The national grid in the UK was so fed up with people making claims about the grid capacity it also busted some too: https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/journey-to-net-zero/ele...
> The highest peak electricity demand in the UK in recent years was 62GW in 2002. Since then, the nation’s peak demand has fallen by roughly 16% due to improvements in energy efficiency.
> Even if we all switched to EVs overnight, we estimate demand would only increase by around 10%. So we’d still be using less power as a nation than we did in 2002, and this is well within the range the grid can capably handle.
> Nevertheless, at National Grid we’re working with the distribution networks, government, the regulator and industry to provide the green energy infrastructure around Britain – the wires, the connections to charge points – to support the needs of a decarbonised transport network into the future.
> In the US, the grid is equally capable of handling more EVs on the roads – by the time 80% of the US owns an EV, this will only translate into a 10-15% increase in electricity consumption.1
Energy demand in UK declining because prices went up which accelerated deindustrialisation and forced people's to use less energy e. g. heat homes less .
For example, none of the new houses in any of the new estates around me were built with solar panels.
That article addresses literally just one of my claims
There are two articles in my post that address multiple points. Luckily I don’t even have to argue with you about this as ChatGPT can do it for me.
AI content below:
### Analysis of the Original Post and Response
The original post critiques the environmental benefits of electric vehicles (EVs), raising several concerns about their production, usage, and infrastructure. The response refutes many of these claims by providing evidence from reputable sources, notably *Carbon Brief* and *National Grid UK*, which seek to correct common misconceptions about EVs. Let’s analyze both the original post's claims and how the response addresses each point.
---
### Claim 1: *Electric cars still consume fossil fuels—just earlier in the pipeline*
- *Original Post's Argument*: The claim suggests that although electric vehicles do not burn fossil fuels directly, the electricity used to charge them is often generated from fossil fuels, thus shifting pollution earlier in the supply chain.
- *Response*: The *Carbon Brief article* acknowledges that while electricity generation still relies on fossil fuels in some countries, the grid is becoming increasingly decarbonized over time. As renewable energy sources like wind, solar, and hydroelectricity grow, the carbon footprint of charging EVs is steadily shrinking.
> "Many countries, including the UK, have rapidly decarbonised their electricity grids, meaning that electric cars are already far cleaner than petrol and diesel cars, and will get cleaner as the grid continues to decarbonise." - **Carbon Brief**
This directly counters the argument, indicating that while fossil fuels are still used, the grid is moving towards cleaner energy sources, making EVs progressively greener over time.
### Claim 2: *Mining for rare metals in batteries is damaging to the environment*
- *Original Post's Argument*: The post highlights the environmental impact of mining rare metals like lithium, cobalt, and nickel, which are essential for EV batteries. It also points out the issue of disposal and recycling, suggesting that current methods for handling old batteries are inadequate.
- *Response*: The *Carbon Brief article* acknowledges the environmental costs of mining but contextualizes it within the broader benefits of EVs. It points out that while battery production has a higher upfront environmental cost, EVs offset this over their lifetime by producing lower emissions during use compared to internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles.
> "The manufacturing of electric cars can indeed produce higher emissions, particularly due to the energy required to produce the battery. However, this is offset by the much lower emissions during the use of the vehicle." - **Carbon Brief**
Additionally, the article touches on battery recycling, noting that significant research is being undertaken to improve recycling technologies and reduce the environmental impact of batteries. For example, companies are exploring second-life applications for batteries and refining recycling techniques.
> "Recycling of electric vehicle batteries is improving, and the EU has introduced regulations requiring EV batteries to be recycled." - **Carbon Brief**
### Claim 3: *Power grids are not equipped to handle widespread EV adoption*
- *Original Post's Argument*: This claim suggests that the infrastructure for delivering electricity to homes is insufficient to support a mass switch to EVs, particularly in areas with outdated grid systems. The post implies that upgrading the grid would be costly and challenging, and that many countries still rely on fossil fuels to generate electricity.
- *Response*: The *National Grid UK article* directly addresses the concern about grid capacity, arguing that the national grid is more than capable of handling an increased demand from EVs. In fact, the article notes that peak electricity demand in the UK has been falling due to improvements in energy efficiency, and that even with widespread EV adoption, the grid would still use less electricity than it did in 2002.
> "Even if we all switched to EVs overnight, we estimate demand would only increase by around 10%. So we’d still be using less power as a nation than we did in 2002, and this is well within the range the grid can capably handle." - **National Grid UK**
In the U.S., a similar analysis found that the grid could easily support the growth of EVs.
> "By the time 80% of the US owns an EV, this will only translate into a 10-15% increase in electricity consumption." - **National Grid UK**
This contradicts the claim that grids are ill-prepared and highlights that grid modernization efforts are already in progress to support EV infrastructure.
### Claim 4: *Electric cars are more expensive to run and may not always be greener over their full lifecycle*
- *Original Post's Argument*: The post suggests that, in certain cases, EVs may be both more expensive to run and less environmentally friendly when considering the total carbon footprint, including production, use, and disposal.
- *Response*: The *Carbon Brief article* provides a nuanced answer, recognizing that while the upfront cost of EVs can be higher due to the price of batteries, the total cost of ownership is often lower in the long run. This is due to reduced fuel and maintenance costs, as well as government subsidies and incentives for EV owners.
> "Electric cars can have higher upfront costs, mainly due to the cost of the battery. However, they are cheaper to run, due to lower fuel and maintenance costs." - **Carbon Brief**
On the environmental side, the article argues that EVs have a lower lifecycle carbon footprint compared to ICE vehicles, especially as grids become cleaner.
> "Studies consistently show that, even when powered by relatively carbon-intensive grids, electric cars still emit less CO2 over their lifetime than conventional cars." - **Carbon Brief**
### Conclusion:
The original post raises several valid concerns about the environmental and infrastructural challenges of EV adoption, but the response effectively refutes most of these claims with data and evidence from *Carbon Brief* and *National Grid UK*. The articles emphasize the following:
- EVs are becoming greener as grids decarbonize. - The environmental costs of battery production are offset over the vehicle's lifetime. - Power grids in countries like the UK and the U.S. are equipped to handle increased EV demand. - EVs offer lower running costs and, overall, a smaller carbon footprint compared to internal combustion vehicles.
The original poster's assertion that the reply only addresses one of their claims is inaccurate. Both the *Carbon Brief* and *National Grid UK* articles provide detailed information that counters multiple points raised in the original argument.
thank goodness oil production isn't damaging at all and has zero cost, then
if you're going to talk about mining, every other environmental cost of the fossil fuel lifecycle is fair game. how confident are you that oil and gas come out ahead?
Unfortunately, this is a massively complicated subject and it’s hard to definitively make claims because there’s also a large element of locality (where you live) and user-specific circumstances (like how long you keep a car, how often you drive, etc)
My original comment was just that it’s easy to say “EV is the future” but really we need to be extremely mindful that EV still has a long way to go itself and thus we shouldn’t be dismissive of any research happening in the automotive industry.
- Electric motors use low amounts of rare earth metals, or in some cases none. Batteries generally don't use them either.
- Automotive batteries have been demonstrated as >90% recyclable, far better than most materials we consider "recyclable" today such as plastic
- The electric grid has sufficient capacity to onboard millions of electric cars without issue, and will not be impacted by the transition to EVs
- Cost of ownership of EVs is significantly lower than ICE vehicles in their class, as is the lifetime carbon footprint
- Plenty of electric drivetrains still use neodymium for example[0]. Whether it's too much or likely to change soon I don't know, but I feel like that's crucial to making a judgement on the overall harmfulness.
- Battery recycling is happening[1], but so is plastic recycling. Are batteries likely to be recycled, and are the environmental benefits and available profit sufficient to make it significant in the near future? Seems like yes, but it's not clear to me.
- Which grid? Is capacity sufficient just on average, or also at peak demand? Would that still be the case if EV adoption increases in the next five years? (or some timescale to short to build more plants). Looks like the US will do ok[2] but again it's not obvious.
- Does this also apply to buying new? Are you including resale value? What about carbon generated at power stations to provide the electrical power? This is a complex claim and it's hard to do anything with unless it's sharpened and given some numbers or at least references. Seems like price to consumer is roughly the same[3] and CO2 emissions even over about five years of normal use and will improve if the grid moves towards cleaner fuel[4].
Overall I think it's annoying for a commenter who knows the truth to go to the trouble of being convincing, but it's critical for having an interesting discussion that might change someone's mind.
[0] https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/automa...
[1] https://www.npr.org/2024/06/27/nx-s1-5019454/ev-battery-recy...
[2] https://news.mit.edu/2023/minimizing-electric-vehicles-impac...
[3] https://www.nada.org/nada/nada-headlines/beyond-sticker-pric...
[4] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/electric-vehicles...
I really think as soon as batteries get even cheaper and denser there will be no chance for ICEs to be dominant but right now the balance is still against the change.
For instance, where one recycle a Tesla battery, say in Poland?
I do not see to many chargers around and I believe the grid is not very modern here. Why do you think it can easily handle millions EVs? What about peak hours like nights? Do you think it will be env friendly, provided that majority of electricity in Poland is produced on coal plants.
EV initial cost is about 5-10 times more than a slightly used ICE in a perfect condition. Such a car car drive decades and will never reach in total spendings even initial cost of EV. I’m not counting charging that may not be very cheap. As electricity prices went up in recent years and may go up more.
When you stating something, think beyond your household. Your statements are not universal.
(Whether we actually do that or not, capitalism being what it is....)
Maybe the term “rare” was poorly chosen. But mining those metals is the damaging part, not the abundance of the metals.
So my point is still correct.
> Automotive batteries have been demonstrated as >90% recyclable, far better than most materials we consider "recyclable" today such as plastic
Citation needed.
EV batteries are reused in some less demanding domains for a couple of years after their life in EVs. but everything that I’ve read thus far has said recycling the batteries themselves, after their life is done, is still very much in its infancy.
> The electric grid has sufficient capacity to onboard millions of electric cars without issue, and will not be impacted by the transition to EVs
Most country’s electric grids do. That’s the bloody point of a grid. It’s the last mile that’s the issue in some counties.
However I will concede that this point is a little unfair because it’s non-specific.
> Cost of ownership of EVs is significantly lower than ICE vehicles in their class, as is the lifetime carbon footprint
That depends. If you’re an occasional driver and charging your car at home, then the cost of electricity in some countries is going to be greater than the cost of petrol.
However if you travel lots and are heavily use charge stations at super markets et al, then EVs will be much cheaper to run than ICE.
It’s definitely not as clear cut as a lot of EV marketing claims.
(I’ve been adding up the costs just this month because was looking at buying an EV and it just wasn’t a cost saving for my particular requirements).
> Citation needed
It shouldn't be hard to believe. The components of a battery aren't consumed during operation. An old battery weighs the same as a new battery, and the chemical reactions taking place inside are reversible (because that's how a chemical battery works).
I believe, though, the the previous commenter erred. 90% of _batteries_ are recycled.
According to Wikipedia, lithium battery recycling can see up to 96% recovery rate of material. Lead acid is over 98% of the lead.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_recycling
> However if you travel lots and are heavily use charge stations at super markets et al, then EVs will be much cheaper to run than ICE.
This statement is confusing to me.
In my experience in the US, charging away from home is far more expensive.
Charging at home has added an average of $10/month to our electric bill. Charging at a commercial charger can easily cost $5-$10 _per charge_.
At home I have a 3kw charger, one of the lowest options you can buy. I prefer to take time and keep the battery cool. Heat kills batteries faster.
Your statement about your cost comparison doesn't mention maintenance, which is a significant savings. No oil changes, no rusted exhaust pipes, no spark plugs, etc. Over the life of the car, that's tens of thousands of dollars unspent.
We have lots of free charging points in the UK. Or at least they do around me.
> Your statement about your cost comparison doesn't mention maintenance, which is a significant savings. No oil changes, no rusted exhaust pipes, no spark plugs, etc. Over the life of the car, that's tens of thousands of dollars unspent.
In my experience the maintenance costs is usually more tyres, suspension, breaks, and other similar things that would equally need to be maintained on EVs.
Oil changes and spark plugs are cheap. Never had an issue with my exhaust pipe but I’m sure that’s a thing. Have had clutches burn out but that’s always been more specific to manual shifts rather than ICEs. Cam belts is definitely one big ICE consumable that EVs wouldn’t require though.
I’m sure EVs will have their own specific areas of maintenance as well, but I’ll admit I haven’t done much research in that specific area.
You'll go through tires _slightly_ faster because the cars are heavier. With the exception of some standouts like Tesla's Cybertruck, which reportedly is only getting 6k miles on a set of tires, the wear rate is slightly higher. Low rolling resistance tires are slightly more expensive. Plan on whatever you're paying now plus 20% to cover the difference.
I've never had to change the suspension on any of my cars. I wouldn't even consider it in a maintenance list unless you live somewhere with truly shit roads, but the mileage and repair cost would be the same in EV or ICE.
Brakes last forever in an EV. 100k miles easily.
Oil changes in the US cost $50+, and are done every 3-4k miles (or $75+, 7-10k miles if you choose synthetic oil).
Spark plugs are cheap, but paying someone to replace them is not.
Some EVs have liquid cooling, but it lasts longer than coolant in an ICE.
I'm so used to people around me driving automatics, I forget to consider a clutch - but I get >100k per clutch so it's not a frequent or predictable cost for me.
Most recent cars, even the small ones, seem to have swung back to using timing chains rather than belts, and don't need regular changes. You can consider it if you like, but you have to take it on a case-by-case basis.
Unless you don't keep your cars long enough to notice, your exhaust system will rust. Water is a byproduct of combustion, after all, and steam corrodes faster than liquid water. It's worse if you make lots of short trips - which is where an EV shines.
Also consider non-regularly-replaced things in your maintenance list: oxygen sensors, water pumps, thermostats, heater cores, etc. You can't predict when these things will fail, but over 10 years you'll almost certainly have to replace some of them.
Consider, also, downtime while your car is in the shop getting the work done.
Contrast to an EV: none of that. A new battery in 150k-200k miles for $5k, unless you're still satisfied with the reduced range.
My wife and I have owned an EV since 2019. We also still have a couple of ICEs for me and my daughter. I'm not going to throw a car away just because.
I see the cost savings of an EV up close and personal. The only downside has been range for long trips, but 364 days of the year that's not a problem and for the remaining days my ICE does the job. When that car dies, I'll rent one when it's needed.
Wait, we do? There are people out there just giving away energy?
(I think I must have misunderstood you here).
EV adoption here is high compared to the European average (similar to Norway). Public charging stations in affected areas are reducing capacity or even shutting down at certain times.
So grid capacity is an actual problem here.
Even thought I'd agree mass EV would not be carried by the current grid, or that charging density and time is not satisfactory (in most of Europe)... LiFePO4 doesn't contain rare earth metals, unless you count Li for 'rare'.
In many places putting solar panels on roofs and on parking spaces would solve such issue.
No need for personal snark comments. Not everybody lives in the US. The worst part moving there was surviving the lack of sun light during the winter but that was many years back.
Also probably unaware that with the rise of extremely low cost, solar and wind, Fossil fuel use on the grid is economically nonviable long term.
Even so, the fossil fuels consumed on the grid are very likely to be combined cycle natural gas, which has less carbon emissions than have equivalent. Amounts of energy were burned in ice engines.
Also, The energy efficiency of electric vehicles is much higher than an ice car, so if solar and wind do not generate the electricity, it still will emit less carbon than an ice.
The only useful new engine technology I am interested in is an extremely compact recharging engine for use in plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. There was something about the inside out rotary engine a couple years ago but nothing has come off of it.
I'd not call the rise, yet. The Na ones' energy density (and specific energy) is even lower than Li based (LiFePO4 is lower than cobalt ones). They might be okay for grid storage, of course.
So the pack level they become a lot more competitive. Rise of high density, salt, water and lfp. We should be able to produce 300 and 400 mile range sedans with sodium ion and LFP chemistries.
Just go look at the catl density numbers all the stuff they have going into production. Obviously has not scaled to the level it needs to. That's a big ramp up.
I believe the current numbers are 160 Watt hours per kilogram for sodium ion and a little over 200 for lfp. With cell to pack projections of 90%, while pack density of nmc is like 60-70% to the cooling and safety system requirements, sodium ion is a revolutionary development for the cheap EV.
The five year road maps for sodium ion gets it close to 200 watt hours per kilogram. Lfp should be reaching 250 Watt hours per kilogram in the next five years.
https://www.electrive.com/2024/01/02/first-sodium-ion-batter...
Tuning SIB chemistry and getting enough factory capacity up takes a while.
I'm trying to think of an example, and I'm honestly coming up blank.
Just like with your post. I never actually made any claims about mileages. However as it happens, I do specifically fall into that uneconomical bracket. That’s why I ended up buying petrol despite wanting an EV. I work from home and thus rarely drive. EV isn’t yet ready for my specific use case. It will get there, but it’s not there today.
And thus we are back to the crux of point is was making: that this topic is far more complicated than the OP suggested.
No, my point was “EVs aren’t all that green either”.
Things are going to improve. But people so often forgot about all the other environmental costs involved with EV.
In an ideal world we’d be using push bikes, but clearly that’s not practical either. However it’s fair to say that this whole transportation debate is a lot more complicated than people like to summarise.
> It is because the additional costs in terms of emissions are paid off in less than 20k miles.
Again, that was never my claim. That’s a strawman argument you’ve constructed.
In fact for some use cases they can actually work out both more expensive to run and less environmentally friendly once you total up their carbon footprint in full.
End quote.
No, once you total up their carbon footprint they make up their additional costs in carbon in less than 20k miles.
As far as bikes are concerned, I've never owned a car in my life and I'm 40. Locally I go on foot, bike and rarely public transport and long distance by train and I rarely fly. So if you want to join me, fell free to, it's am awesome way to live. If not, EVs are a much better option.
> No, once you total up their carbon footprint they make up their additional costs in carbon in less than 20k miles.
You’re being overly generalised. There are different ICE cars that have different carbon footprints. Hybrids too. Different driving styles that can affect fuel consumption too.
Just as there are different EVs that have different running costs, different mileage per charge, and different carbon footprints to manufacture.
Then you have questions about how that electricity was generated. Most countries are improving with their use of renewables but there are some counties out there that are just going to burn fossil fuels anyway.
However even if you ignore external factors like driving style, and where the electricity comes from, you still have literally thousands of different variables just on the vehicles alone.
These are all important variables that shape the results. Saying “20k miles” is completely bullshit headline made by people trying to greenwash people into buying EV. There isnt this magic line you claim there is. Instead we have a massive fuzzy grey area.
I also think you massively underestimate just how different European cars are to American cars.
Plus the fact that even your grossly generalised statement acknowledges that there is a cross over point, means I’m still factually correct; even ignoring how overly simplistic (to the point of being factually incorrect) you are.
> As far as bikes are concerned, I've never owned a car in my life and I'm 40.
Right. So your points are from a theoretical perspective rather than actual experience. Understood.
> So if you want to join me, fell free to, it's am awesome way to live.
I’m getting really sick of your assumptions about me. I’ve already said I work from home and rarely need to drive. That was literally in the comment you claimed to have “read carefully” - thus proving my point that you hadn’t.
I live in the countryside. So I do walk and cycle lots. That’s the entire reason I chose to live where I live.
———
You have this impression that cars are literally one thing and it’s a Boolean decision. But that couldn’t be further from the truth. People like yourself need to understand that life is fully of nuance. Which was the point of my original comment: that the issue around EVs environmental footprint is still being understood but even by conservative estimates, there’s still a lot of room to improve.
Yet you missed all of that when you “carefully read” my comment and instead focused on some meaningless generalisation you saw on twitter coupled with a bunch of incorrect assumptions about myself.
Things aren't really that unclear or case to case either. A person buying a tiny IC car will not suddenly decide to buy a 7 ton Hummer EV where suddenly their carbon footprint is much higher. They will buy a Volt or whatever it's called. So there really is nothing really that important other than mileage. EVs are clearly better in every use case, as long as we're talking about the environment.
And lastly first hand experience in driving and owning a car is not helpful in determining carbon footprint. The research I linked to is helpful. Under 20k miles per car (on average - if it makes you feel better, but please note I am not insinuating it will make you feel better) with the electricity grid of yesterday. As the grid decarbonizes, this will be even less.
More EVs please.
Of course its case by case. A 3.2lt Maserati Quattroporte is obviously going to have a lower MPG than a 1lt Vauxhall Corsa. And that’s without taking any into account the types of road you drive on and the exact year of build of the car.
> A person buying a tiny IC car will not suddenly decide to buy a 7 ton Hummer EV where suddenly their carbon footprint is much higher.
I never suggested they would. But also not every model of ICE vehicle will have an exactly equivalent model of EV. In fact I ran into the exact problem myself. And I did look.
> So there really is nothing really that important other than mileage.
And this is where your lack of experience with cars is apparent. I don’t mean to be snarky but I’ve given numerous examples and you’re still sticking firm to this fallacy that there isn’t much variation in cars.
> EVs are clearly better in every use case, as long as we're talking about the environment.
It wasn’t just about the environment. I did also talk about cost too. In that post you “read carefully” in fact.
This is why I’ve been getting a little snarky. You claim to read my comments but then completely ignore everything I’ve said and draw your own strawman arguments instead. Presumably a knee jerk reaction because you’ve incorrectly labeled me as a petrolhead.
> And lastly first hand experience in driving and owning a car is not helpful in determining carbon footprint.
It is very helpful because you start to understand that even the same car can have different fuel consumption characteristics depending on who’s driving it, on what type of roads, and the length of those journeys. Let alone the wildly different characteristics of different cars even in the same class of vehicle.
You don’t seem to understand that different engine sizes matter. The weight of the car matters. The gear ratios (automatic) or how you shift gears (manual). The roads (do you need to shift gears a lot or cruise at a constant speed?). Even how heavily you break can have a massive impact on fuel consumption. Wheel sizes, tyres, road surfaces. Is your local area flat or hilly? Do you drive longer or shorter distances? Does your car have a stop-start engine? Or hybrid? How many cylinders? Turbo injection? Etc.
There simply isn’t a standard. So if you then take averages you’re going to find that all those sporty ICE cars will massively skew the results against those small European cars. And the people who buy EV for environmental reasons are more likely to be buying a small ICE vehicle if EVs weren’t an option.
You seem to think all cars are roughly equivalent and that demonstrates just how little you actually know on this subject.
> As the grid decarbonizes, this will be even less.
I agree. Which is why I also said that in my original comment. The one you “read carefully”.
> More EVs please
I agree. I was never arguing against EVs. I was just saying that EVs seem to suffer a lot from greenwashing when actually there’s still a long way for them to go before they live up to the claims people make about them.
It’s still a young industry though so that will change. But people like yourself need to understand that doesn’t mean EVs are the silver bullet. What we really need is better types of fuel. EVs are a step in the right direction but it still largely just pushes the problem upstream. We still need to clean up electricity production even with EVs.
I’m not suggesting people shouldn’t buy EV nor that EV isn’t greener than ICE.
What I actually said is that EV still does a lot of harm to the environment and it’s a long way from being the saviour to our private transportation woes that a lot of people like to greenwash it as.
Does this mean that we shouldn’t buy EVs? Of course not. But it also means:
- we shouldn’t put all of our eggs into one basket. Research into other engines still brings us gains
- for some specific individuals, EVs are yet the best choice for their needs
The problem we have in this thread is everybody is jumping to one extreme or the other rather than acknowledging that this is actually a massively complex topic and thus theres going to be a lot of contextual factors and shades of grey.
So please don’t assume I’m trying to spread FUD about EVs just because I’m promoting awareness that we still have a lot more work to do before mass produced cars of any design becomes green.
People love to talk about combustion engines being pollutants but few people talk about just how damaging it is mining for rare metals to make those batteries. Nor how harmful for the environment it is disposing of old batters (we haven’t yet solved the problem of recycling them either).
And that’s before you even touch on problems at the power grid. Eg many addresses don’t have high quality enough power infrastructure to cope with everyone switching to electric, so that would need to be upgraded. And a lot of countries still rely on fossil fuels to generate electricity to begin with.
Electric cars are likely the future. But they’re not as green as people like to think. In fact for some use cases they can actually work out both more expensive to run and less environmentally friendly once you total up their carbon footprint in full. And I think it’s going to be a long time before they become the greener option of everyone.
Whereas in the meantime, research into combustion engines can provide benefits for more than just petrol-fuelled sports cars.