> Electric cars also do not care how the power is sourced, and if it's coal then can actually add more carbon to the environment than a petrol car.

Erm, no. You're absolutely correct about the embodied carbon in the car's production, but an EV consuming pure coal power[0] is less polluting than an (edit) ICE car. And most areas are far from pure coal power. According to the EPA if I bought an EV it would have 1/5th the tailpipe emissions of a gasoline car.

The "EV's are just coal power plants on wheels" is literally oil industry propaganda, FYI.

Edit: I also find the argument about production to be correct, but misguided. A sibling commenter plugged a calculator that they made for lifetime emissions and break even points. Using their assumptions about CO2 cost for the vehicles productions and my car's current mileage (30mpg) and local CO2 production (127g/kWh), the break even point for an EV is ~10,000 miles. This is a bit less than what most Americans drive per year. Given that a lot of people constantly trade up their cars anyways, you'd rather they trade-up to an EV than a ICE vehicle, on the balance.

0 - The EPA has a calculator for tailpipe emissions. Even putting a model Y right next to the largest coal powerplant in the US yielded significantly lower tailpipe emissions than gas; 130g/mi vs 410g/mi. https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?year=2021&vehicleId=...

> Erm, no. You're absolutely correct about the embodied carbon in the car's production, but an EV consuming pure coal power[0] is less polluting than a pure EV. And most areas are far from pure coal power.

I think you mean it's less polluting than a ICE? Otherwise I don't think I understand this.

Yes, typo.

New EVs are a net benefit over new ICE cars for almost all usage patterns. Only for extremely low yearly mileage over the whole lifespan of the car can an ICE car come out ahead, even if you consider the current electricity mix and ignore any future growth of renewables on the grid.

If you are trading in a driveable car, it doesn't get discarded but sold on the used cars market. In general, the alternative to buying an electric vehicle usually is buying a non-electric vehicle. So it should be evaluated on that base.

The ICE car sold second hand is probably displacing an older, more polluting car so it’s still a net win.

While true in terms that we generate most electricity from fossil fuels so electric cars still pollute the environment but I find it really hard to believe an electric car in any fashion can pollute more than a gasoline/diesel. A regular car is at most 15% efficient at the vehicle level. Even less factoring carbon footprint end to end from oil extraction until you fill the car. An electric car on the other hand by itself is easily over 70% efficient. Burning gas would somehow need to be 5-7X times cleaner than coal factories.

A video I watched recently comes to a very different conclusion on almost every point you raised: that buying a new electric car is better for the environment within ~5 years of use, taking into account the 'new car' footprint.

I'm not an expert, so I won't claim to know who's correct. But the linked video provides lots of numbers, and you didn't, so I lean in favour of that conclusion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2IKCdnzl5k

Do you know some sources for the net footprint of electrical cars? Including the lithium problem and the power source.

I'd really like to run some formula in Python and see the footprint of petrol vs electric cars in terms of CO2, lithium, obsolescence time, other gases, maintenance etc.. (possibly with some parameters such as the composition of the power sources of the grid in your place).

Until I see that I feel I am being scammed by everyone since I don't have a good grasp on the data.

See my post above - I built a calculator, here: https://www.robinlinacre.com/carbon_electric_car/

The main source is a 2020 EU report. The hyperlink has changed since I published the above, but you can find it here: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/1f4...

Not that long.

For a fairly typical UK car, it's about 25,000 km (15,000 miles).

You can see the calculation and play with the assumptions here: https://www.robinlinacre.com/carbon_electric_car/

The average UK car does about 20k miles in its first year.

Do you have any sources for your "ICE uplift" default value of 50%? I'd also be curious to know where you got your numbers for manufacturing CO2 from.

Yes - the main source is a 2020 EU report. The hyperlink has changed since I published the above, but you can find it here: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/1f4... If I remember correctly, I think you can see it in the 'fuel production cycle' part of figure ES5.

Where did you get the numbers for coal? I have a hard time imagining how a building sized power plant/modern grid is less efficient than a tiny gasoline generator, unless perhaps it's a REALLY old coal plant, which I supposed might exist in the UK if they exist anywhere.

One of the largest coal plants in Europe, the Bełchatów power plant in Poland, is estimated to produce 1.75kg(!!!!) of CO2 for every kWh of electricity produced[0].

If you charge your electric car from that power plant, it's literally better(CO2 wise) to just drive a modern diesel. It's insane how bad that power plant is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be%C5%82chat%C3%B3w_Power_Stat...

Edit: and of course, it's currently being expanded, because Polish government is incapable of resisting the miner unions in this country.

> might exist in the UK if they exist anywhere.

That's a bit unfair to the UK.

Only 1.8% of power in the UK was generated from coal in 2020, down from 40% in 2012. The three remaining plants are all scheduled to close by October 2024:

• Kilroot Power Station is due to be converted to gas in 2023/2024.

• Ratcliffe-on-Soap Power Station is due to close in September 2024, although ¼ of it will close next year.

• West Burton Power Station is to close in September 2022.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/end-to-coal-power-brought...

If all UK power stations are scheduled to close in the next 3 years, aren't you agreeing with scottLobster that the UK's coal plants are old?

I think it's more that coal is insignificant in the UK's energy mix.

> If you're trading in a car that's less than 5 years old, then it takes a long time to offset the "new car" footprint.

Then again, your old car is resold not destroyed and it will probably be bought on the second hand market by someone replacing a more polluting car.

That more polluting cr will also be resold.

Pretty much all cars will be used until they're not worth the maintenance anymore. It's all good.

The upfront cost is negative green; but however, knowing that these vehicles last long, the time-integrated cost is net positive for green.

I thought drastic measures were needed to slash CO2 emissions, to stave off the Climate Catastrophe? Most analysis puts the lifecycle CO2 savings of an EV over an ICE at somewhere near 50%. Hardly seems worth it, with all of the extra pollution created by new mining and disposal cycles.

Seems it would be much better advice to walk or cycle more, instead of lining the pockets of big mining (which is working well for me - my wife's company is making money faster than they can count it. She likes to tell people she works in "Renewables".).

Your model might be comparing an EV versus nothing situation. Since it is going to be EV vs. ICE, the ‘extra pollution’ will be created unless people stop driving, so EV still wins in that case.

It would be better if we had the funds to rebuild our cities to make them not dependent on vehicles, but our hands our tied.

>It would be better if we had the funds to rebuild our cities to make them not dependent on vehicles, but our hands our tied.

And transportation technology is partly intended to reduce the power that specific plots of land hold.