Everyone knows that electric vehicles are supposed to be better for the planet than gas cars. That’s the driving reason behind a global effort to transition toward batteries.
But what about the harms caused by mining for battery minerals? And coal-fired power plants for the electricity to charge the cars? And battery waste? Is it really true that EVs are better?
The answer is yes. But Americans are growing less convinced.
The net benefits of EVs have been frequently fact-checked, including by NPR. "No technology is perfect, but the electric vehicles are going to offer a significant benefit as compared to the internal combustion engine vehicles," Jessika Trancik, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told NPR this spring.
It’s important to ask these questions about EVs’ hidden costs, Trancik says. But they have been answered “exhaustively” — her word — and a widerange of organizations have confirmed that EVs still beat gas.
The “break even” point is still somewhere around 150k miles for big batteries (above 75 kWh). And while there are many EVs that have 200k on their first battery, that isn’t necessarily the status quo for most of them. A simple lump of Aluminum or Cast Iron takes a lot less energy to make and can even be produced completely renewable If you factor in synthetic fuels, things look even more grey - especially with algae, there can be huge benefits growing algae in sea water (see the Arctic Algal Boom and the connected pytho plankton growth). BEVs are not “THE” answer, they are one answer to specific questions.
Not only that, the issus (environmental, child labour, etc) with rare earth elements are still not solved and the environmental damages through lithium mining are not something to just sweep under the rug.
Or maybe 13,500 miles. But what’s a few zeros between friends?
Argonne assumes the batteries are produced with renewables AND they assume EVs are going to be charged over the day, when most of the renewable energy is “present”. Most BEVs are charged over night, where only Hydro or Geothermal makes power. Meaning, the Co2 footprint grows exponentially, because at night most of the power is made with fossile fuels - a kWh easily can have a rucksack of over 700 gr/kWh of Co2. But hey, what’s a few assumptions here or there in favour of either side, huh? Oh and go talk to China about them producing the batteries “environment friendly”. Just because something uses less Co2 doesn’t mean it’s cleaner. A few ppm more Co2 in the Atmosphere is bad for the Climate, sure, but a few ppm more Mercury in natural habitats, rivers and lakes? Pff, who cares!
A recent study from the Association of German Engineers did factor in that most EVs are charged over night - even after 130k Miles (~ 200k km), a Golf TDI has roughly a 33 Ton Co2 rucksack, where an EV produced with renewables (ID.3) had 36 Tons.
“Most BEVs are charged over night, where only Hydro or Geothermal makes power”
Maybe in Iceland; anywhere with wind and nuclear power, this really is not the case.
And in most areas, how much share have nuclear and wind? Somewhere around 30-40% combined on average
About 30% in Europe/US; half that in China.
Electricity consumption drops sharply during the night - when wind power typically peaks. There are power companies that offer substantially cheaper rates at night for charging EVs for this very reason.
So something a swappable and universal battery design would solve that would allow lithium to be phased out by sodium batteries and would allow the usage of only the amount of batteries you’d actually need. So why are you against that as well? Or just BEVs in general?
Who said i’m against that? But with that argument, phasing out fossile fuels would solve a lot more issues than a few EVs.