Are EV's "Green"?

[WetEV]

As I mentioned earlier, the initial manufacturing CO2 emissions happen regardless of what you car you buy.

The perfect is the foe of the good.

 

[oilerlord]

While I agree with what you're saying, I feel I should point out that there are CO2 emissions from making, transporting and installing solar panels and their ancillary equipment as well - so the same concepts apply as the ones you are describing for cars.

I mentioned that earlier in this thread too, as it was the basis behind the premise of this thread. On a solar panel forum, It was argued that solar panels are not green because CO2 is released during their manufacturing process. The significant difference between a solar panel and an EV however is that a solar panel will offset it's initial CO2 footprint within 2-3 years, and will continue to so for decades. An EV simply releases less (grid) CO2 over it's lifetime.

 

[oilerlord]

As I mentioned earlier, the initial manufacturing CO2 emissions happen regardless of what you car you buy.

The perfect is the foe of the good.

Either you want to be reasonably accurate and honest about calculating your own individual / household CO2 footprint, or not. It isn't about being perfect.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

While I agree with what you're saying, I feel I should point out that there are CO2 emissions from making, transporting and installing solar panels and their ancillary equipment as well - so the same concepts apply as the ones you are describing for cars.

I mentioned that earlier in this thread too, as it was the basis behind the premise of this thread. On a solar panel forum, It was argued that solar panels are not green because CO2 is released during their manufacturing process. The significant difference between a solar panel and an EV however is that a solar panel will offset it's initial CO2 footprint within 2-3 years, and will continue to so for decades. An EV simply releases less (grid) CO2 over it's lifetime.

I fail to see the difference. Solar Panels only "offset" anything because they replace a power source that pollutes. Same as an EV replacing and ICEV.

 

[WetEV]

As I mentioned earlier, the initial manufacturing CO2 emissions happen regardless of what you car you buy.

The perfect is the foe of the good.

Either you want to be reasonably accurate and honest about calculating your own individual / household CO2 footprint, or not. It isn't about being perfect.

Nice of you to claim that I'm dishonest. Do you really want to look like an insulting Troll?

Halfway is a good goal. If the world could halve the releases of CO2, the level in the atmosphere would stabilize for hundreds of years. Yes, the oceans would still be getting more acidic as most of the added carbon would end up in the oceans. Yes, WAIS and Greenland would still likely collapse. Yes, longer term would still need to ramp down to zero.

Looks to me like replacing iCEs with BEVs could be part of that.

 

[oilerlord]

Nice of you to claim that I'm dishonest.

I made no such claim...(and honestly) wasn't implying that you are.

 

[oilerlord]

I fail to see the difference. Solar Panels only "offset" anything because they replace a power source that pollutes. Same as an EV replacing and ICEV.

The difference is that grid emissions aren't (typically) zero. Look at this comparison graph again:

While EV's have zero local emissions, grid emissions still apply. To your point, a solar panel replaces a power source that pollutes. While electricity replaces gasoline, grid emissions still occur when you use the grid to charge your EV's battery. As such, an 84 mile EV emits 51% less CO2 over its lifetime than a comparable ICEV does (as shown above). Perhaps one day, the entire power grid will be 100% clean.

I see that I'm ruffling feathers. It isn't my intention to turn this into a debate for or against EVs. A lot of us (including myself) drive EV's and love them, and are taking steps to reduce our CO2 footprint. Obviously, that's a good thing. We're on the same side. With that said, we should be able to discuss all aspects of EV's, and recognize there is no free lunch...CO2 was released during our car's manufacturing process, and continues to be released when we plug the car into the grid. It's merely a fact, and not at all a slight against EVs.

 

[NeilBlanchard]

Solar panels become energy positive in about 2 years, and when you generate electricity without any carbon emissions, it offsets the carbon still produce by the grid. The grid is getting greener and greener - there are 3 UCS maps that show this.

 

[SeanNelson]

The difference is that grid emissions aren't (typically) zero. Look at this comparison graph again:
While EV's have zero local emissions, grid emissions still apply. To your point, a solar panel replaces a power source that pollutes. While electricity replaces gasoline, grid emissions still occur when you use the grid to charge your EV's battery. As such, an 84 mile EV emits 51% less CO2 over its lifetime than a comparable ICEV does (as shown above). Perhaps one day, the entire power grid will be 100% clean.

The key issue here is where the responsibility for grid emissions lies - does it lie with the user of the power produced by the grid or does it lie with the grid itself. Placing it with the user can be problematic because (a) it reduces the incentive for the user to switch to a cleaner source of power (and one which can become even cleaner over time), and (b) the user is not in a position to upgrade the grid. Perhaps at least some of the blame for grid emissions more properly belongs with those who operate it because they're the ones who can do something about it.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

I fail to see the difference. Solar Panels only "offset" anything because they replace a power source that pollutes. Same as an EV replacing and ICEV.

The difference is that grid emissions aren't (typically) zero.

No, and I never said nor implied they are. However, it has been shown that grid emissions are less than ICEV emissions. So much so, that the manufacturing difference can be overcome with as little as 5,000 miles! So yes, each additional mile generates some emissions. But much less so than ICEVs. The key is, over its lifetime, how much does something harm the environment. I would argue that something could be considered "Green" if it harmed the environment significantly less than the standard alternative (say BEVs vs ICEV, or Solar Panels versus a NG plant).

 

[oilerlord]

However, it has been shown that grid emissions are less than ICEV emissions. So much so, that the manufacturing difference can be overcome with as little as 5,000 miles!

There is a key difference between "offsetting" emissions, and "less" emissions. This is the crux of the matter that I think you're missing. Yes, the manufacturing difference can be overcome in as little as 5,000 miles - vs gasoline. Again, an EV cannot offset CO2, because by design, it consumes energy just like any car does. A solar panel generates energy without emitting CO2, so by design it offsets CO2.

EVs consume electricity. Electricity generation releases CO2 from burning coal & natural gas. In the US, the average is 433 g of CO2 per kWh (Note, map updates in real-time. The reading below was recorded at approx 10:30PM MST).

https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=country&countryCode=US

We can then do the math for how much CO2 is released in our EV's. A Chevy Bolt has a 60 kWh battery, thus it releases about 26 kg of CO2 based on 238 EPA miles (60 kWh X 433 g = 25.98 kg). Driving the car more, simply releases more CO2. After 5,000 miles, a Chevy Bolt will have released 545 kg of CO2. That's certainly less than a comparable gasoline vehicle, but an EV doesn't somehow clean the air as you drive...again, it simply emits less emissions due to the efficiency of the grid vs the relative inefficiency of the internal combustion engine.

I would argue that something could be considered "Green" if it harmed the environment significantly less than the standard alternative (say BEVs vs ICEV, or Solar Panels versus a NG plant).

Referring to my first post; are EVs "green"? Pop culture would describe an Escalade Hybrid as green, but can we really call a monster 6000 lb vehicle "green"? Clearly, a Toyota Camry burning gasoline could be considered "more" green because it returns 40 mpg. That opens the door to ambiguity, and suddenly that Escalade Hybrid is parked in your EV charging space - when you really need a charge because the owner really does believe that their car is green.

Here is the Merriam-Webster definition of "green" again:

c : tending to preserve environmental quality (as by being recyclable, biodegradable, or nonpolluting)

Are hybrids and EVs "nonpolluting"? By definition, no. They pollute less.

 

[LeftieBiker]

My Leaf "burns" hydroelectric power generated less than a mile away. I do some offsite charging, but I'd say that it's less than 10% of my total charging. One of the best things about EVs is the capability, at no extra cost, of using power generated with little or no carbon or other emissions. That hydro dam upriver from me is roughly 120 years old. The generating plant is about 20 years old, and built partially on the site of the original paper mill power plant. A significant number of EV drivers use rooftop solar to charge, and while there may be more manufacturing-related emissions involved, those panels are also reducing peak load demand for additional power, which tends to be dirtier than off-peak power.

 

[WetEV]

EVs consume electricity. Electricity generation releases CO2 from burning coal & natural gas.

Let me fix that for you.

Electricity generation might release CO2 from burning coal & natural gas.

Seattle city is 97+% hydro, nuclear and wind.

http://www.seattle.gov/light/FuelMix/

British Columbia is 90+% hydro, they don't have electric bills, they have hydro bills.

Ontario was running 1% fossil fuel when I wrote this. Nuclear, hydro and wind supplied the bulk.

France was running 2% fossil fuel when I wrote this. Nuclear, solar, hydro and wind supplied the bulk.

Sweden was running 3% fossil fuel. Hydro, nuclear and wind.

100% is very doable, Seattle goes months on 100% non-fossil, with small fractions of fossil power mostly in later summer and fall, when hydro is lower.

Electric power does not need fossil fuels.

 

[wwhitney]

There is a key difference between "offsetting" emissions, and "less" emissions. [. . .] A solar panel generates energy without emitting CO2, so by design it offsets CO2.

No, there is no difference. It's like this:

You (or I) choose to own and use a car to get around. You can choose an ICEV, or an EV. Choosing an EV will result in less CO2 emissions for your car. You could, of course, choose to use a bicycle instead, and then you'd have no automotive CO2 emissions.

You (or I) choose to use electricity in our daily lives. You can choose to use the grid, or you can choose to use solar panels. Choosing solar panels will result in less CO2 emissions for your electricity use (for most US locations). You could, of course, choose not to use electricity, and then you'd have no electrical CO2 emissions.

Now admittedly, going without electricity would be a lot harder and a lot more deprivation that going without a car. So you might feel that electricity use is mandatory, and car use is optional, in which case you might assign everyone a baseline allowable CO2 emissions to account for their electricity use. In which case reducing your electricity CO2 use below the baseline might give you credit to "offset" other CO2 emission, like automotive CO2 emissions. But that's an accounting choice.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[oilerlord]

Let me fix that for you.

Electricity generation might release CO2 from burning coal & natural gas.

Seattle city is 97+% hydro, nuclear and wind.

http://www.seattle.gov/light/FuelMix/

British Columbia is 90+% hydro, they don't have electric bills, they have hydro bills.

Ontario was running 1% fossil fuel when I wrote this. Nuclear, hydro and wind supplied the bulk.

France was running 2% fossil fuel when I wrote this. Nuclear, solar, hydro and wind supplied the bulk.

Sweden was running 3% fossil fuel. Hydro, nuclear and wind.

100% is very doable, Seattle goes months on 100% non-fossil, with small fractions of fossil power mostly in later summer and fall, when hydro is lower.

Electric power does not need fossil fuels.

Let me fix that for you.

Electricity generation always releases CO2 from burning coal & natural gas, however hypothetically if the plant captured and sequestered it - none would be released. Coal & natural gas contain CO2, and as such, CO2 is released when it's burned (kinda figured everyone knew that by now). I posted a map outlining grid emissions in the US. As I write this, 61% of the energy (according to that real-time map) being generated comes from burning fossil fuels. Perhaps one day, that number will be 0%.

 

[oilerlord]

No, there is no difference. It's like this:

You (or I) choose to own and use a car to get around. You can choose an ICEV, or an EV. Choosing an EV will result in less CO2 emissions for your car. You could, of course, choose to use a bicycle instead, and then you'd have no automotive CO2 emissions.

Other than stating the obvious, that we all have choices in our lives...how does that change the fundamental principals of addition & subtraction? Did I miss a step in the math somewhere calculating typical CO2 per kWh?

 

[wwhitney]

A solar panel generates energy without emitting CO2, so by design it offsets CO2.

This is the part of your statement that I disagree with. A solar panel doesn't offset CO2, it just produces electricity without an ongoing CO2 footprint. It is similar to an EV that is charged from CO2 free sources--both produce useful consumables without ongoing CO2 emissions. [Well cars use tires as a consumable, so there would still be a CO2 footprint from the tires, not sure if that is significant.]

If a magical device generated energy by sucking CO2 out of the air, then I would say that it offsets CO2 production.

Cheers, Wayne

P.S. I also think that electrical grid CO2 emissions vary by region, it doesn't make sense to use a blanket average emissions rate for the whole US.

 

[SparkEVPilot]

No, there is no difference. It's like this:

You (or I) choose to own and use a car to get around. You can choose an ICEV, or an EV. Choosing an EV will result in less CO2 emissions for your car. You could, of course, choose to use a bicycle instead, and then you'd have no automotive CO2 emissions.

Other than stating the obvious, that we all have choices in our lives...how does that change the fundamental principals of addition & subtraction? Did I miss a step in the math somewhere calculating typical CO2 per kWh?

A gallon of gasoline burned in an ICE vehicle produces 19.64 lbs of CO2. If you live in PG&E territory, as I do, generating 1 kWh of electricity produces 0.524 lbs of CO2.

Doing a little math:

1. If your combined EPA mileage for your ICE vehicle is 30 mpg, your would produce .654 lbs of CO2 per mile.
2. If your EV averages 5.0 mi / kWh and you live in PG&E territory, the power you use to go a mile would be equivalent to .105 lbs of CO2 per mile. The ICE vehicle burning gasoline produces 6.23 times more CO2 per mile than the EV.

Said another way, the ICE vehicle would need to have a combined EPA mileage of 187 MPG to match the EV at 5.0 mi / kWh for CO2 production per mile. I think I would be more concerned with the amount of CO2 my natural gas burning furnace uses in the winter. Natural gas produces 13.446 lbs of CO2 per therm burned [PG&E].

 

[GetOffYourGas]

However, it has been shown that grid emissions are less than ICEV emissions. So much so, that the manufacturing difference can be overcome with as little as 5,000 miles!

There is a key difference between "offsetting" emissions, and "less" emissions. This is the crux of the matter that I think you're missing. Yes, the manufacturing difference can be overcome in as little as 5,000 miles - vs gasoline. Again, an EV cannot offset CO2, because by design, it consumes energy just like any car does. A solar panel generates energy without emitting CO2, so by design it offsets CO2.

EVs consume electricity. Electricity generation releases CO2 from burning coal & natural gas. In the US, the average is 433 g of CO2 per kWh (Note, map updates in real-time. The reading below was recorded at approx 10:30PM MST).

https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=country&countryCode=US

We can then do the math for how much CO2 is released in our EV's. A Chevy Bolt has a 60 kWh battery, thus it releases about 26 kg of CO2 based on 238 EPA miles (60 kWh X 433 g = 25.98 kg). Driving the car more, simply releases more CO2. After 5,000 miles, a Chevy Bolt will have released 545 kg of CO2. That's certainly less than a comparable gasoline vehicle, but an EV doesn't somehow clean the air as you drive...again, it simply emits less emissions due to the efficiency of the grid vs the relative inefficiency of the internal combustion engine.

I would argue that something could be considered "Green" if it harmed the environment significantly less than the standard alternative (say BEVs vs ICEV, or Solar Panels versus a NG plant).

Referring to my first post; are EVs "green"? Pop culture would describe an Escalade Hybrid as green, but can we really call a monster 6000 lb vehicle "green"? Clearly, a Toyota Camry burning gasoline could be considered "more" green because it returns 40 mpg. That opens the door to ambiguity, and suddenly that Escalade Hybrid is parked in your EV charging space - when you really need a charge because the owner really does believe that their car is green.

Here is the Merriam-Webster definition of "green" again:

c : tending to preserve environmental quality (as by being recyclable, biodegradable, or nonpolluting)

Are hybrids and EVs "nonpolluting"? By definition, no. They pollute less.

Thank you for elaborating your position. I think I see where you are coming from now.

Regarding the definition you provided, my EV is charged by a combination of Solar (from my rooftop) and Wind (from the grid). Neither of those produce CO2 while generating electricity (although both presumably did while being built themselves - at least for now, until solar panel factories are powered by existing solar panels...). So during operation, or refueling, my EV is nonpolluting. So why is it not green?

 

[oilerlord]

A gallon of gasoline burned in an ICE vehicle produces 19.64 lbs of CO2. If you live in PG&E territory, as I do, generating 1 kWh of electricity produces 0.524 lbs of CO2.

Doing a little math:

1. If your combined EPA mileage for your ICE vehicle is 30 mpg, your would produce .654 lbs of CO2 per mile.
2. If your EV averages 5.0 mi / kWh and you live in PG&E territory, the power you use to go a mile would be equivalent to .105 lbs of CO2 per mile. The ICE vehicle burning gasoline produces 6.23 times more CO2 per mile than the EV.

Said another way, the ICE vehicle would need to have a combined EPA mileage of 187 MPG to match the EV at 5.0 mi / kWh for CO2 production per mile. I think I would be more concerned with the amount of CO2 my natural gas burning furnace uses in the winter. Natural gas produces 13.446 lbs of CO2 per therm burned [PG&E].

Guys, I'm not sure how many times I have to say this:

- I agree that powering a car with electricity is more efficient than gasoline.
- I agree that an EV can approach zero grid emissions, depending on the method used to generate electricity.

Your example assumes charging an EV from one of the cleanest power grids in country, and that the driver is averaging 5.0 mi /kWh. Do you really think the typical Bolt owner is averaging 300 miles from 60 kWh? From what I read on Bolt forums, a realistic combined average is probably around 3.5 mi / kWh.

I could have gone the other extreme, and picked one of the dirtiest, coal-fired grids in the US (or Alberta's), and used my own experience of 2.0 miles per kWh in winter to skew the numbers the other way. I didn't do that..I used average US CO2 grid emissions in the calculation, and the Bolt's 238 EPA miles (3.97 mi /kWh). I was looking at establishing a baseline. Of course YMMV applies.

Regardless of the exact numbers, We can all take comfort that an EV produces x.xx times less CO2 per mile than an ICE vehicle burning gasoline. That's a given. At least you recognize that an EV does (indirectly) produce CO2 per mile. I think we're getting somewhere.