In most U.S. zip codes, electric vehicles are cost-competitive with their gas-powered counterparts, according to a new study. And regarding emissions benefits of EVs, individual driving patterns matter as much as regional factors like the local electricity mix.
Wasn’t this already well-known? An internal combustion engine is less effective already from the start compared to “modern” fossil energy power production. Even if the energy came 100% from coal, there wouldn’t be too much difference anyways.
The only thing electric cars are worse for, environmentally, is increased tyre wear due to weight. And then the battery production/disposal of course…
And then the battery production/disposal of course…
I’d guess the entire environmental damage of petroleum exploration, extraction, refinement, distribution, and combustion is greater than the entire environmental damage from battery material exploration, extraction, refinement, manufacturing, and eventual battery disposal when talking about a single ICE car vs a single BEV.
All of the ICE vs BEV pollution metrics I have seen to-date include the environmental cost of the battery, but only include ICE tail pipe emissions and exclude the environmental cost of everything needed to bring petroleum to market.
Last I read the only time ICE beat EV in emissions was when electric came from coal fired plants.
I’d be interested in your source on that as it contradicts my understanding.
For the ICE vehicle did your source include all of the environmental costs associated with producing the gasoline or did it just consider the tailpipe emissions. Or worse, did it include all the Coal costs as a environmental burden on the EV, but exclude all of the petroleum value chain environmental burden (besides the tailipe emissions)?
Goes to show how inefficient an engine is that runs on explosions. A gear shifter is a necessity just to keep it running at optimum rotation, otherwise it would be even less efficient.
Wasn’t this already well-known? An internal combustion engine is less effective already from the start compared to “modern” fossil energy power production. Even if the energy came 100% from coal, there wouldn’t be too much difference anyways.
The only thing electric cars are worse for, environmentally, is increased tyre wear due to weight. And then the battery production/disposal of course…
I’d guess the entire environmental damage of petroleum exploration, extraction, refinement, distribution, and combustion is greater than the entire environmental damage from battery material exploration, extraction, refinement, manufacturing, and eventual battery disposal when talking about a single ICE car vs a single BEV.
All of the ICE vs BEV pollution metrics I have seen to-date include the environmental cost of the battery, but only include ICE tail pipe emissions and exclude the environmental cost of everything needed to bring petroleum to market.
Even if the energy came from 100% black coal, EVs still have less emissions than ICE
Do you have a source? Last I read the only time ICE beat EV in emissions was when electric came from coal fired plants.
I’d be interested in your source on that as it contradicts my understanding.
For the ICE vehicle did your source include all of the environmental costs associated with producing the gasoline or did it just consider the tailpipe emissions. Or worse, did it include all the Coal costs as a environmental burden on the EV, but exclude all of the petroleum value chain environmental burden (besides the tailipe emissions)?
About 30% less.
Goes to show how inefficient an engine is that runs on explosions. A gear shifter is a necessity just to keep it running at optimum rotation, otherwise it would be even less efficient.
Gas engines don’t run on explosions. They run on burn and rapid gas expansion. Explosions are avoided because it ruins motors.
But they are horribly inefficient and 75% of the gas people buy is wasted as heat.
I mean, yes? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtQ9nt2ZeGM