4 ms·

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-e

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.
    - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
      Well sadly, this thread has misinformed you. Here's Top Gear explaining it, as my attempt to convey the same information seems to have bounced off most people replying: 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-... > But what if your existing petrol or diesel car is perfectly satisfactory? Obviously if you cause one less vehicle – of any kind – to be manufactured, you’re saving CO2 in the short term. But if you drive a lot of miles or your car is thirsty, then sell it to someone who drives less. Getting an EV would after a very few years move you into credit. If it’s efficient and you drive little, probably hold on to it for a while. > In most areas of life, the greenest thing is simply to buy less stuff and keep it for longer. But with ICE cars, because they emit so much CO2 in use, it’s not always so simple.
      - logifail 2y ago
        > Here's Top Gear explaining it [...] (Apologies for the snark but...) mythbusting articles without any experimental data or references to back up claims - or claims they say they've debunked - aren't really my thing. Hopefully not really a HN thing either :/
      - infecto 2y ago
        Sadly, a single paragraph is not a good defense. I agree that there are shades of gray though. My counterpoint is that I am not so sure the non-commercial vehicle market is that efficient that when you sell a vehicle that it is going to the best candidate best on the miles driven. Your vehicle is still in the fleet and being used. I think the simpler argument is that for any modern vehicle, there is not a significant enough gain and you are better holding on to the vehicle until it reaches your preferred EOL.

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.
  - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
    Well sadly, this thread has misinformed you. Here's Top Gear explaining it, as my attempt to convey the same information seems to have bounced off most people replying: 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-... > But what if your existing petrol or diesel car is perfectly satisfactory? Obviously if you cause one less vehicle – of any kind – to be manufactured, you’re saving CO2 in the short term. But if you drive a lot of miles or your car is thirsty, then sell it to someone who drives less. Getting an EV would after a very few years move you into credit. If it’s efficient and you drive little, probably hold on to it for a while. > In most areas of life, the greenest thing is simply to buy less stuff and keep it for longer. But with ICE cars, because they emit so much CO2 in use, it’s not always so simple.
    - logifail 2y ago
      > Here's Top Gear explaining it [...] (Apologies for the snark but...) mythbusting articles without any experimental data or references to back up claims - or claims they say they've debunked - aren't really my thing. Hopefully not really a HN thing either :/
    - infecto 2y ago
      Sadly, a single paragraph is not a good defense. I agree that there are shades of gray though. My counterpoint is that I am not so sure the non-commercial vehicle market is that efficient that when you sell a vehicle that it is going to the best candidate best on the miles driven. Your vehicle is still in the fleet and being used. I think the simpler argument is that for any modern vehicle, there is not a significant enough gain and you are better holding on to the vehicle until it reaches your preferred EOL.