Author Topic: Production of electric vehicles has twice the global warming potential of fossil fuel powered cars  (Read 685 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 242,934

Production of electric vehicles has twice the global warming potential of fossil fuel powered cars
by Jonathan DuHamel on Oct. 06, 2012, under Climate change, Energy

A new Norwegian study, “Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Electric Vehicles” published in the Journal of Industrial Ecology (full paper here) found that the “use phase” of electric vehicles (EVs) “powered by the present European electricity mix offers a 10% to 24% decrease in global warming potential (GWP) relative to conventional diesel or gasoline vehicles assuming lifetimes of 150,000 km. However, EVs exhibit the potential for significant increases in human toxicity, freshwater eco-toxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and metal depletion impacts, largely emanating from the vehicle supply chain.” The authors call that “problem shifting.”

The global warming potential in the “production phase” of electric vehicles is double that of internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs). “In contrast with ICEVs, almost half of an EV’s life cycle GWP is associated with its production. We estimate the GWP from EV production to be 87 to 95 grams carbon dioxide equivalent per kilometer (g CO2-eq/km), which is roughly twice the 43 g CO2-eq/km associated with ICEV production. Battery production contributes 35% to 41% of the EV production phase GWP, whereas the electric engine contributes 7% to 8%. Other power train components, notably inverters and the passive battery cooling system with their high aluminum content, contribute 16% to 18% of the embodied GWP of EVs.”

The authors of this paper have tried to base their estimates on a typical use scenario, but they realize that conditions vary. They discuss many caveats in their estimate in an effort to be transparent. Read the full paper for details.

Support the USO
#NeverHillary  Not#NeverTrump

Online Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 41,239
  • SMOD 2016
I won't vote for Clinton, but I cannot vote for Trump.  How could I explain to my daughter why I supported a man who sees her as nothing more than a piece of meat, a piece of a$$ for him to grope for his own private pleasure.

"Trump supporter" - the very definition of an SFI

Offline DeerSlayer

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 28
A first-order approximation of how much pollution a man-made event or object contributes is its actual cost.
Cost is a crude but very real measure of the resources required to make, use, and consume the subject.

At the lowest end of the cost scale, one breathes constantly.  Obviously this causes little by way of pollution.
You then go to your faucet and drink 500 ml of tap water.  Eat an apple or orange off the tree growing in
your own back yard.  Zero impact.  Zero.

At the other end, we have Barack Obama, shredding the Constitution at a cost of trillions of dollars; taking vacations
all the time, and flying Air Force One constantly to fund raisers, where he gladhands leftist fat cats for millions of dollars in campaign contributions,  so far costing the United States Treasury about $1,400,000,000 - or $1.4 BILLION dollars.

Limousine liberals could care less. Their legs are still tingling.  And that's what really matters to them.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2012, 11:57:29 AM by DeerSlayer »

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
I can't believe no one is talking about all the liberal greenies in NJ and NY with electric cars and no electricity to charge them........
“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves.” G Washington July 2, 1776

Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo