4 ms·

Those must be US estimates involving huge mileage, because - taking your existing ICE car's production emissions as an already sunk cost - replacing an existing

Those must be US estimates involving huge mileage, because - taking your existing ICE car's production emissions as an already sunk cost - replacing an existing ICE with a new EV would over a decade of driving the average EU mileage (~10k km) before reaching emissions parity. It takes 2-4 years of that mileage alone for a new EV to reach lifetime emissions parity with a new ICE in the EU (which I know is longer than the US due to the vast differences in average emissions per vehicle between the two continents). For most of the world, the GP is correct. Driving whatever car you have will always be more environmentally friendly than buying a new EV. Reduce and reuse are environmental cornerstones for a reason.

cogman10 9mo ago
People keep their cars for longer than 2 to 4 years and an EV sold in 2 to 4 years will likely be driven by someone else. Which is why I put a used EV as being better for the environment vs a new one. But both will be better for the environment in their lifetime than keeping a used ICE on the road. It's more economical to keep your current car until it starts seeing major mechanical issues. However, environmentally an EV will (almost) always beat an ICE, the sooner you get one the better. Especially in a place like the EU where you can get even more environmentally friendly EVs due to the lower amounts of driving. You can, for example, grab the BYD seagull which has a 30kWh battery pack. That alone significantly reduces the new EV environmental impact beyond what some of the older numbers would have shown.
- closewith 9mo ago
  > However, environmentally an EV will (almost) always beat an ICE, the sooner you get one the better. Especially in a place like the EU where you can get even more environmentally friendly EVs due to the lower amounts of driving. This is simply not true. A new EV will not reach emissions parity with a used ICE car in its average useful lifetime (12.5 years). This isn't close or controversial, so I wonder what the basis for your mistaken belief otherwise is? Not even EV companies make this claim.
  - cogman10 9mo ago
    The payoff period for an EV is anywhere from 15,000 to 25,000mi. The moment any EV crosses that threshold, it becomes better for the environment than the ICE vehicle that you'd otherwise buy. If your used ICE vehicle has 15 to 25,000mi in it, then yeah, replacing it with an EV today is the better choice. It's more a matter of when it will be the better choice. This is only not true if you have very low yearly milages or a particularly efficient ICE. Which, maybe you do. [1] https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/dec/06/carbon-dioxide-released-during-production-electric/#:~:text=Some%20estimates%20say%20that%20after%20about%2015%2C000,at%20the%20University%20of%20Liege%20in%20Belgium https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/dec/06/carbon-dioxid...
    - closewith 9mo ago
      > The payoff period for an EV is anywhere from 15,000 to 25,000mi. The moment any EV crosses that threshold, it becomes better for the environment than the ICE vehicle that you'd otherwise buy. That's the payoff period for the carbon differential between a new EV and a new ICE, not a new EV and your existing ICE, where the carbon cost of production is already sunk. Hence why the GP commented that keeping your ICE is environmentally better than buying a new EV. Also note that 15-25k miles is 24-40k km, or 2.4-4 years of the average annual mileage in the EU. That's to break even with a new ICE. To break even with a second hand ICE, it's on the order or 15-20 years, or effectively longer than the useful life of the EV. > If your used ICE vehicle has 15 to 25,000mi in it, then yeah, replacing it with an EV today is the better choice. It's more a matter of when it will be the better choice. This claim is simply false. There is no point in the lifetime of a used ICE where replacing it with a new EV will result in reduce overall emissions.
      - cogman10 9mo ago
        > That's to break even with a new ICE. No, that's to break even with a new EV per the article I posted. I'd love to see a source that says otherwise. I think you have a bad source for the CO2 emissions of new EV production.
cosmic_cheese 9mo ago
Surely the composition of one’s local power grid factors in? There are areas where the share of renewables is much higher than the average.
- closewith 9mo ago
  It does, but single digit percentages.
zdragnar 9mo ago
I've now heard three different carbon payback estimates for an EV in the last week, and one year is by far the most optimistic of the lot. My wife might be able to do it with the amount she commutes, but for me, working from home, it's utterly laughable.

cogman10 9mo ago

People keep their cars for longer than 2 to 4 years and an EV sold in 2 to 4 years will likely be driven by someone else. Which is why I put a used EV as being better for the environment vs a new one. But both will be better for the environment in their lifetime than keeping a used ICE on the road. It's more economical to keep your current car until it starts seeing major mechanical issues. However, environmentally an EV will (almost) always beat an ICE, the sooner you get one the better. Especially in a place like the EU where you can get even more environmentally friendly EVs due to the lower amounts of driving. You can, for example, grab the BYD seagull which has a 30kWh battery pack. That alone significantly reduces the new EV environmental impact beyond what some of the older numbers would have shown.

closewith 9mo ago
> However, environmentally an EV will (almost) always beat an ICE, the sooner you get one the better. Especially in a place like the EU where you can get even more environmentally friendly EVs due to the lower amounts of driving. This is simply not true. A new EV will not reach emissions parity with a used ICE car in its average useful lifetime (12.5 years). This isn't close or controversial, so I wonder what the basis for your mistaken belief otherwise is? Not even EV companies make this claim.
- cogman10 9mo ago
  The payoff period for an EV is anywhere from 15,000 to 25,000mi. The moment any EV crosses that threshold, it becomes better for the environment than the ICE vehicle that you'd otherwise buy. If your used ICE vehicle has 15 to 25,000mi in it, then yeah, replacing it with an EV today is the better choice. It's more a matter of when it will be the better choice. This is only not true if you have very low yearly milages or a particularly efficient ICE. Which, maybe you do. [1] https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/dec/06/carbon-dioxide-released-during-production-electric/#:~:text=Some%20estimates%20say%20that%20after%20about%2015%2C000,at%20the%20University%20of%20Liege%20in%20Belgium https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/dec/06/carbon-dioxid...
  - closewith 9mo ago
    > The payoff period for an EV is anywhere from 15,000 to 25,000mi. The moment any EV crosses that threshold, it becomes better for the environment than the ICE vehicle that you'd otherwise buy. That's the payoff period for the carbon differential between a new EV and a new ICE, not a new EV and your existing ICE, where the carbon cost of production is already sunk. Hence why the GP commented that keeping your ICE is environmentally better than buying a new EV. Also note that 15-25k miles is 24-40k km, or 2.4-4 years of the average annual mileage in the EU. That's to break even with a new ICE. To break even with a second hand ICE, it's on the order or 15-20 years, or effectively longer than the useful life of the EV. > If your used ICE vehicle has 15 to 25,000mi in it, then yeah, replacing it with an EV today is the better choice. It's more a matter of when it will be the better choice. This claim is simply false. There is no point in the lifetime of a used ICE where replacing it with a new EV will result in reduce overall emissions.
    - cogman10 9mo ago
      > That's to break even with a new ICE. No, that's to break even with a new EV per the article I posted. I'd love to see a source that says otherwise. I think you have a bad source for the CO2 emissions of new EV production.

cosmic_cheese 9mo ago

Surely the composition of one’s local power grid factors in? There are areas where the share of renewables is much higher than the average.

closewith 9mo ago
It does, but single digit percentages.

zdragnar 9mo ago

I've now heard three different carbon payback estimates for an EV in the last week, and one year is by far the most optimistic of the lot. My wife might be able to do it with the amount she commutes, but for me, working from home, it's utterly laughable.