🔋Payback Time
Despite having more upfront emissions leading to a "payback period", it is reasonable to assume that you will be able to drive your EV long enough to be cleaner than an ICE car.
If you found this article interesting, click the like button for me! I would greatly appreciate it :)
Ever see a Tesla driving really slow? It always strikes me as a bit odd. They have some of the quickest acceleration among consumer cars and yet you’re always passing them. On top of that they are considered a sleek luxury car brand. What’s up with that. Are they conserving battery, on autopilot… or are they making sure they don’t crash so they are truly being better for the climate? I digress.
Electric vehicles (EVs) are widely assumed to be cleaner than internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles in terms of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. As such, the Biden White House has an aggressive plan for 50% of new car sales to be electric by 2030. Critics say that the tremendous mineral requirements including lithium, copper, aluminum, nickel, etc. mean that the emissions reduction while driving is not worth the upfront mining emissions in addition to the environmental impacts. Reality tends to be found somewhere in the middle.
Various organizations have made an attempt to quantify the emissions of both types of cars and determine what the emissions payback period would be for electric vehicles (how many miles before an EV is cleaner that ICE). I personally have seen varying estimates ranging from the low thousands all the way to over 100,000mi. Argonne National Laboratory, a prestigious center for scientific research in the US estimates that number to be 13,500 miles in the US. That means that if you crash or sell your car before this number then you did not help the planet, you were actually worse for it. This study compares a Tesla Model 3 vs a Toyota Camry getting 33mpg. In a country with coal as the major energy source, the emissions payback goes up to 78,700 miles. Powered by Hydroelectricity, the payback is only 8,400 miles. Estimates from more skeptical sources have much harsher estimates [1, 2].
Like I said, the problem arises if something happens and the car is toast before that time. One problem that has arisen is that many insurers may dispose the whole car even when there is minor damage to the car battery. The battery makes up over 50% of cost so this can be a hefty cost even if the battery is replaceable. Tesla has begun making some batteries structural instead of replaceable which lowers production costs but runs the risk of destroying the value of the whole car if the battery is damaged. This means that your car may not need to be totaled to be screwed if the battery specifically gets damaged.
How likely of an outcome is it to not make it beyond the threshold of an EV being cleaner than an ICE car? The DOT suggests the average American drives 16,550mi/year. The average American also claims a collision on insurance about every 10-18years depending on the source [3, 4]. That means that the average person will crash in 165,000-297,000mi. As you can see this is plenty of time to recoup and gain the emissions benefits for electric vehicle even if coal was used. In addition, the average person holds onto a car about 8 years or 132,400mi which is plenty of time to recoup emissions as well. In fact, the emissions will be recouped near the end of the first year of ownership of the EV.
There are other ways to estimate whether EVs are better than ICE cars like lifecycle analysis. The EPA cited Argonne National Lab with the chart below. This assumes things like what cars, what type of battery, what size of battery, vehicle lifetime, drive distance, electricity used, manufacturing methods and more. So analysis could be vastly different by playing with these parameters.
Here is a different analysis for various countries. As you can see the fuel/electricity production makes a big difference in the difference between EV/ICE. The common theme is that over a “normal” lifetime, EVs have less emissions than ICE cars.
In general, I think it should be up to the consumer to be able to purchase what they believe to work best for them considering their location, budget, and preferences. It is natural and logical to set environmental parameters around emissions. There has been a long history of that in the US which has worked out quite well for reducing pollution and safeguarding the environment. However, to mandate such an aggressive EV target which seems like a leap at the expense of stepwise improvements in the form of more efficient ICEs, regular hybrids, and most importantly plug in hybrids. Simultaneously, not confronting the environmental impacts that battery material mining causes lacks the true holistic view that is needed, even with lower EV total lifetime greenhouse gas emissions. There really is more to the story. There are protests against mining and renewable infrastructure projects in conjunction with the broad support for more electric vehicles which creates a conundrum. While the defense production act gives federal money to north American battery material mining, the overall opposition to mining projects domestically means a surefire dislocation of the markets in my estimation. Will the EV targets or mining opposition capitulate? Or will materials continue to mostly flow from overseas? Until next week,
-Grayson
Leave a like and let me know what you think!
If you haven’t already, follow me at twitter @graysonhoteling and check out my latest posts.
Let someone know about Better Batteries and spread the word!
Socials
Twitter - @graysonhoteling
LinkedIn - Grayson Hoteling
Email - betterbatteries.substack@gmail.com
Archive - https://betterbatteries.substack.com/archive
Subscribe to Better Batteries
Please like and comment to let me know what you think. Join me by signing up below.