'll have to somehow retconn EVs into news items from the 60s, 70s, and 80s.
But, then again, nothing would surprise me nowadays...
Re: (Score:1)
I removed the tires from my ICE vehicle. I drive around on the bare rims like a REAL MAN, not a soyboy EV driver that wants little bits of rubber and plastic to give him* a comfy ride.
* (or whatever pronoun EV drivers use)
Did anyone doubt this, apart from BP and Shell? (Score:2)
Hardly earth-shattering news.
Re: (Score:2)
There were studies that called it into question. I sincerely doubted every single one of them.
There were legitimate unknowns, but any fool could estimate the unknowns as not making electric vehicles dirtier. Unfortunately, it also meant that any fool could also estimate them to somehow magically require more output for every single fucking part of it than a standard car.
I'm glad someone(s) went and figured out all the unknowns, so that the fucking fossilophiles can fuck off with their bullshit. But of co
Re: (Score:2)
The previous studies weren't wrong, This paper primarily updates to new actuals and new projections for further grind decarbonization. (though it also makes some other methodological changes). So basically they're cutting the CO2e/mile for electricity by a good 40%-50% from some earlier studies.
> Woody et al. also investigated MY 2020 vehicles, and reported lower BEV sedan emissions of 141–182 gCO2e/mile when accounting for projected grid decarbonization over the lifetime of the vehicles. (13) The lower emissions calculated in the present work for MY 2025 vehicles reflect the continued progress toward grid decarbonization and improved vehicle fuel efficiency, with the BEV sedan emissions of 88–113 g CO2e/mile. The number of locations in which ICEVs outperform BEVs has also been decreasing as the grid has decarbonized and grid projections have trended toward more rapid decarbonization. ...
> therefore, this new finding is primarily due to lower projected grid emissions factors throughout the vehicle’s lifetime.
(from the paper [1]https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.10... [acs.org] in the "3.5. Comparison with Previous Work" section )
[1] https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.5c05406
Re: (Score:2)
> The previous studies weren't wrong
Sure they were.
To be completely fair- it's not like they were wrong by any fault of theirs, they simply greatly underestimated decarbonization.
Re: (Score:2)
Obvious troll is obvious, like ICE cars don't use metals
Re: (Score:2)
Copper is used for many different things, all sorts of electronics, wires in houses and buildings. EVs Copper for EVs is only a small fraction of all copper used. Additionally, there are other sources of copper, and copper mines are small and localized, whereas climate damage is a global scale problem. Finally, fossil fuel mining is also deeply damaging to locations.
Re: (Score:3)
Pure EV have much LESS maintenance and servicing than an ICE engine. Fewer moving parts = less maintenance and service.
In addition, the battery mileage you describe are the expectations of the corporations which were conservative. People are finding out that used EV's tend to be a great deal for a second car. The batteries are lasting longer than expected but customers are terrified of the battery dying early.
More importantly, every year the batteries keep getting better, but the ICE engines are not imp
Re: (Score:2)
Citation need!
EVs are a mixed bag with cost, less maintenance but more expensive to maintain, and insure. There are studies that have shown this.
Battery is warrantied for 100,000 because it was mandated, lifecycle is how much longer that car will last until it costs too much to repair or be useful. However, ev cars are only around 20 years or so, and there is not enough data, however the preliminary reports are they are not as long lived.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the median lifespan for vehicles in the US like 12 years?
In like half the country the salt will destroy a vehicle long before many parts wear out
Re: (Score:3)
> so in short ... EV about 60% of the life of the ICE, no need to assume.
No.
In short, you will require a new battery at around the time your ICE vehicle will be 60% through its lifespan.
The cost of said bettery is steep- but you will save the money on the ultra-low TCO of your EV to pay for it when it's time.
Or... you'll trade it in for a new car, and someone else will roll it into the loan for their certified pre-owned.
For someone knocking a scientific paper, you haven't demonstrated a lot of intelligence here in your parsing of facts.
Re: (Score:2)
> In short, you will require a new battery at around the time your ICE vehicle will be 60% through its lifespan.
Realistically, no. Most EV batteries outlast most ICE cars. Of course, it depends on the size of the battery. Smaller batteries result in more charge cycles per 100k miles, which means more battery wear, which means earlier replacement. But at least Tesla batteries have an expected lifespan of 1500 charge cycles, so if your battery has a range of 300 miles per charge, you should get 450,000 miles out of it. With an average ICE car being replace after 200,000 miles or so, you'd expect the battery on any
Re: (Score:2)
> Most EV batteries outlast most ICE cars.
That depends how full of shit you want to be.
If your ICE car went from going 480 miles per tank to 200 miles per tank (what you're proposing here) would you, or would you not have gotten it fixed?
A Tesla battery is estimated to be at ~75% capacity at 200k miles. That's frankly already past replacement time. Your 300 mile Tesla is then only going 225 miles.
If we want to be absolutely technical- the battery on your Tesla could last 100 years as long as you only ever need to drive to the grocery store betw
Re: (Score:2)
I would count that as a win for EV's since they are far more forgiving to lack of maintenance than ICE vehicles.
How many ICE cars are Toyota Camry's and Honda CRVs and well maintained?
Re: (Score:2)
Assume? is this not a research paper, how about ... you know ... do research?
That's a hilarious thing to say immediately before doing 30 seconds of Google searching. Did you happen to notice that number in parenthesis in that portion you quoted? Do you suppose it was a hyperlink for a reason? That's called a 'citation' - it's when you are referencing some other publication or data source, and you want to be clear about where you got your information.
"30 NHTSA. Final Rulemaking for Model Years 2024
Re: (Score:2)
Did you actually read the NHTSA paper? It is about miles driven not lifetime of the car. Older cars are not driven as many miles, and it is a pretty linear with the age of the car. The study goes back 40 years, so clearly some cars 40 years old are still being driven. The paper as written had no data source for their assumptions, otherwise it would not be an assumption, it would be: Based on the data we collected ... they used the data by NHTSA and took it to equate to all vehicles would have the same dr
Re: (Score:2)
> The Nissan Leaf has a potential lifetime mileage of 200,000 miles or more, but this is highly dependent on battery health, which is influenced by climate, driving habits, and charging practices. While Nissan's original battery warranty typically covers 100,000 miles, many owners achieve significantly higher mileage with good care, as shown by anecdotal reports of Leafs exceeding 150,000 miles and even reaching 230,000 miles with original batteries.
> so in short ... EV about 60% of the life of the ICE, no need to assume.
Wait, you're using the Nissan Leaf as your EV example, and the Camry as your ICE example? The early Leaf cars are well known to be a disaster, and are an extreme outlier in terms of low life expectancy, which brings that number way down. The Camry is well known to be one of the most reliable ICE cars out there. You're comparing one the worst EVs to one of the best ICE cars. You can't do that. You have to compare averages if you want your comparison to be meaningful.
Or, if you want to compare the exempl
It's a bit like saying getting punched in the gut (Score:3, Insightful)
Hurts less than getting kicked in the balls...
Personal multi-ton vehicles are a terrible way to build the transportation system. And if the externalized costs work all put directly on the individuals driving them they would be impractical and unaffordable.
But we all grew up with them and want something is fixed in your brain between the ages of 4 to 14 it's basically impossible to get it out of there. So much so there's a phrase for it, deconstruction. Most commonly applied to religion but it can apply to any framework stuck in your brain when you didn't yet have your complete critical thinking facilities but you were able to learn and be taught.
Also because I know I've got a fan that loves to bring it up every single one of us who lives in the city gets to breathe entire particulate every single day. Forget all the shave the whales stuff I don't particularly enjoy getting along full of tire. And EVs make that worse because they go through tires faster because they are heavier and have a tendency to use slick tires that wear faster in order to hit their ranges.
None of this is popular to point out. Because again, 4 to 14.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
> Personal multi-ton vehicles are a terrible way to build the transportation system.
Depends on what you're optimizing for. For example: I optimize for isolation from other people.
Re: (Score:2)
>> Personal multi-ton vehicles are a terrible way to build the transportation system.
> Depends on what you're optimizing for. For example: I optimize for isolation from other people.
"Like you."
LOL
Re: (Score:2)
>> Personal multi-ton vehicles are a terrible way to build the transportation system.
> Depends on what you're optimizing for. For example: I optimize for isolation from other people.
Understood. But our choice of what to optimise for is also influenced by what rsilvergun describes as something that gets "fixed in your brain between the ages of 4 to 14".
Quite often, a person who has grown up in a car-only society, moves to and lives for a few years in a society with more transport options, and finds that their preferences have changed.
To be clear I didn't come up with 4 to 14 (Score:2)
It comes from religious extremists trying to convert children. And they are not shy about talking about it. Google the phrase and you will mostly get hardcore American evangelicals.
But the technique used by the evangelicals and the cults can just as easily be applied to any belief.
When people say kids brains are like sponges sucking everything up that's what they mean
Yeah but why? (Score:2)
Did you ever stop to consider that if you had grown up in a better society you wouldn't have turned out as a introvert?
I don't think being an introvert is something inherent to a person's genetics.
And I don't think it's really all that beneficial or enjoyable.
You can go too far in the other direction don't get me wrong. And I'm guessing that there's lots of introverts on a nerd form that don't want to hear that being an introvert kind of sucks. Deconstruction is a bitch.
But maybe if guys lik
Re: (Score:2)
I'm with you on tire particulate.... but I'm pretty sure you've got the tire association ass backwards.
With cars, sticky tires offer the best traction, the lowest life, and the highest rolling resistance (lowest gas mileage)
Non-sticky tires offer the worst traction, the best life, and the lowest rolling resistances (highest gas mileage)
i.e., the correlation in tires between lifetime and range is positive- i.e., they emit less particulates per mile traveled.
Slicks not sticks (Score:2)
Slick tires give you less traction but that means you have better mileage. Or range in the case of electric cars.
But they wear faster. Which means more particulate in the air.
What I don't like about the particulate is that it's so small it never settles down. It's always there in the air. That's why for years it was a bit of a mystery. The particulate was so small it's invisible to the naked eye and it's hard to catch without advanced filters so there was questions about where tires went when they w
Re: (Score:2)
> Slick tires give you less traction but that means you have better mileage.
Strange, then, that race cars use slick tires, unless it is raining (or they are required to use street tires).
No, the difference is the hardness of the tire compounds. Harder compounds give you less grip, but better mileage.
If I recall correctly, the claimed difference in particulates from EV tires vs. ICE tires was supposed to be due to the weight of the vehicle. On the other hand, the brake pads on EVs give off far less particulates.
A side topic (Score:1)
Just the other day, I asked ChatGTP to run some numbers: The US mandate for back-up cameras in cars was due in part to ~ 200 people per year having been killed annually by vehicles backing up. These new systems have mass and use electricity, thus increase pollution. After summing the deaths potentially caused by the increased pollution and the distracted driving (because many user controls were also added to the dashboard screen), it estimated that orders of magnitude more deaths occur because we have tho
Re: (Score:2)
> Discuss; or as on Slashdot, insult and call each other names.
Well, bless your heart, you charmingly misguided soul! It’s a wonder that your brain has not yet taken a permanent vacation, for it seems to be perpetually lounging in the swamps of ignorance. You’re as useful as a screen door on a submarine, and I reckon a cat on a hot tin roof would have more sense than you. If wit were a currency, you’d be bankrupt, yet somehow you still manage to prance about like a peacock in a henhouse, convinced of your own splendor. You’re a fine example of w
Re: (Score:2)
> Just the other day, I asked ChatGTP to run some numbers
Excuse me, this is where I get off; bye!
Re: (Score:2)
Why is death the only metric?
What about injuries?
Property damage and insurance claims thus leading to wasted time and money?
Re: (Score:2)
backup cameras are cheap little vga res, RCA signal devices. plastic body, plastic lens, skinnnny gauge cable. They weigh *ounces* and use *milliwatts*. running your air-con uses more gas by multiple orders of magnitude .
Re: (Score:2)
> Great idea, until all those lithium batteries that last no longer than 10(!) years either end up in a landfill or on fire from thermal runaway when the layers between lithium layers decay. All that lithium will burn off into the air, getting into the rain, and into your water systems. All the landfill batteries will also leech into your water.
Well at least we'll have a more even, more balanced ecological environment. In fact, I feel better already just thinking about it!
But now I am sad for the fish...
So what (Score:2)
Very little lithium leaves as a gas in a battery fire. The main components of the off-gas are CO2, CO, H2. Plus microparticles of hydrocarbons, which is mainly why you see black smoke. Then there is the real nasty stuff that appears in very small quantities, such as: CO, HF, HCl, HCN, NOx, and SO2. A grid storage site near me caught fight and we were put on alert because the county did not have any HF air sensors and couldn't offer an estimate on the danger. You do not want HF in your eyes or lungs or reall
Not always (Score:1)
It's pretty clear that my low mileage ICE vehicle has lower lifetime emissions than an equivalent EV.
I specifically bought ICE for low annual mileage, long trips. EV is completely unsuitable, and would be more expensive, and more polluting.
I think the more appropriate study is that for many cases the EV is less CO2 emitting.
Not all cases, and they didn't consider pollution.
I do hold that for most people, and for my primary car, in my location an EV is a better choice.
But for some use cases they just don't m
whatever the opposite of rolling coal is (Score:2)
"New Study Proves EVs Are Always Cleaner Than Gas Cars"
You would think that American scientists would know better than to frame their research on environmental impact in the form of a challenge.
Re: (Score:3)
They did. Their actual study name is "Greenhouse Gas Reductions Driven by Vehicle Electrification across Powertrains, Classes, Locations, and Use Patterns"
You read a headline, which was written by a reporter, who gets paid when people get emotional about his article.
Reporter's write headlines, scientists write studies. You and I write the comments.
Re: (Score:2)
And at least one of you has some amount of non-motor neurons attached to their comment output, thankfully.
Re: whatever the opposite of rolling coal is (Score:2)
The circle of life.