Does switching to electric really mean less pollution?

From cars to weed whackers, I am being told that to be "environmentally aware" and "green" and "eco friendly" that I need to switch to electric. I don't think it's that simple.

I am being told that this causes less pollution. And it is true that the electric device in question will create less pollution than a gas powered device... right where the device is being used. I think people have some valid questions about how much pollution is created by mining all the materials to make the batteries, and the environmental impact of disposing of those batteries. I think people have some valid questions about how much pollution is being created in order to generate the electricity to charge the devies. In other words, maybe we are just moving the pollution around? Are we really coming out ahead? (Not to mention the added danger to emergency personnel when helping at a crash involving an electric vehicle)  

Also, are there better options than simply switching to electric but everything else is the same? Is using an electric plane (instead of jet fuel), to fly food halfway around the world, really the answer we want?

Instead of "buy an electric lawn mower" why not create a garden, create a meadow, use a scythe, use a sheep?

Instead of "buy an electric car" why not ride a bike, walk, drive less, build a car with more bio-degradable materials, make a viable hydrogen car, make a viable air powered car?

Why not invest into the salt water batteries that don't need dangerous chemicals to work? Or use other methods like train cars and water pumps to store energy rather than a chemical based battery?

Do you think it is that simple? Just switch to electric?

The lifecycle analysis (LCA) of electric versus internal combustion cars has been researched to death. Yes, there are emissions and nasties involved in the mining and manufacture of all vehicles...once. Yes, there is more mining required to make the batteries in an EV. But that's a one-off, compared to every single time we put petrol or diesel in the tank. Over the useful life of the car, even if the grid power comes from fossil sources, the EV will generate far less emissions than the dino juice car, because electric motors are super efficient at turning the batteries' energy into motion and an internal combustion engine wastes about 2/3 of its consumption as heat. If you're lucky enough to charge with your own solar power, it's practically free once you've paid off the installation costs.

And yes, we should all try to drive less, no matter what we drive. We should lean on our powers that be to make public transport ubiquitous and cheap wherever it's feasible, and to make active transport safe and fun for everyone who's able to do it. But there are still times and places (unfortunately more than there should be in this particular locality) where a car or truck or van is the only realistic way of getting me and a load of stuff from point A to point B, so I make the least bad choice to use an EV (plus a trailer if it's a bulky load).

Phil Stevens wrote:The lifecycle analysis (LCA) of electric versus internal combustion cars has been researched to death. Yes, there are emissions and nasties involved in the mining and manufacture of all vehicles...once. Yes, there is more mining required to make the batteries in an EV. But that's a one-off, compared to every single time we put petrol or diesel in the tank. Over the useful life of the car, even if the grid power comes from fossil sources, the EV will generate far less emissions than the dino juice car, because electric motors are super efficient at turning the batteries' energy into motion and an internal combustion engine wastes about 2/3 of its consumption as heat. If you're lucky enough to charge with your own solar power, it's practically free once you've paid off the installation costs.

I appreciate your comment about one time things. There are some things, such as tilling ground for a garden, that I do not think are good, but I will do them one time in a strategic manner. And I also agree that if you can use your own solar panel to charge your own car, that changes things quite a bit. I do have a couple follow up questions though.

Did those studies deal with disposing of the batteries afterwards?

For those people who are not using solar panels to charge their EV or other electric equipment... what about the loss of electricity during transmission (which lowers the efficiencies of whatever source that grid has)? What about the efficiency of the grid generators themselves? While there is a lot of renewable generation... there is still an awful lot of coal/gas generators.

Also, what about the big electric tractor trailers they are building? If we look at the eCascadia it says it's biggest battery is the 438kwh, which can go about 230 miles on one charge. This translates to almost 2kwh per mile. According to google the average regional truck driver goes between 250 and 400 miles per day. Long haul drivers it's more like 600 miles a day. We will use the 400 mile for our math. At 1.9kwh per mile, this equals around 760 kwh per day. For comparison, the average house in the US uses around 900kwh per month. I'm just not sure we have the capacity to charge that many trucks. One small city in Maine could easily have 100 or more trucks serving that area. And if they were all electric, and each truck used enough electricity per day, as would feed a house for 3 weeks... I'm just not sure we have enough electricity for that. I'm also not sure we have the ability to build renewable generators that fast... which brings us back to the question of efficiency of the coal/gas generators.

Phil Stevens wrote:And yes, we should all try to drive less, no matter what we drive. We should lean on our powers that be to make public transport ubiquitous and cheap wherever it's feasible, and to make active transport safe and fun for everyone who's able to do it. But there are still times and places (unfortunately more than there should be in this particular locality) where a car or truck or van is the only realistic way of getting me and a load of stuff from point A to point B, so I make the least bad choice to use an EV (plus a trailer if it's a bulky load).

I live in rural Maine, so I know exactly what you mean. The nearest walmart is probably 30 miles away... I'm not going to be biking that very often, and certainly not walking it.

Matt McSpadden wrote: For those people who are not using solar panels to charge their EV or other electric equipment... what about the loss of electricity during transmission (which lowers the efficiencies of whatever source that grid has)? What about the efficiency of the grid generators themselves? While there is a lot of renewable generation... there is still an awful lot of coal/gas generators.

My understanding is that even with the loss from transmission, large powerplant based fossil fuel generators are more efficient than most vehicle combustion engines. These plants usually run off of natural gas however so it is a bit of apples and oranges. I don't believe you can convert the stuff that makes gasoline or coal into natural gas but rather they just exist in their forms and you use what you can use. Essentially, pick your poison. This one on the left gets you fast, the one on the right gets you slightly slower.

I have a lot of questions about this as well.  In theory, I'm about the perfect candidate for an EV.  I live 8 miles from my job and rarely make long trips.  I have gas vehicles if range becomes an issue for a trip or something, but as I said, that is rare.  A big issue for me is exactly as Matt said.  What about disposing of the batteries?  That isn't a small issue for me.  Tires, made from fossil fuels, wear out 20% faster on EVs.  Tire wear is a source of pollution.  It isn't an issue yet, but we know we don't have the infrastructure for charging if a big percentage of people switched to EV right now.  Remember what happened to CA with the large sweeping brown-outs?  The state probably most promoting EVs told people not to charge their vehicles.  Phil made the point about mining materials for EV batteries being a one-time thing, but it's one time for each battery, and the amount of mining is 500,000 lbs of material mined to make ONE battery.  Ecologically, mining enough material for one battery is terrible.

Just to clarify, I'm ready and willing to make the jump to EV if the battery technology changes.  There are several companies now that are very close to make batteries that have a 700ish mile range, and that use different materials than currently needed.  I think EVs are the future.  I just don't think we are there yet.  

Matt McSpadden wrote:what about the loss of electricity during transmission (which lowers the efficiencies of whatever source that grid has)? What about the efficiency of the grid generators themselves? While there is a lot of renewable generation... there is still an awful lot of coal/gas generators.

Transmission loss is a thing (I think around 10%) but grid generation is dramatically more efficient and clean than an internal combustion engine.  I have a little electric car now and it goes around 35 miles on a dollar of electricity.  At $3 gasoline that's the semi-equivalent over 100 mpg.

Matt McSpadden wrote:Also, what about the big electric tractor trailers they are building? ..... I'm just not sure we have enough electricity for that. I'm also not sure we have the ability to build renewable generators that fast... which brings us back to the question of efficiency of the coal/gas generators.

They will most likely power semi trailer charging stations with coal or natural gas.  Once again, that is several times more efficiently than those trucks can convert diesel to power.  Imagine how much money and tech they can pack into a car/truck to make it efficient.  Compare that to the millions of dollars of tech they put in a powerplant to make it efficient.  Side note, if they can get enough power for AI data centers, they can get enough power for cleaner transportation.  

Yes, they can get better at generating power.  Yes the batteries will get better.  Yes they should make them more recyclable.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't work ourselves away from dinosaur juice.   Massive shifts in a technological field rarely happen in one big jump.  Usually it's a shift to something a bit better and then people tweak and fiddle with it until it's clearly better.  The early cars were enough better than a horse that people eventually adopted them.  Now we (most of us) couldn't imagine maintaining a horse to ride to work every day in winter.

Phil Stevens wrote: And yes, we should all try to drive less, no matter what we drive. We should lean on our powers that be to make public transport ubiquitous and cheap wherever it's feasible, and to make active transport safe and fun for everyone who's able to do it.

Which means that part of the equation needs to include being more creative and less rigid about how we build our urban areas so that most resources are closer to the people who need them.

I have visited some places where the infrastructure actually seemed intentionally people "unfriendly"! And I've visited places that were incredibly people powered transportation friendly.

Matt McSpadden wrote:
what about the loss of electricity during transmission (which lowers the efficiencies of whatever source that grid has)? What about the efficiency of the grid generators themselves? While there is a lot of renewable generation... there is still an awful lot of coal/gas generators.

For a while there was talk about "dispersed production", but I haven't heard much about that lately. If anything, I've heard talk of doing more long-distance transmission.

I agree that we need "cradle to grave" battery production. China's reported gains in better battery production that is less toxic and uses fewer rare metals. I personally believe that much of that research needed to be done years earlier when people were still too busy saying that electric cars could never happen. We're still at the point where too many people keep talking about "one solution for everyone," which I feel slows the process. Yes, rural people are going to have different needs than urban people. Most urban people that I meet could easily live with an electric Smart Car - particularly if they're a two car family, in which case the second car could be a bit bigger. But what I see on the roads are trucks or SUV's with only 1 person in them.

So I'm coming from a british perspective which is probably a bit different to those from the US. I'm also on r/fuckcars.

To start with, Britain has a passenger rail network. It's hampered by its age, suffered major reductions after the Beeching report, isn't fully electrified and has outdated rolling stock ( looking at you CrossCountry). Unlike 90+% of roads, it isn't subsidised by council tax. But it does move people around the country.

The USA was pretty much built on railroads, doesn't really seem to have them anymore. Most American cities used to have a tram network, now they're historical curiosities. To quote a certain youtuber, "American cities weren't built for cars, they were bulldozed for them".

All of that to say, it's really hard for individual US Americans to choose to go car free.

In my very much less than humble opinion, electric cars are a bit better for the environment than fossil fuel cars but not really that better for humans.

I have the privilege of being car free. I built an ebike which can get me to the local village and a bus network that can get me to the town and therefore the rail network.

Last weekend I went and bought a recurve bow and some arrows in the city using public transport. I also have access to a community car, which has been really helpful getting to medical appointments.

As for lithium based cars, some (maybe most) manufacturers are switching from using batteries that require cobalt and nickel to iron phosphate, reducing but not eliminating some of the worst environmental and human harm through mining.


Change is possible. I'll attach a few graphs from the UK electric grid.

When I read this post this morning, the majority of the UK's power was coming from lower carbon sources.

Nearly all important materials in a lithium battery are relatively easy to recycle (especially the lithium itself), and the process is economically viable compared to using virgin minerals. EV batteries that are too tired to keep going in a car can still be good for many years of service in a residential energy setting, and by the time they've done their dash in that position I expect battery recycling will be commonplace.

The mining impact is often overstated and taken out of context, and that "500,000 pounds" anecdote has been making the rounds for a while. Lithium is one of the most abundant elements in the earth's crust (not to mention seawater). The trick is finding it in reasonable concentrations, and the spodumene ore bodies in Australia lead the pack at 5-6% percent on average, which is why they supply about half of global demand. This means that to get 1 kg of pure lithium, about 19 kg of ore needs to be dug up. So a big EV battery might use 400 kg and account for 7.6 tons of ore. The footprint of the processing is probably a far bigger deal than the scooping rock out of the ground part...all that crushing and refining to get to LiOH.

Several of you talked about the efficiency of grid generators vs the gas powered vehicle. I do have some questions about how they measure the efficiency (apparently gas powered motors and electric motors are measured differently, so very hard to compare), but it does make sense that a large generator would be able to be more efficient than lots of small engines.

Phil Stevens wrote:Nearly all important materials in a lithium battery are relatively easy to recycle (especially the lithium itself), and the process is economically viable compared to using virgin minerals.

Can you share some articles or research on this? What I am finding tells me that they are recyclable, but that it is not an easy process and that it costs more to recycle than to get newly mined materials. And unfortunately when it costs more to recycle than to get newly mined materials... most companies are going to go with newly mined materials. If that is true... then the question of environmental impact of those batteries comes back up.

I asked the interwebs and it gave this AI type answer that seems to ring true.  It looks like powerplants aren't multitudes more efficient than internal combustion engines.  They seem to be better for efficiency and pollution but not show stopping better.

Comparison of Pollution: Cars vs. Power Plants
Tailpipe Emissions

   Gasoline Cars: Produce significant tailpipe emissions, contributing to air pollution and greenhouse gases. On average, they emit about 400 grams of CO2 per mile driven.

   Electric Vehicles (EVs): Have zero tailpipe emissions. However, emissions are generated during electricity production, depending on the energy source.

Lifecycle Emissions

   Gasoline Cars: Manufacturing a gasoline car generates approximately 6 to 9 metric tons of CO2 emissions over its lifecycle.

   Electric Vehicles: Manufacturing an EV can create more than 10 metric tons of CO2 due to battery production. However, over their lifetime, EVs typically result in lower total greenhouse gas emissions compared to gasoline cars.

Energy Production Efficiency

   Power Plants: The efficiency of power plants varies by fuel type. Coal-fired plants lose about 68% of energy as waste, while natural gas plants are more efficient. Even with these losses, a coal plant is still more efficient than a gasoline engine, which loses around 80% of energy.

Overall Impact

   Electric Vehicles: When charged with cleaner energy sources, EVs can significantly reduce overall emissions compared to gasoline cars. In regions with renewable energy, EVs have a much lower carbon footprint.

   Gasoline Cars: They consistently produce emissions throughout their operational life, making them less favorable in terms of long-term environmental impact.

In summary, while both cars and power plants contribute to pollution, the type of vehicle and energy source significantly influence the overall emissions. Electric vehicles, especially when powered by renewable energy, tend to have a lower environmental impact compared to traditional gasoline cars.

Matt McSpadden wrote:Several of you talked about the efficiency of grid generators vs the gas powered vehicle. I do have some questions about how they measure the efficiency (apparently gas powered motors and electric motors are measured differently, so very hard to compare), but it does make sense that a large generator would be able to be more efficient than lots of small engines.

It's pretty straightforward. You measure the energy content of the fuel put into the vehicle and see how far you go. For an equivalent amount of input, an EV will go 3-4 times as far because the powertrain is close to 90% efficient in turning the stored energy into kinetic energy. An internal combustion engine only turns about 25-30% of the stored energy into motive force. The rest is wasted as heat.

Phil Stevens wrote:
It's pretty straightforward. You measure the energy content of the fuel put into the vehicle and see how far you go. For an equivalent amount of input, an EV will go 3-4 times as far because the powertrain is close to 90% efficient in turning the stored energy into kinetic energy. An internal combustion engine only turns about 25-30% of the stored energy into motive force. The rest is wasted as heat.

I think this is as far as most people think about when it comes to gas engines vs electric engines. There are two aspects that make me stop and think that it is not that simple.

First, is that a 25% efficient gasoline motor is not measuring how far you can go on a set amount of fuel. It is measuring how much energy is lost to heat. When you have a 95% efficient electric motor, it is measuring the mechanical output compared to the electrical input. So its not really comparing apples to apples. And it also assumes the electricity for the motor came in at 100% efficiency, which is not true. While gasoline engines are somewhere near 25-30% efficient... coal, older gas, and even nuclear power plants are only 30-40% efficient. Definitely more efficient, but not crazy more. So the numbers would be very different if someone was charging from grid powered by a nuclear power plant compared to being charged from a grid powered by hydro-electric (around 90% efficient).

Second, those efficiencies do not take into consideration the batteries. All the input to make the batteries and all the input to take those batteries apart and dispose of them. I think if we were honest about the batteries that those number would be quite different

Ok, if you want to work backward through the chain, we look at all the efficiencies at each step. For any electrical generation modality, these are well documented: A thermal plant (coal or nuclear) using steam might be 50%, gas combined cycle 80%, a hydro dam or solar farm well over 90%. Transmission losses across the grid usually add up to 10% or so. But then we have to go further still, to see what energy was required to get the resources like enriched uranium, coal or gas, and what their emissions profile is like.

With fossil fuels, we can look at energy return on energy invested (EROEI). Conventional oil was at 100:1 in the days of the gushers. Now it's in the mid teens, meaning that each 15 barrels of oil requires one to produce. Fracked oil is much lower, maybe around 7 or 8, and oil sands probably half of that. That's before the energy used to transport and refine it. So, we could say as a blanket guess, that there is a de facto 10-15% penalty in energetic terms on every tank, and that's before we get to the engine.

It all adds up to an EV charged from a thermal plant burning lignite accounting for lower CO2 emissions than a petrol or diesel vehicle. But like we were saying earlier in the thread, the real gains are going to come from mode shift. Replacing millions of internal combustion vehicles with electric ones still leaves us with traffic jams, road safety issues, and huge swathes of our urban landscapes sitting vacant to allow cars to be parked on them for part of the day.

Matt McSpadden wrote:
Second, those efficiencies do not take into consideration the batteries. All the input to make the batteries and all the input to take those batteries apart and dispose of them. I think if we were honest about the batteries that those number would be quite different

But that's a one-off (ok, two-off, one at either end), and the first one is always included in the lifecycle emissions calculation. The end-of-life costs of EV batteries are changing by the day, but right now there is a thriving market for them to go into grid backup. By the time they've worn out their welcome in that setting, they will have caused the avoidance of even more CO2 emissions, and by then there is bound to be a reasonably effective way to recycle the components. It's not like unbaking a cake, just physical disassembly that is the hangup, and that is mostly because there is no standard form factor.

I will admit that when I started this thread, I had doubts as to whether driving an EV really stopped that much pollution. And doing some research based on what people are telling me here, I think I am convinced that even though many EV's are charged by coal/gas power plants, and sent over transmission lines, that the driving part really does lower the amount of pollution that would be created by a gasoline/diesel engine if...

the batteries were set aside.

To compare this to money, $10 a month is certainly cheaper than $50 a month.... but if the $10 a month service has a one time cost of $50,000, suddenly things look different.

The question still looming in my head is how big is the one time cost on the batteries? I don't have a good sense of the "cost" of creating a new battery, maybe someone out there can point me in the right direction? I'm not sure anyone has a good idea of the disposal "cost". I am hearing a lot of "by the time we get there, there will be a solution". I hope so... but that is not always the case.

It's probably not as big as you're thinking. On average for a passenger car, the battery's contribution to the entire manufacturing emissions is about 35-40%. So if a fossil powered car has a footprint of 10 tons CO2 as delivered, the comparable EV is 14. If the running emissions of the fossil car amount to 5 tons annually and the EV charging on a dirty grid like northeastern US racks up 1, in the first year of driving the EV is already at parity and it only gets better after that.

decent summary of LCA comparison