7 ms·

One of the biggest myths about EVs is busted in new study

38 points by joeyespo 5y ago

lupire 5y ago
Clickbait title. Subtitle: > Even EVs that plug into dirty grids emit fewer greenhouse gases than gas-powered cars
- ReactiveJelly 5y ago
  Also importantly, the gases are concentrated at power plants. Less CO, CO2, nitrogen compounds, and brake dust (possibly containing asbestos!) near residential and commercial areas is a good thing. I had been holding onto my ICE car because "well maybe it's better to keep a used car" but now I wonder if I should trade to a 2-year-old used PHEV.
  - pengaru 5y ago
    > Less CO, CO2, nitrogen compounds, and brake dust (possibly containing asbestos!) near residential and commercial areas is a good thing. Don't forget the exotic catalyst metals continuously ablating in the exhaust stream one can literally mine from the shoulders of busy freeways.
  - NotSwift 5y ago
    > Also importantly, the gases are concentrated at power plants. This is an important observation. With a centralized power plant you can take measures that would not be feasible/economical for individual cars.
    - wkearney99 5y ago
      THIS. Far less worse to have the pollution at a facility where significantly better controls can be applied than belching fumes out on millions of vehicles with next to NO pollution controls.
  - coryrc 5y ago
    It depends on how much you drive. I have a van I use one a month. Would be dumb to replace, especially as anyone who buys it would use it more. I've actually thought of scrapping it rather than selling. So I'd say, if you aren't willing to scrap your gas burner, then only sell if you drive more than the median.
    - ReactiveJelly 5y ago
      Yeah, I guess I was just having a fit of "Gear Acquisition Syndrome". I barely drive at all, and paying $3,000 - $6,000 to trade my perfectly-good ICE for a PHEV of the same model year is basically just buying myself a toy I'll hardly use. Maybe I'll get lucky and move to a walkable town where I don't need a car, before the ICE starts to die on me.
SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
AKA the "long tailpipe" fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_long_tailpipe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_long_tailpipe Plenty of hits for that search term, e.g. https://www.forbes.com/sites/enriquedans/2018/08/19/myths-and-shibboleths-about-electric-vehicles-the-long-tailpipe-theory/?sh=6982e8ca7f26 https://www.forbes.com/sites/enriquedans/2018/08/19/myths-an...
VortexDream 5y ago
It's nuts how widespread these ideas about EVs are, even amongst people where I honestly would have expected something more. A lot of people I've talked to rely on two main arguments. 1) Producing EVs is far more polluting than normal cars 2) They're running on dirty grids anyway OH, and a third popular argument 3) How are we supposed to build enough EVs for everybody when considering the environmental impact of producing the batteries?
- masklinn 5y ago
  > It's nuts how widespread these ideas about EVs are, even amongst people where I honestly would have expected something more. It’s not nuts, they’re just bad faith arguments.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- obarthelemy 5y ago
  Then again, that study assumes cars will be on the road for 18 years (??!!??), with no major repairs especially no battery change. The current average age of cars in the US is 12 yrs. How's that supposed to jump by 50% ? I understand electric engines themselves are simpler and more durable, but you still get accidents, chassis issues, steering issues, vandalism/theft, evolving fashion and tech... and you add battery issues: a smartphone's battery barely lasts 5yrs, I understand car batteries are sturdier, but ... 3.5x longer-lasting ? If they need replacing, that's a major source of extra pollution. I'm all for cleaner cars, I actually don't own a car myself. But a study based on 18 years (+50% !) of product life isn't convincing, unless they prove cars in general and batteries in particular can last that long.
  - ikerdanzel 5y ago
    Most studies are flawed and bias. It is the conclusions that counts even if it is on shaky premises. This study is just to back EU to change their policy more on renewables and support EVs in general. Basically, propaganda disguise in sci-wolf skin.
pdpi 5y ago
This whole argument always struck me as silly, for two reasons. Yes, you’re still using fossil fuels for power. But are you using the same amount of fossil fuels? Are power plants, with much fewer design constraints, the same as car engines in terms of efficiency? And even if the situation today is not great on the first point, you can’t easily convert an ICE car into a different powertrain, but new power plants would sort of automatically convert EVs to using whatever power source.
jwdunne 5y ago
To be honest, I didn’t think the big benefit of electric vehicles was in fact going to be a massive direct reduction of greenhouse gases, but rather the decoupling of vehicles from a fuel source that emits greenhouse gases. If our cars run on electric, that’s one less huge thing that stops us from switching over to non-fossil fuels and it doesn’t matter if we fuel the car by solar panel, wind turbine or oil power station.
- renewiltord 5y ago
  Yeah, this is literally the strangulation pattern in software engineering. You intermediate the dependency with an interface, then switch to the functional alternative gradually, then remove the old dependency, then remove the interface.
- vmladenov 5y ago
  Even with dirty power, it’s a more efficient use of fuel all around to rely an 60% thermally efficient stationary plant instead of transporting a mobile ~35% efficient engine.
  - jwdunne 5y ago
    Didn’t think of it that way, so that was a gap in my understanding. I think EVs are a brilliant thing, none the less. It’d be no good replacing the grid with clean energy whilst we still burnt dirty fuel to get to work. They’re more efficient use of power and decoupled from the source of power. Even bigger argument for them!
techcode 5y ago
I'm wondering if there's similar type of analysis for renewable electricity sources like solar panels and windmills? There's been criticism regarding longetivity and degradation of performance of solar panels. And windmills have been criticized for amount of concrete (and with that CO2) that base requires, and same as for solar panels about longetivity, being hard to recycle ...
- ReactiveJelly 5y ago
  A good reason for the risk-averse to avoid rooftop solar and leave the analysis to power companies who have a huge stake in building their PV plants correctly and cheaply.
nullc 5y ago
> proposed phasing out internal combustion engines by 2035. Has there been any discussion about the impact of EVs on less wealthy people on the basis of their lifecycle cashflow due to battery replacement? My partner got a very inexpensive used Nissan leaf a couple years back, with us full in the understanding that we would need to replace the battery in a couple years, we priced the battery out at the time and were happy with it. Come time to replace it earlier this year we found that Nissan had substantially increased the replacement battery cost, so much so that for the price of the replacement we could get a much newer used leaf for less. Worse, the replacement was still just the original battery with limited range (about 80mi). Fortunately, we found that with some hacks it was possible to replace the battery with a newer model year one and managed to get double the range for about the amount we originally expected to spend on the battery, so that ultimately worked out. But I think back to the first car I bought-- which was $800 (back in the 90s, so maybe $1400 in today-dollars), and then I just had to spend incrementally on gas and maintenance. The car served me fine for many years. Back then having to make a periodic outlay of thousands of dollars at a time would have been ruinous for me. (Whatever maintenance costs I might get surprised with wouldn't be worse than whatever it cost to just replace the whole car with another similar one.) So even though an EV could deliver better $/mile the greater portion of the operating costs showing up as big battery replacement costs seems like it will create serious cash-flow problems for people who aren't wealthy. This might also increase their dependency on usurious-rate financing, and harm their economic mobility. I haven't really seen any discussion of EV cash-flow lifecycle, anyone have any pointers?
- gajjanag 5y ago
  This is an excellent question. The math is pretty easy to do and very few politicians want to seriously confront this reality. I did a calculation for a Toyota Camry Hybrid vs a Tesla Model 3 in another comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27096215 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27096215), and even in the state of WA which has extremely favorable electricity vs gas tradeoff price wise, the Camry Hybrid is an easy $/mile winner. There were some rebuttals, but they do not change the fundamental conclusion. Maybe things are a bit different on the lower end, but I haven't looked into it - the range on a Nissan Leaf is extremely low as you point out, and likely rules it out for many in the US regardless of $/mile calculations.
obarthelemy 5y ago
Cars last 18 years now ? And their batteries ?
cuspy 5y ago
This is interesting, but I have many questions. First of all, as a premise, to me the only practical question of interest is, "which technology is better for the long term health of ecosystems". Greenhouse emissions are one critical factor among many that need to be considered when asking this question. Given that, how does one accurately compare the relative environmental impact of greenhouse emissions versus that of heavy metals, plastics and other synthetic substances that result from the mass production and distribution of batteries and charging stations? I have never seen a convincing explanation of how this comparison could be done in a principled, empirical way. Even putting aside the issue of being able to compare across pollutant types, are we able to confidently forecast the potential energy costs associated with the future remediation, reclamation, and/or storage of these substances? Given that many of these materials and production biproducts (cadmium, mercury, lithium processing biproducts, PCBs, etc.) have catastrophic health effects on both humans and animals, how do we account for the energy costs of attempting to fix, manage or avoid those potential health and long-term ecosystem consequences? If there is an agreed upon scale for comparing the environmental risk of plastic and heavy metal waste to that of emissions, where can I read about it? How was it determined, by which organizations, and what are the standards? Is there a "time preference" included as a parameter in the risk model? Do we account for worst case potential effects of bioaccumulation? and so on... tldr: great news for EVs, greenhouse emissions are a serious issue, but how can we be certain that we have the right relative risk model?
- coryrc 5y ago
  What a load of FUD. There's no mercury, cadmium, or polychlorinated biphenyls in electric cars produced in the modern era. There's more lead in a gas car than lithium in an electric car.
  - cuspy 5y ago
    no need for that. I am asking these questions out of genuine curiosity. Are you certain that there is no extra heavy metal waste or plastic waste from the entire EV production chain? Can you nudge me towards that evidence?
orwin 5y ago
Yah, i'd rather take my bike, buses and train. I do transport my kite board with public transportation, and yeah, it IS annoying, but i'm pretty sure i'm not destroying my carbon budget. A car is fine as rental, a few day in a year. Ill take EV cars now.
beached_whale 5y ago
I actually think power grids are adapting faster than vehical type is changing. You still see large trends towards large trucks(speaking for North America). But Fords E150 fits right into that along with having 220v and replacing a generator, they will do well with contractors and construction crews, I think. Right now a lot of old coal infrastructure is going offline and being replaced with solar/wind. So the makeup of that electricity is trending towards green. Even natural gas is better than coal. But it’s a huge amount of generation to change too.
SquibblesRedux 5y ago
A not insignificant amount of the price of gasoline and diesel goes to taxes. [1] What analyses have been done to address the economic impact (regarding taxes) of transitioning from gas/diesel to EV? [1] https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=10&t=10 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=10&t=10
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  WhatAboutism. A huge amount of the low price of fossil fuels comes from the tax breaks and other subsidies to producers. Imagine the benefits of halting that, and maybe subsiding clean energy instead. https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidie... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-22/fossil-fuels-still-get-plenty-of-government-support https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-22/fossil-fu... Gasoline taxes in the USA are lower than in other industrialized countries https://taxfoundation.org/oecd-gas-tax/ https://taxfoundation.org/oecd-gas-tax/
  - SquibblesRedux 5y ago
    Apologies for being a bit slow on following up. First, it is quite disrespectful to answer an honest query with an insult. (I am referring to "WhatAboutism.") I am aware of the corn subsidies in the US and the problems that it causes with various state and local budgets, and how it influences consumer prices for all sorts of products. However, I know very little about the tax structures and political tradeoffs for gasoline taxes. Hence, my question. Second, the responses do not address the tradeoffs, which is what I queried about. Society is not about raw numbers; people are not machines. Just as the US has not transitioned to the metric system for what may seem like irrational reasons, a transition from gas/diesel to EV involves many complex, often irrational, factors. One of those factors -- the one I queried about -- is what happens when the transition impacts a complex system of political budget factors. To reiterate the first point, immediately responding with an insult is not only disrespectful, but also discourages others from asking honest questions. Educating is great, but hurling insults is not.
Yoofie 5y ago
Two big dubious assumptions that this conclusion rests upon: > It’s important to note that the study assumes that the vehicle was registered in 2021 and will be on the road for around 18 years. > Study authors ended up with a range of potential emissions reductions for each region by looking at the energy mix under existing policy, as well as projections from the International Energy Agency for what the future electricity mix will look like as climate policies develop. le sigh

38 points by joeyespo 5y ago

lupire 5y ago

Clickbait title. Subtitle: > Even EVs that plug into dirty grids emit fewer greenhouse gases than gas-powered cars

ReactiveJelly 5y ago
Also importantly, the gases are concentrated at power plants. Less CO, CO2, nitrogen compounds, and brake dust (possibly containing asbestos!) near residential and commercial areas is a good thing. I had been holding onto my ICE car because "well maybe it's better to keep a used car" but now I wonder if I should trade to a 2-year-old used PHEV.
- pengaru 5y ago
  > Less CO, CO2, nitrogen compounds, and brake dust (possibly containing asbestos!) near residential and commercial areas is a good thing. Don't forget the exotic catalyst metals continuously ablating in the exhaust stream one can literally mine from the shoulders of busy freeways.
- NotSwift 5y ago
  > Also importantly, the gases are concentrated at power plants. This is an important observation. With a centralized power plant you can take measures that would not be feasible/economical for individual cars.
  - wkearney99 5y ago
    THIS. Far less worse to have the pollution at a facility where significantly better controls can be applied than belching fumes out on millions of vehicles with next to NO pollution controls.
- coryrc 5y ago
  It depends on how much you drive. I have a van I use one a month. Would be dumb to replace, especially as anyone who buys it would use it more. I've actually thought of scrapping it rather than selling. So I'd say, if you aren't willing to scrap your gas burner, then only sell if you drive more than the median.
  - ReactiveJelly 5y ago
    Yeah, I guess I was just having a fit of "Gear Acquisition Syndrome". I barely drive at all, and paying $3,000 - $6,000 to trade my perfectly-good ICE for a PHEV of the same model year is basically just buying myself a toy I'll hardly use. Maybe I'll get lucky and move to a walkable town where I don't need a car, before the ICE starts to die on me.

SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago

AKA the "long tailpipe" fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_long_tailpipe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_long_tailpipe Plenty of hits for that search term, e.g. https://www.forbes.com/sites/enriquedans/2018/08/19/myths-and-shibboleths-about-electric-vehicles-the-long-tailpipe-theory/?sh=6982e8ca7f26 https://www.forbes.com/sites/enriquedans/2018/08/19/myths-an...

VortexDream 5y ago

It's nuts how widespread these ideas about EVs are, even amongst people where I honestly would have expected something more. A lot of people I've talked to rely on two main arguments. 1) Producing EVs is far more polluting than normal cars 2) They're running on dirty grids anyway OH, and a third popular argument 3) How are we supposed to build enough EVs for everybody when considering the environmental impact of producing the batteries?

masklinn 5y ago
> It's nuts how widespread these ideas about EVs are, even amongst people where I honestly would have expected something more. It’s not nuts, they’re just bad faith arguments.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
obarthelemy 5y ago
Then again, that study assumes cars will be on the road for 18 years (??!!??), with no major repairs especially no battery change. The current average age of cars in the US is 12 yrs. How's that supposed to jump by 50% ? I understand electric engines themselves are simpler and more durable, but you still get accidents, chassis issues, steering issues, vandalism/theft, evolving fashion and tech... and you add battery issues: a smartphone's battery barely lasts 5yrs, I understand car batteries are sturdier, but ... 3.5x longer-lasting ? If they need replacing, that's a major source of extra pollution. I'm all for cleaner cars, I actually don't own a car myself. But a study based on 18 years (+50% !) of product life isn't convincing, unless they prove cars in general and batteries in particular can last that long.
- ikerdanzel 5y ago
  Most studies are flawed and bias. It is the conclusions that counts even if it is on shaky premises. This study is just to back EU to change their policy more on renewables and support EVs in general. Basically, propaganda disguise in sci-wolf skin.

pdpi 5y ago

This whole argument always struck me as silly, for two reasons. Yes, you’re still using fossil fuels for power. But are you using the same amount of fossil fuels? Are power plants, with much fewer design constraints, the same as car engines in terms of efficiency? And even if the situation today is not great on the first point, you can’t easily convert an ICE car into a different powertrain, but new power plants would sort of automatically convert EVs to using whatever power source.

jwdunne 5y ago

To be honest, I didn’t think the big benefit of electric vehicles was in fact going to be a massive direct reduction of greenhouse gases, but rather the decoupling of vehicles from a fuel source that emits greenhouse gases. If our cars run on electric, that’s one less huge thing that stops us from switching over to non-fossil fuels and it doesn’t matter if we fuel the car by solar panel, wind turbine or oil power station.

renewiltord 5y ago
Yeah, this is literally the strangulation pattern in software engineering. You intermediate the dependency with an interface, then switch to the functional alternative gradually, then remove the old dependency, then remove the interface.
vmladenov 5y ago
Even with dirty power, it’s a more efficient use of fuel all around to rely an 60% thermally efficient stationary plant instead of transporting a mobile ~35% efficient engine.
- jwdunne 5y ago
  Didn’t think of it that way, so that was a gap in my understanding. I think EVs are a brilliant thing, none the less. It’d be no good replacing the grid with clean energy whilst we still burnt dirty fuel to get to work. They’re more efficient use of power and decoupled from the source of power. Even bigger argument for them!

techcode 5y ago

I'm wondering if there's similar type of analysis for renewable electricity sources like solar panels and windmills? There's been criticism regarding longetivity and degradation of performance of solar panels. And windmills have been criticized for amount of concrete (and with that CO2) that base requires, and same as for solar panels about longetivity, being hard to recycle ...

ReactiveJelly 5y ago
A good reason for the risk-averse to avoid rooftop solar and leave the analysis to power companies who have a huge stake in building their PV plants correctly and cheaply.

nullc 5y ago

> proposed phasing out internal combustion engines by 2035. Has there been any discussion about the impact of EVs on less wealthy people on the basis of their lifecycle cashflow due to battery replacement? My partner got a very inexpensive used Nissan leaf a couple years back, with us full in the understanding that we would need to replace the battery in a couple years, we priced the battery out at the time and were happy with it. Come time to replace it earlier this year we found that Nissan had substantially increased the replacement battery cost, so much so that for the price of the replacement we could get a much newer used leaf for less. Worse, the replacement was still just the original battery with limited range (about 80mi). Fortunately, we found that with some hacks it was possible to replace the battery with a newer model year one and managed to get double the range for about the amount we originally expected to spend on the battery, so that ultimately worked out. But I think back to the first car I bought-- which was $800 (back in the 90s, so maybe $1400 in today-dollars), and then I just had to spend incrementally on gas and maintenance. The car served me fine for many years. Back then having to make a periodic outlay of thousands of dollars at a time would have been ruinous for me. (Whatever maintenance costs I might get surprised with wouldn't be worse than whatever it cost to just replace the whole car with another similar one.) So even though an EV could deliver better $/mile the greater portion of the operating costs showing up as big battery replacement costs seems like it will create serious cash-flow problems for people who aren't wealthy. This might also increase their dependency on usurious-rate financing, and harm their economic mobility. I haven't really seen any discussion of EV cash-flow lifecycle, anyone have any pointers?

gajjanag 5y ago
This is an excellent question. The math is pretty easy to do and very few politicians want to seriously confront this reality. I did a calculation for a Toyota Camry Hybrid vs a Tesla Model 3 in another comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27096215 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27096215), and even in the state of WA which has extremely favorable electricity vs gas tradeoff price wise, the Camry Hybrid is an easy $/mile winner. There were some rebuttals, but they do not change the fundamental conclusion. Maybe things are a bit different on the lower end, but I haven't looked into it - the range on a Nissan Leaf is extremely low as you point out, and likely rules it out for many in the US regardless of $/mile calculations.

obarthelemy 5y ago

Cars last 18 years now ? And their batteries ?

cuspy 5y ago

This is interesting, but I have many questions. First of all, as a premise, to me the only practical question of interest is, "which technology is better for the long term health of ecosystems". Greenhouse emissions are one critical factor among many that need to be considered when asking this question. Given that, how does one accurately compare the relative environmental impact of greenhouse emissions versus that of heavy metals, plastics and other synthetic substances that result from the mass production and distribution of batteries and charging stations? I have never seen a convincing explanation of how this comparison could be done in a principled, empirical way. Even putting aside the issue of being able to compare across pollutant types, are we able to confidently forecast the potential energy costs associated with the future remediation, reclamation, and/or storage of these substances? Given that many of these materials and production biproducts (cadmium, mercury, lithium processing biproducts, PCBs, etc.) have catastrophic health effects on both humans and animals, how do we account for the energy costs of attempting to fix, manage or avoid those potential health and long-term ecosystem consequences? If there is an agreed upon scale for comparing the environmental risk of plastic and heavy metal waste to that of emissions, where can I read about it? How was it determined, by which organizations, and what are the standards? Is there a "time preference" included as a parameter in the risk model? Do we account for worst case potential effects of bioaccumulation? and so on... tldr: great news for EVs, greenhouse emissions are a serious issue, but how can we be certain that we have the right relative risk model?

coryrc 5y ago
What a load of FUD. There's no mercury, cadmium, or polychlorinated biphenyls in electric cars produced in the modern era. There's more lead in a gas car than lithium in an electric car.
- cuspy 5y ago
  no need for that. I am asking these questions out of genuine curiosity. Are you certain that there is no extra heavy metal waste or plastic waste from the entire EV production chain? Can you nudge me towards that evidence?

orwin 5y ago

Yah, i'd rather take my bike, buses and train. I do transport my kite board with public transportation, and yeah, it IS annoying, but i'm pretty sure i'm not destroying my carbon budget. A car is fine as rental, a few day in a year. Ill take EV cars now.

beached_whale 5y ago

I actually think power grids are adapting faster than vehical type is changing. You still see large trends towards large trucks(speaking for North America). But Fords E150 fits right into that along with having 220v and replacing a generator, they will do well with contractors and construction crews, I think. Right now a lot of old coal infrastructure is going offline and being replaced with solar/wind. So the makeup of that electricity is trending towards green. Even natural gas is better than coal. But it’s a huge amount of generation to change too.

SquibblesRedux 5y ago

A not insignificant amount of the price of gasoline and diesel goes to taxes. [1] What analyses have been done to address the economic impact (regarding taxes) of transitioning from gas/diesel to EV? [1] https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=10&t=10 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=10&t=10

SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
WhatAboutism. A huge amount of the low price of fossil fuels comes from the tax breaks and other subsidies to producers. Imagine the benefits of halting that, and maybe subsiding clean energy instead. https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidie... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-22/fossil-fuels-still-get-plenty-of-government-support https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-22/fossil-fu... Gasoline taxes in the USA are lower than in other industrialized countries https://taxfoundation.org/oecd-gas-tax/ https://taxfoundation.org/oecd-gas-tax/
- SquibblesRedux 5y ago
  Apologies for being a bit slow on following up. First, it is quite disrespectful to answer an honest query with an insult. (I am referring to "WhatAboutism.") I am aware of the corn subsidies in the US and the problems that it causes with various state and local budgets, and how it influences consumer prices for all sorts of products. However, I know very little about the tax structures and political tradeoffs for gasoline taxes. Hence, my question. Second, the responses do not address the tradeoffs, which is what I queried about. Society is not about raw numbers; people are not machines. Just as the US has not transitioned to the metric system for what may seem like irrational reasons, a transition from gas/diesel to EV involves many complex, often irrational, factors. One of those factors -- the one I queried about -- is what happens when the transition impacts a complex system of political budget factors. To reiterate the first point, immediately responding with an insult is not only disrespectful, but also discourages others from asking honest questions. Educating is great, but hurling insults is not.

Yoofie 5y ago

Two big dubious assumptions that this conclusion rests upon: > It’s important to note that the study assumes that the vehicle was registered in 2021 and will be on the road for around 18 years. > Study authors ended up with a range of potential emissions reductions for each region by looking at the energy mix under existing policy, as well as projections from the International Energy Agency for what the future electricity mix will look like as climate policies develop. le sigh