Electric Vehicles Emit More CO2, Not Less!!!

The key argument advanced by the proponents of electric vehicles is that they greatly reduce CO2 emissions. However, this doesn't seem substantiated, and this has major public policy implications.

This is the fifth post on EVs. A good place to start is this Executive Summary, available both in English and in French. Le présent post est aussi disponible en français.

When you read the writings of organizations promoting a bold, rapid transition towards electric vehicles, the core argument is the reduction in CO2 emissions, as a way to combat global warming.

While the most intellectually dishonest writings simply and falsely claim that electric vehicles are zero emission vehicles, others will acknowledge that some emissions are associated with EVs, yet they will argue that EVs will generate important CO2 emission savings.

For example, the influential C40 global network, which encompasses nearly 100 mayors of major cities in the world, and is presided by London mayor Sadiq Khan, claims that:

“Each electric vehicle that displaces a conventional car saves approximately 1.5 tons of CO2 per year which represents a 62% reduction compared to a petrol-powered car and a 53% reduction compared to a diesel-powered car.”

In this post, we will see that this claim does not hold water.

For this, let’s use the data provided in the Volvo comparison already analyzed in Part 2 of the article. The “Carbon Footprint Report” compares the carbon footprint of two Volvo models: the C40 Recharge EV and the XC40 ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) vehicle.

What we previously stressed is that, for the three EV/ICE vehicle comparisons reviewed in Part 2, the selected gasoline versions were not particularly efficient. This gives a big advantage to the electric vehicle. You don’t need to be an expert to understand that.

These three comparisons are intrinsically flawed, as they are not asking the right question, which would be: “what does emit less CO2: the most efficient ICE or the most efficient EV, in a set category of vehicles?”. Indeed, if you compare an average ICE vehicle to a quality EV, it’s not a fair comparison.

The Volvo XC40 is the ICE vehicle to which the electric version is compared in the Volvo report. The XC40 gasoline consumption is not indicated in the report, but 26 MPG (Mile per Gallon) or 9.05 litres per 100 km appears the accepted consumption for that particular vehicle.

Another important weakness in this Volvo comparison is that it assumes the usage, by the EV, of only one battery over 200,000 km over an estimated 15 years life time for the vehicle.

This is optimistic, as EV battery ranges diminish with age and the number of recharges. Most EV battery warranties are for only 8 to 10 years, and in many cases, the battery will need to be replaced, at very high cost, well before 15 years are reached.

Currently, for its XC40 Recharge, and for your “peace of mind,” Volvo offers “an 8-year / 100,000miles limited drive battery warranty” when purchasing your “pure” (!!!) electric vehicle. This may sound nice, but 8 years is really not that long. In fact, it’s about half the time the battery is supposed to last, as the comparison assumes 15 years.

Let’s focus here on the total emissions generated over the vehicle’s life and add, to the 2 vehicles compared by Volvo, two comparable ICE vehicles, which have much higher fuel efficiency, i.e. drive many more miles for a gallon (MPG) or require way less fuel to drive 100 km.

Indeed, if a transition to EVs is truly warranted, there should be a clear substantial benefit in terms of CO2 emissions, not over a kind of average ICE vehicle, but rather over an efficient one.

As already stressed, many people don’t need a big heavy SUV, and can use a smaller car, and can also use such smaller car, yet very convenient and comfortable car, with a modern highly efficient diesel engine, to achieve even higher MPGs and lower per 100 KM consumption.

As we have seen with the example of the Golf 8 2.0 TDI diesel model, achieving 67 MPG, with a 3.5 litres / 100 km consumption, is already feasible with available ICE vehicles.

We also mentioned the diesel Vauxhall Astra as a low consumption, high MPG option.

In the present comparison, we will stick to fuel efficient SUVs, which consume slightly more than these VW Golf TDI and Vauxhall (Opel) Astra models.

Efficient ICE Model Pick #1: the Kia Niro

For this article, we will pick two fuel efficient, comparable SUVs. The first one is the Niro hybrid produced by Kia.

This is a gasoline powered car, with hybrid technology, that tops this list by Edmunds.

The fuel efficiency of the Kia Niro is 53 MPG or 4.44 litres per 100 km, which is a very high efficiency for this type of compact SUV vehicle.

For hybrid cars, lithium-ion batteries are needed, but they are much smaller than those needed for fully electric EVs.

According to Kia, the battery weight is 34 KG for this hybrid vehicle.

The weight of the Kia Niro is 3336 Lbs, i.e. 1513 Kg, which is close to that of the Volvo XC 40 ICE.

Note that the weight of the XC40 Recharge is 2170 Kg (yep over 2 tons), and the weight of the XC40 ICE is 1690 Kg, i.e. half a ton less.

This incremental weight is kind of a “new normal” when one moves from ICE to EV cars, as the required batteries are extremely heavy, because of their low energy density - about 100 times lower than gasoline or diesel.

The Volvo comparison report does not mention the weight of the battery, nor do the car specifications on the Volvo website, which only refers to a 78 KWH Lithium-ion battery.

From this article, which reviews the battery weights of several EVs, one can estimate at around 500 / 550 Kg the battery of the XC40 - which is consistent with the additional weight of the EV compared to the ICE car (2170 kg v. 1690 kg).

We will factor in, in our computations, the 34 KG of the battery, which represents around 7% of the EV battery weight, and therefore about 7% of the battery carbon footprint, for the XC40 Recharge.

Efficient ICE Model Pick #2: the Peugeot 308 Diesel

Then let’s now pick a comparable model, but this time operating with diesel.

As we have seen, there are recent diesel cars that are not only respecting the latest Euro 6 pollution standards decided by the European Union, but that are also very fuel efficient, with high MPGs, without requiring any special batteries.

We already discussed how the Golf 8 2.0 TDI is such highly efficient diesel powered vehicle with very low consumption, high MPG, range exceeding 1000 kilometers, and affordable pricing compared to EVs.

And we saw, from that VW vehicle’s specifications, it’s about impossible for any EV to beat it in terms of CO2 emissions.

But for this comparison, let’s take a vehicle from another brand, and that is more comparable in size with the Volvo XC40 ICE, which has a fuel efficiency of just 26 MPG.

The diesel model version of the Peugeot 308 has a consumption of 4,3 L/100km which means a mileage per gallon of 54.7 MPG. This is 10 miles per gallon less than the Golf TDI, yet this remains on the high side. The Peugeot 308 is roughly speaking twice more fuel efficient than the Volvo XC40.

Find the full specs (in French) of the Peugeot 308 at this link.

With a tank of 52 litres, its range is well over 1000 KM, i.e. over 650 miles (like the VW Golf TDI). It’s hard to suffer from range anxiety with such mileage, which is a range that anyone should expect from a modern car.

As we discussed, it’s ridiculous to find satisfactory say half, or even just a third, of this range, as currently delivered by EVs.

As we discussed in this post, range is and remains a huge issue with EVs.

Note that Volvo discontinued the diesel version of its XC40 SUV.

The Volvo XC40 2018 D3 Manual had pretty good specifications: diesel consumption of 4.8 litres/100km i.e. 49 mpg US (average), a weight of 3649 lbs (1655 kgs). The car had a turbocharged Inline 4 cylinder engine, Diesel motor, producing a maximum power of 150 PS (148 bhp - 110 kW) at 3750 rpm and a maximum torque of 320 Nm (236 lb.ft) at 1750 rpm. This model was sold new from year 2018 until 2021.

The actual CO2 emissions of such vehicle were probably very close to that of the EV version, except that it would not require any expensive and CO2 emissions intensive battery replacement after say 8 to 10 years. Diesel powered cars can last very long, way more than 8, 10 or even 15 years.

From a CO2 emissions viewpoint, Volvo may have discontinued the most efficient of the three types of motorization — gasoline, diesel and electricity — that it produced the XC40 with.

(The only exception may be their recent plug-in hybrid, with a 10.7 kWh battery, i.e. 8 times larger, heavier than the 1.32 kWh Kia Niro battery)

So Let’s Compare

The comparison in the Volvo study distinguishes 5 categories of CO2 emissions:
- Materials / Production;
- Li-Ion Battery Modules;
- Cars Manufacturing;
- Use Phase Emissions;
- End of Life.

So we will keep the report’s data for the Volvo EV and ICE vehicles, and simply make a few modifications

a) for taking into account the hybrid battery;

b) for the emissions referred to as “Use Phase Emissions” which will be way lower with the Kia and Peugeot vehicles than with the Volvo XC40 ICE car;

c) for the difference in CO2 emissions of diesel versus gasoline, as diesel fuel emits slightly more CO2 per litre (2.68kg CO₂/litre) than petrol (2.31kg CO₂/litre) - a 16% difference.

Note that we will use the “EU mix” from the Volvo study regarding the electric power used to charge the EV vehicles, which is more advantageous to the EV, in terms of CO2 emissions, than the “world mix” which includes more coal.

The results can be visualized in this table and graph.

From the graph, one sees immediately that materials & vehicle production (blue) and the battery (green), combined, represent a much higher amount of CO2 emissions than those associated with the production of ICE vehicles.

The CO2 emissions you generate, by your purchase, are much higher when you acquire an EV than when you get an ICE vehicle or hybrid.

We then see that the CO2 emissions associated with actually driving the vehicle (orange) are much lower with our 2 selected efficient Kia and Peugeot ICE vehicles than with the Volvo C40 ICE.

We can also see that the CO2 emissions associated with the driving are not that much higher with the efficient ICE vehicles than with the C40 Recharge EV.

When the full life cycle of the vehicle is taken into account, both the Kia and the Peugeot have, over 200 000 km, emissions not only lower than those of Volvo ICE, but also lower than the Volvo EV.

In this second graph, the 200 000 km are separated in the first 100 000 km and the next 100 000 km. It shows that after 100 000 km, the CO2 emissions of the EV remains considerably higher than those of the efficient hybrid and diesel cars, and barely lower than average efficiency gasoline Volvo XC40. This confirms that, if the EV is not driven long distances, chances are high that it will emit MORE CO2 than a conventional vehicle, even one that is not that efficient.

Over 200,000 km, it’s estimated the Peugeot 308 Diesel emits 7% less than the Volvo C40 EV, while the Kia Niro Hybrid emits 12% less. The Volvo XC40 ICE emits 38% more than the C40 EV at the 100,000 km benchmark.

Over 100,000 km, it’s estimated the Peugeot 308 Diesel emits 19.5% less than the Volvo C40 EV, while the Kia Niro Hybrid emits 21% less. The Volvo XC40 ICE emits just 8% more than the C40 EV at the 100,000 km benchmark.

Things get even worse for the EV vehicle if a battery replacement is needed, as seen in the first graph and table. But even without battery replacement, the EV does not beat the efficient ICE vehicles in terms of total CO2 emissions.

Let’s remember, as analyzed in Part 2 of the article, that even when compared to average efficiency ICE vehicles, the EVs will only break even, in terms of CO2 emissions, after considerable distances, and after many years.

from Volvo Carbon footprint report

The CO2 impact of any transition to EVs is particularly negative in the first years - with much higher CO2 emissions. Total EV CO2 emissions will remain higher than those of highly efficient ICE vehicles, whatever the mileage.

Remember also that we looked in Part 2 at various scenarios, showing that, when the local electricity mix relies a lot on coal, and/or when vehicles are only to drive relatively short distances, the negative impact of the EVs, in terms of CO2 emissions, is even higher.

A Straightforward Conclusion

The conclusion of our analysis is pretty straightforward: there is NO CO2 / GHG / climate change advantage with a transition to electric vehicles.

A transition to efficient ICE vehicles would yield higher CO2 emissions savings than a transition to EVs.

Whether or not you are Elon Musk, let that sink in! … :)

The reasons for this are thoroughly explained above and in our previous analysis.

In life, there is no free lunch. And there is no such thing as a zero-emission vehicle.

As the energy density of batteries remains low, about 100 times lower than for fossil fuels, and the batteries require considerable mineral, energy and other resources for their manufacturing, at the current technological level, EVs remain incapable of competing with quality high efficiency ICE vehicles, including diesel cars and hybrids.

The analysis shows that, if the goal is to reduce CO2 emissions from passenger cars, electric vehicles are NOT a solution.

On the contrary, operating a transition towards clean, low consumption ICE vehicles, is a much more efficient, a much more measurable and a much more feasible option, as the industry already has the knowledge to build such cars, and could pretty easily progress towards even more efficient ICE vehicles.

A transition to high efficiency ICE vehicles would not be costly, would bring families to make savings with lower fuel consumption, and would avoid creating considerable havoc in the transportation, industrial and energy sectors.

And if one gets people to transition to not only more efficient but also smaller ICE vehicles, the benefits will be even higher.

This common sense logic is the anti-thesis of what is presently seen in the EV sector, where manufacturers are putting on the market big, very expensive, very heavy electric vehicles, requiring huge batteries, weighting sometimes well over a ton. As we already discussed, the current trend towards very heavy EVs does not make sense at all if the idea is to reduce CO2 emissions. But even irrespective of CO2 emissions, it does not make any sense at all.

An important point that was made by a reader, on a previous version of the article, is worth stressing here. New ICE vehicles keep a resale value, and feed the very important secondhand car market. With EVs, and the expected required replacement of the battery, in many cases, within 8 to 10 years, this is a big big issue. Indeed the battery replacement cost is considerable - typically over US$15,000, sometimes much more for trucks and large SUV EVs. This brings down the value of the vehicle, yet makes the secondhand EV, equipped with a new battery, too expensive, for most buyers. This does not compare well with high efficiency ICE vehicles, particularly diesel ones, that can last hundreds of thousands of miles, without requiring the replacement of a such highly expensive part.

Regarding diesel cars, they were promoted for years on certain markets because of their lower consumption, yet they received lots of bad publicity in recent years. Today, all recent diesel models do however meet the latest European pollution standards. They are recognized as compliant from an air pollution view point, for example for London’s Ultra Low Emission Zones.

Like hybrids, diesel powered cars are clearly a part of the solution, and it looks very much like insanity for jurisdictions like the EU to prevent the sale of new hybrid and diesel high efficiency vehicles by 2035.

From this analysis, it’s clear that the EV emission savings of 1.5 tons of CO2 per year, which would mean 22.5 tons saved over 15 years, as claimed by the C40 global network, don’t make sense.

If compared with highly efficient ICE vehicles, EVs will generate MORE CO2. EVs also generate well-known major inconveniences for driving (range, recharging time, etc.), costly spending for consumers because of their high price, considerable pressures on electricity grids, and negative environmental and social impacts related to mining the massive amounts of minerals required for the batteries.

For the foreseeable future, if the goal is to reduce CO2 emissions, highly efficient ICE vehicles are the only sensible way to go.

In addition, especially for diesel cars, they can last for many many years, which further reduces their carbon / environmental footprint, as they are not requiring as frequent replacements.

In a nutshell, and contrary to the EVs, there is essentially no downside to a transition towards high efficiency ICE vehicles. (except maybe for the ego of the politicians that decided to go all electric, and for the companies that have secured massive subsidies for EV production from governments / taxpayers …)

What Should be the Way Forward?

How can we proceed with a transition towards highly efficient ICE vehicles?

It’s pretty simple to do, from a public policy perspective, as it’s a matter of incentivizing the most efficient vehicles and disincentivizing the less efficient ones. Such types of measures have already been implemented in many jurisdictions, for example with diesel cars. Car manufacturers respond to such incentives and boost their production of high efficiency ICE cars without any problem.

In parallel, the current push towards EVs needs to be stopped. There is absolutely no rationale for such extremely costly promotion of the EVs at the current level of technology. We are talking billions and billions of dollars being wasted for what is essentially a non-solution to global warming (whether you believe in it or not).

Things may change in a few years, especially with advances in battery technology. But in the short and medium term, EVs can’t beat high efficiency ICE vehicles. They just can’t.

What will happen with the EVs if governments decide to promote instead efficient ICE vehicles? Well, if, and it’s a huge if, governments understand that pushing EVs does not make sense and is actually counter-productive, it’s clear that EVs will lose popularity and lose market share.

But remember, EVs are just a tool, a means of transportation. People will be fine if there are fewer EVs around. They will still be able to go from A to B without the EVs. With high efficiency ICE vehicles, they will actually do so, more cheaply, faster (no wasted time charging and considerably longer range), and with all the convenience that over a century of automotive industry progress has brought.

In addition, there are serious signs pointing at massive problems if EVs continue to be pushed by governments, despite their drawbacks. Problems include the declining availability and increasing costs of minerals such as lithium and cobalt, the unability of electric power grids to deliver massive incremental power, the very real fire risks associated with lithium based batteries, and the massive economic costs and convenience losses caused by a transition to EVs.

Of course, there are promises of more efficient batteries, solid state batteries, less heavy batteries, less fire prone batteries and other improvements. Lots of work is being done towards that. But there is no proof these promises will materialize any time soon, and that the scale of the improvements will be sufficient.

Actually, there are also lots of improvements that can still be made to ICE vehicles, to further reduce their consumption and footprint.

So, from a public policy perspective, it’s much better to wait and see, rather than to continue pushing grossly insufficiently efficient EVs.

For the foreseeable future, the only realistic solution, if one is serious about it, is to redirect our efforts out of EVs and towards highly efficient ICE vehicles.

---

Please subscribe and share, and your comments are welcome.