4 ms·

> If you look at the lifecycle analysis of ICE cars, burning the fuel is the major contributor (Genuine question, not whataboutism...) what about the environme

> If you look at the lifecycle analysis of ICE cars, burning the fuel is the major contributor (Genuine question, not whataboutism...) what about the environmental aspects of manufacturing and distributing a vehicle other than CO2 emissions? > old and set in their ways I fear I may be approaching this stage myself! :)

Mashimo 2y ago
EVs have a way higher initial CO2 footprint. The crossover depends on car and where you get the energy from. I think it's often around the 100 000 km mark where an EV gets the smaller footprint. But like I said, many variables factor in.
- loandbehold 2y ago
  Are you claiming manufacturing an EV emits as much CO2 as driving ICE for 100 000 km? That's really hard to believe, you need to cite your sources.
  - barrkel 2y ago
    You will have to factor in the CO2 cost of electrical generation mix. The tradeoff will vary widely depending on where you live.
    - calciphus 2y ago
      By that logic, also the CO2 footprint of manufacturing and transporting the fuel for an equivalent ICE vehicle, which is always conveniently left out of such calculations.
      - trollbridge 2y ago
        And also the footprint of building more generation stations (big) or building “renewable energy” generation (even bigger), which also conveniently gets left out. The greenest choice most of us can make is an old, used car with reasonable emissions and that’s fuel efficient. Like a 15 year old Civic or Corolla. Or do what a colleague of mine did - he revived a first generation Prius, flashed newer software onto it, and salvaged a battery pack from a newer, wrecked Prius.
        manwe150 2y ago
        As pointed out by other nearby comments, that is not the greenest choice (which is to not drive), nor even the second greenest choice (which is to replace your ICE with a refurbished Prius like your colleague), or even the third greenest choice (which is to buy a new EV), but only barely beats out the worst non-green choices (buying a new ICE) and then only if you pay to make sure the car emissions controls and engine aren't becoming rusty and inefficient. Here's an article explaining: https://www.topgear.com/car-news/electric/mythbusting-world-evs-better-buy-new-or-keep-your-old-car https://www.topgear.com/car-news/electric/mythbusting-world-... There are also the caveats you mentioned that the analysis does assume that an EV is actually the greener choice, which is itself a function of a lot of other choices being made green also, such as whether it was constructed and powered with the most environmentally favorable choices of mining and manufacturing, most of which isn't really in the consumers direct control.
      - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
        The actual scientist doing the calculations in proper LCAs do include this and production of the fuel is a notable chunk of the CO2 running cost of an ICE car (about 25%). Relevant phrases are "well-to-tank" and "tank-to-wheel" which combine to give "well-to-wheel" numbers.
- lucianbr 2y ago
  Is battery manufacturing that bad for the environment? I mean, ICE cars still have wheels, drivetrains, chassis, doors, windows, chairs, electronics, paint and many other things, same as the EVs. The electric motor I can't imagine its worse to produce than a combustion motor. So that leaves batteries as the cause of this huge disparity on day one, that takes 100,000km of fuel consumption to overtake. Is this with the battery tech of today, december 2024? So for EVs built in 2020 let's say, it was worse? I think there is some advancement in battery making, isn't there?
  - logifail 2y ago
    > The electric motor I can't imagine its worse to produce than a combustion motor I assumed we're attempting to weigh up keeping an ICE vehicle that already exists - like my 10 year old diesel - vs building building a new EV vehicle and scrapping the old ICE.
    - vel0city 2y ago
      Nobody is crushing their ICE and dumping it in the lake when they replace their existing and working ICE with an EV. They're selling/trading in their ICE which someone else will buy and use until it's not worth servicing anymore.
      - logifail 2y ago
        > Nobody is crushing their ICE and dumping it in the lake when they replace their existing and working ICE with an EV Although maybe we're missing a trick. Not the dumping-it-in-the-lake bit(!), but the taking-an-old-ICE-out-of-circulation bit.
  - throwaway2037 2y ago
    My guess: Most of the CO2 emissions for making cars comes from the body of the car. It is basically identical between ICE and EV. I guess a modern car body is a combo of steel and aluminium. (Is that correct?)
- rcxdude 2y ago
  That seems like an overestimate. A quick search is showing up numbers more in the 15-20,000 km region, and that's comparing a large EV running off of a mostly fossil fuel grid against a much smaller ICE (i.e. quite a conservative estimate).
  - joebob42 2y ago
    There's "Is an ev better than a new ice car" and "is an ev better than an ice car you already have". I think we're discussing the latter, where the upfront cost of the ice doesn't count because you already have it.
    - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
      The upfront is about 50% higher for an EV, so if you catch that 50% up in 1 year then you'd pay back an entire new EV in 3 years if you scrapped the old ICE one. (figures for simplicity depending upon grid and how much you drive it could be 6 months or 18 months). But generally we don't scrap old ones. If you instead sell the old one to someone who drives an ICE car that gets worse mpg then that's a further benefit.
- tialaramex 2y ago
  In particular, grid decarbonisation means that distance to break even moves after the car is manufactured. If you live somewhere that mostly burns coal to make electricity, your break even is determined based on the higher efficiency of electric motors and of the (energy efficient but filthy) big stack coal generators compared to the relatively clean but inefficient gasoline ICE. But if they start building wind turbines and solar farms, because those are just cheaper and easier - suddenly that distance shrinks rapidly (maybe half) even though for you as an end user nothing changed, because electricity is fungible so you charge a car from the solar farm just the same as from a coal power plant.
  - notdonspaulding 2y ago
    > If you live somewhere that mostly burns coal to make electricity, Which is almost everywhere in the world. Fossil fuels make up around 80% of energy production. > But if they start building wind turbines and solar farms, because those are just cheaper and easier - If they were "just cheaper and easier" they wouldn't need huge clean energy investments and subsidies. I love solar, but don't let anyone sell you on the fiction that your EV is avoiding fossil fuels at any time in the near future unless you have installed enough solar on your personal residence to charge your car every day. And if you ask the people who have done that "hey, was it cheap and easy to move your car's energy consumption to renewables?" and they reply "Yes!", please bring their story back here and share with the class. https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2023/executive-summary https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2023/execut...
    - vel0city 2y ago
      > don't let anyone sell you on the fiction that your EV is avoiding fossil fuels at any time in the near future unless you have installed enough solar on your personal residence to charge your car every day. Let's say doing things one way uses 10 units of something, and doing something another way then uses 5 units of that same something. Didn't you then avoid using 5 units of that thing?
    - tialaramex 2y ago
      > Which is almost everywhere in the world Yeah, no. If this was 1984 you'd be right on the money. In 2024 "We mostly burn coal to make electricity" either means you're subsidising coal or you have no infrastructure investment to move to a better generation. > Fossil fuels make up around 80% of energy production. Where are you still seeing 80%? Last I saw was closer to 60%. A lot of that isn't coal, and the gasoline is not electricity production†. Gasoline is what we're replacing in the discussion, so "Yeah, but what about gasoline?" is a total misfire. Which mostly leaves methane. And that's a very different comparison to coal. There are indeed new methane electricity plants in lots of places. A methane power plant might emit half or even a third of the CO2 of the equivalent coal plant. It's still a fossil fuel, but in terms of the ratio we're talking about for break-even on an EV, that's a huge difference. > If they were "just cheaper and easier" they wouldn't need huge clean energy investments and subsidies. You're seeing huge investments because they're expensive and make money, that's what an investment is. They're not investing in coal plants because that's a money loser. Yes, it's often subsidised, in my country the renewable energy schemes are subsidised via "Contracts for Difference" which have the effect of insuring the price paid for energy, leaving the problem of delivering the energy very much in the hands of the bidders, the government is only the hook for the agreed price of energy when it's delivered, this has the effect of making investment less risky - if you can make 1000GWh of energy over the lifetime of the project and the subsidy says you're definitely getting £50 per MWh, that's £50M, without CfD you can't be sure if you get paid £80 per MWh (we're £30M richer) or £20 per MWh (we're bankrupt) until the power auctions years after you've constructed the plant. † Yes there are a handful of power plants running on this fuel, but they're insignificant at a global scale.
- matthewmacleod 2y ago
  As a straight-up random Google citation (https://www.cotes.com/blog/greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-ev-vs-ice-vehicles https://www.cotes.com/blog/greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-ev-...) Production of EVs and batteries generate more CO2 before the first wheel turns, however, the total carbon footprint of ICE vehicles quickly overtake that of the EVs after 15,000 miles (24,140 km) of driving. - It takes a typical EV about one year in operation to achieve "carbon parity" with an ICE vehicle. - If the EV draws electricity from a coal/fired grid, however, the catchup period stretches to more than five years. - If the grid is powered by carbon/free hydroelectricity, the catchup period is about six months.
  - logifail 2y ago
    > the total carbon footprint of ICE vehicles quickly overtake that of the EVs after 15,000 miles (24,140 km) of driving Shouldn't we be comparing an old ICE which was already built years ago but is still operating vs building a new EV to replace it? The carbon footprint of building the ICE is almost irrelevant, it's just the ongoing damage it is doing. Compare that with footprint of building and operating the EV that could replace it.
    - soco 2y ago
      Well pretty much everybody at some point replaces their cars. There are not many still driving around their Ford T's. So latest at that point, you will have to compare production+cost vs production+cost.
    - infecto 2y ago
      That would be comparing apples to oranges, you want apples to apples. Everyone replaces their car at some point. If you are comparing a new EV, its best to compare its impact compared to a new ICE. We all know its probably best in most cases to keep any vehicle, even one that is inefficient, on the road for its useful life.
      - kenjackson 2y ago
        > We all know its probably best in most cases to keep any vehicle, even one that is inefficient, on the road for its useful life. I didn’t know this until this thread. And I feel like I’ve heard people say things like they are going to improve the environment by ditching their current car for an EV, not because they’re planning on getting rid of their car anyways.
- eptcyka 2y ago
  I seem to recall it being closer to 60’000km.
manwe150 2y ago
I think that analysis might have the “sunk cost fallacy” assumption? Just because we already have the ICE doesn’t make it more efficient to keep using it, over immediately replacing it with something more efficient, as long as you then keep the more efficient thing operating until it becomes inefficient to keep that operational. The crossover point seems likely it would occur much sooner if you replace the ICE now than if you wait for its end of life, regardless of the age of the ICE now
- criley2 2y ago
  And I think this analysis suffers from ignoring the increased environmental cost of creating a new electric vehicle. It takes 15,000 to 20,000 miles of driving for the average EV to "break even" with new ICE vehicles due to the much worse environmental impact of creation. Reduce, reuse, repair, recycle. Vehicles should be reduced first (drive less), reused second (keep using existing one), repaired (keep using existing ones), and finally you can recycle as best as possible. All of this should happen prior to replacement. If you replace an existing ICE with an EV, the EV not only has to catch up with a new ICE, it actually has to "catch up" with your existing already made working ICE that has no new cost for construction. That's much worse than 20k miles because the cost of building your existing car is sunk. It could take as many as 50,000 miles of driving to break even against your existing used car. Consumerism and early replacement of working goods has always been the mortal enemy of environmentalism.
  - manwe150 2y ago
    > All of this should happen prior to replacement... it actually has to "catch up" with your existing already made working ICE that has no new cost for construction That is precisely the sunk cost fallacy though: the principle is that continuing an endeavor simply because it already has been a cost paid shouldn't be done, unless the total continuing cost (including the eventual replacement) is less than the cost of immediate replacement (plus all continuing costs after initial replacement, including the eventual replacements of those in turn). Otherwise the principle says it is a waste of resources. The 4 R's assume that the replacement is no better than the original at the job, which is why I described that analysis as the sunk cost fallacy. We don't have to take this assumption (personally, I prefer to bike over driving my ICE, so this analysis doesn't apply), but if we take the assumption that the EV does less environmental damage over its lifetime, then this assumed "environmental damage" function is minimized by discarding the ICE immediately, as any further use simply increases the total "environmental damage" caused by the choice of which car to use. This can be seen in computers too, as newer computers are sometimes so much more power efficient then their replacement that they can very quickly save on resources by throwing out a perfectly working computer to replace it with a newer one.
Workaccount2 2y ago
>he environmental aspects of manufacturing and distributing a vehicle other than CO2 emissions? The importance of those is a tiny fraction of the importance of CO2 emissions. A toxic pit full of battery waste the size of a small town will not end life on Earth. An atmosphere full of CO2 will.

Mashimo 2y ago

EVs have a way higher initial CO2 footprint. The crossover depends on car and where you get the energy from. I think it's often around the 100 000 km mark where an EV gets the smaller footprint. But like I said, many variables factor in.

loandbehold 2y ago
Are you claiming manufacturing an EV emits as much CO2 as driving ICE for 100 000 km? That's really hard to believe, you need to cite your sources.
- barrkel 2y ago
  You will have to factor in the CO2 cost of electrical generation mix. The tradeoff will vary widely depending on where you live.
  - calciphus 2y ago
    By that logic, also the CO2 footprint of manufacturing and transporting the fuel for an equivalent ICE vehicle, which is always conveniently left out of such calculations.
    - trollbridge 2y ago
      And also the footprint of building more generation stations (big) or building “renewable energy” generation (even bigger), which also conveniently gets left out. The greenest choice most of us can make is an old, used car with reasonable emissions and that’s fuel efficient. Like a 15 year old Civic or Corolla. Or do what a colleague of mine did - he revived a first generation Prius, flashed newer software onto it, and salvaged a battery pack from a newer, wrecked Prius.
      - manwe150 2y ago
        As pointed out by other nearby comments, that is not the greenest choice (which is to not drive), nor even the second greenest choice (which is to replace your ICE with a refurbished Prius like your colleague), or even the third greenest choice (which is to buy a new EV), but only barely beats out the worst non-green choices (buying a new ICE) and then only if you pay to make sure the car emissions controls and engine aren't becoming rusty and inefficient. Here's an article explaining: https://www.topgear.com/car-news/electric/mythbusting-world-evs-better-buy-new-or-keep-your-old-car https://www.topgear.com/car-news/electric/mythbusting-world-... There are also the caveats you mentioned that the analysis does assume that an EV is actually the greener choice, which is itself a function of a lot of other choices being made green also, such as whether it was constructed and powered with the most environmentally favorable choices of mining and manufacturing, most of which isn't really in the consumers direct control.
    - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
      The actual scientist doing the calculations in proper LCAs do include this and production of the fuel is a notable chunk of the CO2 running cost of an ICE car (about 25%). Relevant phrases are "well-to-tank" and "tank-to-wheel" which combine to give "well-to-wheel" numbers.
lucianbr 2y ago
Is battery manufacturing that bad for the environment? I mean, ICE cars still have wheels, drivetrains, chassis, doors, windows, chairs, electronics, paint and many other things, same as the EVs. The electric motor I can't imagine its worse to produce than a combustion motor. So that leaves batteries as the cause of this huge disparity on day one, that takes 100,000km of fuel consumption to overtake. Is this with the battery tech of today, december 2024? So for EVs built in 2020 let's say, it was worse? I think there is some advancement in battery making, isn't there?
- logifail 2y ago
  > The electric motor I can't imagine its worse to produce than a combustion motor I assumed we're attempting to weigh up keeping an ICE vehicle that already exists - like my 10 year old diesel - vs building building a new EV vehicle and scrapping the old ICE.
  - vel0city 2y ago
    Nobody is crushing their ICE and dumping it in the lake when they replace their existing and working ICE with an EV. They're selling/trading in their ICE which someone else will buy and use until it's not worth servicing anymore.
    - logifail 2y ago
      > Nobody is crushing their ICE and dumping it in the lake when they replace their existing and working ICE with an EV Although maybe we're missing a trick. Not the dumping-it-in-the-lake bit(!), but the taking-an-old-ICE-out-of-circulation bit.
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  My guess: Most of the CO2 emissions for making cars comes from the body of the car. It is basically identical between ICE and EV. I guess a modern car body is a combo of steel and aluminium. (Is that correct?)
rcxdude 2y ago
That seems like an overestimate. A quick search is showing up numbers more in the 15-20,000 km region, and that's comparing a large EV running off of a mostly fossil fuel grid against a much smaller ICE (i.e. quite a conservative estimate).
- joebob42 2y ago
  There's "Is an ev better than a new ice car" and "is an ev better than an ice car you already have". I think we're discussing the latter, where the upfront cost of the ice doesn't count because you already have it.
  - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
    The upfront is about 50% higher for an EV, so if you catch that 50% up in 1 year then you'd pay back an entire new EV in 3 years if you scrapped the old ICE one. (figures for simplicity depending upon grid and how much you drive it could be 6 months or 18 months). But generally we don't scrap old ones. If you instead sell the old one to someone who drives an ICE car that gets worse mpg then that's a further benefit.
tialaramex 2y ago
In particular, grid decarbonisation means that distance to break even moves after the car is manufactured. If you live somewhere that mostly burns coal to make electricity, your break even is determined based on the higher efficiency of electric motors and of the (energy efficient but filthy) big stack coal generators compared to the relatively clean but inefficient gasoline ICE. But if they start building wind turbines and solar farms, because those are just cheaper and easier - suddenly that distance shrinks rapidly (maybe half) even though for you as an end user nothing changed, because electricity is fungible so you charge a car from the solar farm just the same as from a coal power plant.
- notdonspaulding 2y ago
  > If you live somewhere that mostly burns coal to make electricity, Which is almost everywhere in the world. Fossil fuels make up around 80% of energy production. > But if they start building wind turbines and solar farms, because those are just cheaper and easier - If they were "just cheaper and easier" they wouldn't need huge clean energy investments and subsidies. I love solar, but don't let anyone sell you on the fiction that your EV is avoiding fossil fuels at any time in the near future unless you have installed enough solar on your personal residence to charge your car every day. And if you ask the people who have done that "hey, was it cheap and easy to move your car's energy consumption to renewables?" and they reply "Yes!", please bring their story back here and share with the class. https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2023/executive-summary https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2023/execut...
  - vel0city 2y ago
    > don't let anyone sell you on the fiction that your EV is avoiding fossil fuels at any time in the near future unless you have installed enough solar on your personal residence to charge your car every day. Let's say doing things one way uses 10 units of something, and doing something another way then uses 5 units of that same something. Didn't you then avoid using 5 units of that thing?
  - tialaramex 2y ago
    > Which is almost everywhere in the world Yeah, no. If this was 1984 you'd be right on the money. In 2024 "We mostly burn coal to make electricity" either means you're subsidising coal or you have no infrastructure investment to move to a better generation. > Fossil fuels make up around 80% of energy production. Where are you still seeing 80%? Last I saw was closer to 60%. A lot of that isn't coal, and the gasoline is not electricity production†. Gasoline is what we're replacing in the discussion, so "Yeah, but what about gasoline?" is a total misfire. Which mostly leaves methane. And that's a very different comparison to coal. There are indeed new methane electricity plants in lots of places. A methane power plant might emit half or even a third of the CO2 of the equivalent coal plant. It's still a fossil fuel, but in terms of the ratio we're talking about for break-even on an EV, that's a huge difference. > If they were "just cheaper and easier" they wouldn't need huge clean energy investments and subsidies. You're seeing huge investments because they're expensive and make money, that's what an investment is. They're not investing in coal plants because that's a money loser. Yes, it's often subsidised, in my country the renewable energy schemes are subsidised via "Contracts for Difference" which have the effect of insuring the price paid for energy, leaving the problem of delivering the energy very much in the hands of the bidders, the government is only the hook for the agreed price of energy when it's delivered, this has the effect of making investment less risky - if you can make 1000GWh of energy over the lifetime of the project and the subsidy says you're definitely getting £50 per MWh, that's £50M, without CfD you can't be sure if you get paid £80 per MWh (we're £30M richer) or £20 per MWh (we're bankrupt) until the power auctions years after you've constructed the plant. † Yes there are a handful of power plants running on this fuel, but they're insignificant at a global scale.
matthewmacleod 2y ago
As a straight-up random Google citation (https://www.cotes.com/blog/greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-ev-vs-ice-vehicles https://www.cotes.com/blog/greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-ev-...) Production of EVs and batteries generate more CO2 before the first wheel turns, however, the total carbon footprint of ICE vehicles quickly overtake that of the EVs after 15,000 miles (24,140 km) of driving. - It takes a typical EV about one year in operation to achieve "carbon parity" with an ICE vehicle. - If the EV draws electricity from a coal/fired grid, however, the catchup period stretches to more than five years. - If the grid is powered by carbon/free hydroelectricity, the catchup period is about six months.
- logifail 2y ago
  > the total carbon footprint of ICE vehicles quickly overtake that of the EVs after 15,000 miles (24,140 km) of driving Shouldn't we be comparing an old ICE which was already built years ago but is still operating vs building a new EV to replace it? The carbon footprint of building the ICE is almost irrelevant, it's just the ongoing damage it is doing. Compare that with footprint of building and operating the EV that could replace it.
  - soco 2y ago
    Well pretty much everybody at some point replaces their cars. There are not many still driving around their Ford T's. So latest at that point, you will have to compare production+cost vs production+cost.
  - infecto 2y ago
    That would be comparing apples to oranges, you want apples to apples. Everyone replaces their car at some point. If you are comparing a new EV, its best to compare its impact compared to a new ICE. We all know its probably best in most cases to keep any vehicle, even one that is inefficient, on the road for its useful life.
    - kenjackson 2y ago
      > We all know its probably best in most cases to keep any vehicle, even one that is inefficient, on the road for its useful life. I didn’t know this until this thread. And I feel like I’ve heard people say things like they are going to improve the environment by ditching their current car for an EV, not because they’re planning on getting rid of their car anyways.
eptcyka 2y ago
I seem to recall it being closer to 60’000km.

manwe150 2y ago

I think that analysis might have the “sunk cost fallacy” assumption? Just because we already have the ICE doesn’t make it more efficient to keep using it, over immediately replacing it with something more efficient, as long as you then keep the more efficient thing operating until it becomes inefficient to keep that operational. The crossover point seems likely it would occur much sooner if you replace the ICE now than if you wait for its end of life, regardless of the age of the ICE now

criley2 2y ago
And I think this analysis suffers from ignoring the increased environmental cost of creating a new electric vehicle. It takes 15,000 to 20,000 miles of driving for the average EV to "break even" with new ICE vehicles due to the much worse environmental impact of creation. Reduce, reuse, repair, recycle. Vehicles should be reduced first (drive less), reused second (keep using existing one), repaired (keep using existing ones), and finally you can recycle as best as possible. All of this should happen prior to replacement. If you replace an existing ICE with an EV, the EV not only has to catch up with a new ICE, it actually has to "catch up" with your existing already made working ICE that has no new cost for construction. That's much worse than 20k miles because the cost of building your existing car is sunk. It could take as many as 50,000 miles of driving to break even against your existing used car. Consumerism and early replacement of working goods has always been the mortal enemy of environmentalism.
- manwe150 2y ago
  > All of this should happen prior to replacement... it actually has to "catch up" with your existing already made working ICE that has no new cost for construction That is precisely the sunk cost fallacy though: the principle is that continuing an endeavor simply because it already has been a cost paid shouldn't be done, unless the total continuing cost (including the eventual replacement) is less than the cost of immediate replacement (plus all continuing costs after initial replacement, including the eventual replacements of those in turn). Otherwise the principle says it is a waste of resources. The 4 R's assume that the replacement is no better than the original at the job, which is why I described that analysis as the sunk cost fallacy. We don't have to take this assumption (personally, I prefer to bike over driving my ICE, so this analysis doesn't apply), but if we take the assumption that the EV does less environmental damage over its lifetime, then this assumed "environmental damage" function is minimized by discarding the ICE immediately, as any further use simply increases the total "environmental damage" caused by the choice of which car to use. This can be seen in computers too, as newer computers are sometimes so much more power efficient then their replacement that they can very quickly save on resources by throwing out a perfectly working computer to replace it with a newer one.

Workaccount2 2y ago

>he environmental aspects of manufacturing and distributing a vehicle other than CO2 emissions? The importance of those is a tiny fraction of the importance of CO2 emissions. A toxic pit full of battery waste the size of a small town will not end life on Earth. An atmosphere full of CO2 will.