Are EV's "Green"?

[oilerlord]

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?

By Merriam Webster's definition, your EV is green because it is nonpolluting (either directly or indirectly). Technically, my EV indirectly pollutes because I'm not always able to do all of my charges from my solar arrays, and sometimes depend on a grid where 87% of the electricity generated comes from burning fossil fuels.

Of course, ALL EVs, hybrids, fuel-cell cars, Prius's, etc, are green using Merriam-Webster's second definition:

b : concerned with or supporting environmentalism green consumers who practice recycling

I'd suggest that we all support environmentalism. Our cars make an environmental statement to that effect regardless if they are polluting or nonpolluting.

 

[brorob]

Hello everyone. I'm new to this forum, currently driving a BMW i3 Rex (which I love) but I'm considering a Bolt when my lease ends in October. This is an interesting topic since cutting down on my carbon footprint is important to me.

Part of this discussion depends on the EV that is being considered. I think EV manufactures should consider "green options" from design (including vehicle efficiency), to manufacturing, to what happens to components EOL. There are so many things to consider liking using recycled materials, manufacturing in a zero or partial zero emissions factory, finding a possible application for the battery pack EOL. etc. The information below isn't to state that one vehicle is better than the other, it's simply to show some examples of things that vehicle manufactures can do to reduce the carbon footprint for producing vehicles, whether they are EV or ICE.

The main reason I chose the i3 over other EVs is because its carbon footprint is 30 to 50 percent lower than similar sized vehicles during its full life cycle. There are many factors that contribute to this including using 25% recycled plastic materials in the interior and thermoplastic exterior, leather tanned with olive-le@f extract, most of the lightweight alloy components are made up of secondary aluminum made up from melted production scrap, about 10 percent of the CFRP passenger cell is made up of recycled material, as well as a few other green manufacturing processes. Since it takes so much energy to produce the carbon fiber passenger cell, BMW decided to make this in Moses Lake, WA which runs from 100% hydroelectric energy. The manufacturing plant in Leipzig, Germany also operates off renewable energy.

Another thing I like about the car is that the carbon fiber/aluminum frame will never rust out. Most of my vehicles have reached EOL because the salty Michigan roads have destroyed the body and frame making the vehicle unsafe to drive. If the body of a car is still solid in 10 years, a battery replacement or upgrade could be possible extending the life of the vehicle significantly. Reuse is better than recycling. The i3 is also claimed to be 95% recyclable at EOL.

I haven't done any research about the green attributes of the Bolt yet, but I plan to do that before seriously considering it as my next vehicle. I like cutting down my emissions by driving an EV but I also want the manufacturer to take responsibility to cut down their carbon footprint from the beginning to end.

 

[oilerlord]

Hello everyone. I'm new to this forum, currently driving a BMW i3 Rex (which I love) but I'm considering a Bolt when my lease ends in October. This is an interesting topic since cutting down on my carbon footprint is important to me.

Hey! Welcome to the forum.

Cutting down my carbon footprint is important to me too. As you mentioned, BMW is very forward thinking / environmentally responsible in respect to their manufacturing processes. I wouldn't be surprised that some buyers base part of their decision on how the manufacturer aligns with their own environmental principals.

Just like we now see calorie totals on menu items, It would be nice if manufacturers listed initial manufacturing CO2 released for each model. It would be very interesting to find out what the initial CO2 difference is between the i3 and the Bolt.

 

[brorob]

Hello everyone. I'm new to this forum, currently driving a BMW i3 Rex (which I love) but I'm considering a Bolt when my lease ends in October. This is an interesting topic since cutting down on my carbon footprint is important to me.

Hey! Welcome to the forum.

Thank you! Looking forward to learning more about the Bolt.

Just like we now see calorie totals on menu items, It would be nice if manufacturers listed initial manufacturing CO2 released for each model. It would be very interesting to find out what the initial CO2 difference is between the i3 and the Bolt.

That's an interesting concept, probably something that CA or Europe would require before the U.S., if it ever were to happen. They would probably charge us more for the vehicle if this was a requirement too for the cost of collecting the data, even if they already had the data.

 

[DucRider]

Just like we now see calorie totals on menu items, It would be nice if manufacturers listed initial manufacturing CO2 released for each model. It would be very interesting to find out what the initial CO2 difference is between the i3 and the Bolt.

Interesting concept, but how deep do you go? With thousands of parts, do you trace the manufacturing of each?

An example of just the carbon fiber in the i3:
The production of CFRP involves several work stages. The raw material needed to manufacture carbon fibers, a polyacrylonitrile (PAN) based precursor, will be produced by a joint venture between SGL Group and the Japanese company Mitsubishi Rayon (MRC) in Otake, Japan. In the next step, the facility in Moses Lake,WA will convert the polyacrylic fibers into the actual carbon fibers. These fibers are then processed into light weight carbon fiber fabrics at a second joint venture site in Wackersdorf, Germany. The CFRP parts and components will then be made from these fabrics at the BMW Group Plant Landshut, Germany. The assembly of the Vehicle will take place at the BMW Group plant in Leipzig, Germany.

Do you include things like the CO2 produced to manufacture the machines used in the production at the various facilities? The source of the power at each manufacturing facility in the various stages? The manufacturing and operation of vehicles used to transport the materials around the world? The CO2 produced by the workers commutes?

 

[SparkEVPilot]

Just like we now see calorie totals on menu items, It would be nice if manufacturers listed initial manufacturing CO2 released for each model. It would be very interesting to find out what the initial CO2 difference is between the i3 and the Bolt.

Interesting concept, but how deep do you go? With thousands of parts, do you trace the manufacturing of each?

An example of just the carbon fiber in the i3:
The production of CFRP involves several work stages. The raw material needed to manufacture carbon fibers, a polyacrylonitrile (PAN) based precursor, will be produced by a joint venture between SGL Group and the Japanese company Mitsubishi Rayon (MRC) in Otake, Japan. In the next step, the facility in Moses Lake,WA will convert the polyacrylic fibers into the actual carbon fibers. These fibers are then processed into light weight carbon fiber fabrics at a second joint venture site in Wackersdorf, Germany. The CFRP parts and components will then be made from these fabrics at the BMW Group Plant Landshut, Germany. The assembly of the Vehicle will take place at the BMW Group plant in Leipzig, Germany.

Do you include things like the CO2 produced to manufacture the machines used in the production at the various facilities? The source of the power at each manufacturing facility in the various stages? The manufacturing and operation of vehicles used to transport the materials around the world? The CO2 produced by the workers commutes?

http://www.mychevybolt.com/forum/posting.php?mode=quote&f=8&p=21789#
If humans fart 14 times a day on average, and there are 8 billion people, can all those farts be contributing to global warming?
That’s 100 billion farts a day. It seems like it would have some kind of impact?

 

[SparkEVPilot]

Just like we now see calorie totals on menu items, It would be nice if manufacturers listed initial manufacturing CO2 released for each model. It would be very interesting to find out what the initial CO2 difference is between the i3 and the Bolt.

Interesting concept, but how deep do you go? With thousands of parts, do you trace the manufacturing of each?

An example of just the carbon fiber in the i3:
The production of CFRP involves several work stages. The raw material needed to manufacture carbon fibers, a polyacrylonitrile (PAN) based precursor, will be produced by a joint venture between SGL Group and the Japanese company Mitsubishi Rayon (MRC) in Otake, Japan. In the next step, the facility in Moses Lake,WA will convert the polyacrylic fibers into the actual carbon fibers. These fibers are then processed into light weight carbon fiber fabrics at a second joint venture site in Wackersdorf, Germany. The CFRP parts and components will then be made from these fabrics at the BMW Group Plant Landshut, Germany. The assembly of the Vehicle will take place at the BMW Group plant in Leipzig, Germany.

Do you include things like the CO2 produced to manufacture the machines used in the production at the various facilities? The source of the power at each manufacturing facility in the various stages? The manufacturing and operation of vehicles used to transport the materials around the world? The CO2 produced by the workers commutes?

You are leaving out one very large producer of carbon dioxide and methane -

If humans fart 14 times a day on average, and there are 8 billion people, can all those farts be contributing to global warming?
That’s 100 billion farts a day. It seems like it would have some kind of impact?

 

[SparkEVPilot]

Just like we now see calorie totals on menu items, It would be nice if manufacturers listed initial manufacturing CO2 released for each model. It would be very interesting to find out what the initial CO2 difference is between the i3 and the Bolt.

Interesting concept, but how deep do you go? With thousands of parts, do you trace the manufacturing of each?

An example of just the carbon fiber in the i3:
The production of CFRP involves several work stages. The raw material needed to manufacture carbon fibers, a polyacrylonitrile (PAN) based precursor, will be produced by a joint venture between SGL Group and the Japanese company Mitsubishi Rayon (MRC) in Otake, Japan. In the next step, the facility in Moses Lake,WA will convert the polyacrylic fibers into the actual carbon fibers. These fibers are then processed into light weight carbon fiber fabrics at a second joint venture site in Wackersdorf, Germany. The CFRP parts and components will then be made from these fabrics at the BMW Group Plant Landshut, Germany. The assembly of the Vehicle will take place at the BMW Group plant in Leipzig, Germany.

Do you include things like the CO2 produced to manufacture the machines used in the production at the various facilities? The source of the power at each manufacturing facility in the various stages? The manufacturing and operation of vehicles used to transport the materials around the world? The CO2 produced by the workers commutes?

You are leaving out one very large producer of carbon dioxide and methane -

:lol: If humans fart 14 times a day on average, and there are 8 billion people, can all those farts be contributing to global warming?
That’s 100 billion farts a day. It seems like it would have some kind of impact?

 

[SparkEVPilot]

Just like we now see calorie totals on menu items, It would be nice if manufacturers listed initial manufacturing CO2 released for each model. It would be very interesting to find out what the initial CO2 difference is between the i3 and the Bolt.

Interesting concept, but how deep do you go? With thousands of parts, do you trace the manufacturing of each?

An example of just the carbon fiber in the i3:
The production of CFRP involves several work stages. The raw material needed to manufacture carbon fibers, a polyacrylonitrile (PAN) based precursor, will be produced by a joint venture between SGL Group and the Japanese company Mitsubishi Rayon (MRC) in Otake, Japan. In the next step, the facility in Moses Lake,WA will convert the polyacrylic fibers into the actual carbon fibers. These fibers are then processed into light weight carbon fiber fabrics at a second joint venture site in Wackersdorf, Germany. The CFRP parts and components will then be made from these fabrics at the BMW Group Plant Landshut, Germany. The assembly of the Vehicle will take place at the BMW Group plant in Leipzig, Germany.

Do you include things like the CO2 produced to manufacture the machines used in the production at the various facilities? The source of the power at each manufacturing facility in the various stages? The manufacturing and operation of vehicles used to transport the materials around the world? The CO2 produced by the workers commutes?

 

[oilerlord]

Interesting concept, but how deep do you go? With thousands of parts, do you trace the manufacturing of each?

An example of just the carbon fiber in the i3:
The production of CFRP involves several work stages. The raw material needed to manufacture carbon fibers, a polyacrylonitrile (PAN) based precursor, will be produced by a joint venture between SGL Group and the Japanese company Mitsubishi Rayon (MRC) in Otake, Japan. In the next step, the facility in Moses Lake,WA will convert the polyacrylic fibers into the actual carbon fibers. These fibers are then processed into light weight carbon fiber fabrics at a second joint venture site in Wackersdorf, Germany. The CFRP parts and components will then be made from these fabrics at the BMW Group Plant Landshut, Germany. The assembly of the Vehicle will take place at the BMW Group plant in Leipzig, Germany.

Do you include things like the CO2 produced to manufacture the machines used in the production at the various facilities? The source of the power at each manufacturing facility in the various stages? The manufacturing and operation of vehicles used to transport the materials around the world? The CO2 produced by the workers commutes?

I suppose it depends on just how big a problem CO2 really is (or perceived) in the overall picture. Some feel CO2 is one of the world's biggest threats to our existence. I could certainly see governments wanting to get their hooks into taxing that CO2. We're carbon taxing oil & gas companies for CO2 emitted during the extraction of fossil fuels, why are car manufacturers exempt? If cigarettes are highly taxed because their "emissions" cause harm to the public, why not tax vehicles for their initial CO2 footprint? I suppose CARB does that to some extent already. Just spitballing. I could see at least a carbon "score" based on a vehicle's manufacturing footprint.

No idea how "deep" this goes. I guess we can ask each other the same question...When calculating our own household CO2 footprint, how deep do we go?

To expand on sparkEVpilot's point, there are ~6 billion more people on the planet since 1900. Perhaps even the act of breathing is contributing to global warming.

 

[SeanNelson]

To expand on sparkEVpilot's point, there are ~6 billion more people on the planet since 1900. Perhaps even the act of breathing is contributing to global warming.

Breathing and farting are pretty minor compared to all the other things each human does over the span of a lifetime. If you want to take "being green" to the extreme, you shouldn't have children, because one way or another each one is going to cause a huge amount of greenhouse gas emissions.

We all have to decide where to "draw the line" in our efforts to be green. And we reserve the right to redraw the line as new information and capabilities come our way.

 

[LeftieBiker]

We chose not to have kids, and I got a vasectomy at a fairly young age. Does that mean I get to drive a Porsche, with no guilt?! ;-)

 

[GetOffYourGas]

If you want to take "being green" to the extreme, you shouldn't have children, because one way or another each one is going to cause a huge amount of greenhouse gas emissions.

Yup, that's pretty extreme. I mean let's stop and think about that for a moment. When people say we are "destroying" the earth, that is categorically false. What we are doing is destroying the earth's ability to support human life. So what does it mean if everyone preserved the earth's ability to support human life by refusing to reproduce and create the next generation of human life?

<span>We chose not to have kids, and I got a vasectomy at a fairly young age. Does that mean I get to drive a <a href="http://www.myporscheplugin.com" class="interlinkr">Porsche<span class="tip">Visit the Porsche Forum</span></a>, with no guilt?! ;-)</span>

So since you don't have kids, there's no reason to preserve the earth for your grandkids, right?

 

[oilerlord]

Found this...apparently, more people on the planet breathing = less CO2. Several sites seem to say about the same thing...like we're just exhaling the same CO2 that we inhaled.

"Every time we add a billion people to the planet's population (which we're now doing every 12 years), we end up pulling 10.8 million tons of carbon out of the atmosphere—or enough to offset the annual output of almost 9 million cars. Even when a person dies, he takes a little carbon with him. Bones decompose very slowly, and some tiny amount of your carbon—how much depends on the conditions of your burial—will ultimately remain sequestered in the ground. Physiologically speaking, the existence of people and our livestock is removing carbon from the atmosphere, albeit at an incredibly slow rate."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2009/08/7_billion_carbon_sinks.html

The theory is that we are all carbon sinks, and thus sequester CO2. Not sure how that theory would help a submarine crew if the O2/ventilation system failed. Pretty sure CO2 levels would keep rising until everyone died.

 

[NeilBlanchard]

Perhaps even the act of breathing is contributing to global warming.

No - you have to look at the full cycle of that carbon. Where does the carbon we breathe out come from?

Breathing doesn't change the atmosphere in the long term.

 

[SeanNelson]

"Every time we add a billion people to the planet's population (which we're now doing every 12 years), we end up pulling 10.8 million tons of carbon out of the atmosphere—or enough to offset the annual output of almost 9 million cars.

The problem isn't with the carbon we exhale, it's with the cars, heating, air conditioning, etc. etc. etc. that we use which expel CO2 as a byproduct. Adding a billion people doesn't reduce the CO2 load by 9 million cars' worth - it increases it by the 100 million cars or more that those people are going to end up driving.

 

[oilerlord]

Breathing doesn't change the atmosphere in the long term.

I'm still a little fuzzy on that.

We live on what's been called "spaceship" Earth. Using that analogy, the interior cabin volume is the atmosphere, and there is a balance between the people breathing it and the O2 ventilation / CO2 scrubbing system that keeps them alive. Isn't there a finite amount of atmosphere on the planet as there would be in a spaceship?

I see the world's O2 ventilation / CO2 scrubbing system in terms of plants & forests - continuously working in concert with humans & animals to maintain an acceptable O2/CO2 balance. When we remove forest, and at the same time, add more organisms that expel CO2, are we not causing CO2 levels to rise as a result of the planet's O2 ventilation / CO2 scrubbing system being out of balance?

 

[SparkEVPilot]

Breathing doesn't change the atmosphere in the long term.

I'm still a little fuzzy on that.

We live on what's been called "spaceship" Earth. Using that analogy, the interior cabin volume is the atmosphere, and there is a balance between the people breathing it and the O2 ventilation / CO2 scrubbing system that keeps them alive. Isn't there a finite amount of atmosphere on the planet as there would be in a spaceship?

I see the world's O2 ventilation / CO2 scrubbing system in terms of plants & forests - continuously working in concert with humans & animals to maintain an acceptable O2/CO2 balance. When we remove forest, and at the same time, add more organisms that expel CO2, are we not causing CO2 levels to rise as a result of the planet's O2 ventilation / CO2 scrubbing system being out of balance?

Makes sense to me! atmospheric CO2 data has been collected for decades and it just keeps going up. Areas of permafrost, containing vast quantities of methane, are starting to melt, releasing trapped methane back into the atmosphere. Forests are burning; caused either by man or by natural means.

When I first purchased my two Spark EVs, I did it to kill my gasoline bills; not because I want to help save the earth. However, as I learn more and more about climate change, I am glad I can contribute just a little through driving an electric car. So far, it has been a very enjoyable experience. :mrgreen:

 

[WetEV]

Breathing doesn't change the atmosphere in the long term.

I'm still a little fuzzy on that.

Follow the carbon.

You breath out CO2, where did the carbon come from? Perhaps the oatmeal you had for breakfast.

Where did the oatmeal come from? Someone grew oats, collecting carbon from the air.

Biology is mostly a loop. Some tiny fraction of carbon gets stored to be turned into fossil fuels over geologic time or as limestone. A tiny fraction of geologic carbon is released by natural geologic processes. Cycle is mostly in balance, on time scales of ten's of thousands of years.

On longer time scales, the oceans gain and lose carbon dioxide. This seems to be driven by the variation in sunlight caused by orbital changes.

On even longer time scales, geologic processes vary over the supercontinent cycle. More(less) subduction of carbon rich rock causes more(less) geologic release of carbon dioxide, leading to warmer(colder) conditions. Or the more interesting conditions at the Permian Triassic border. A huge volcanic eruption released about as much CO2 as we could be burning all the fossil fuels. Almost everything died.

 

[NeilBlanchard]

The cycle of life - the entire biosphere here on earth - is essentially a closed system. And the Laws of Physics say that NO energy or material can be created or destroyed.

So, the weathering process and other processes that have sunk carbon underground over millions of years, have removed it from the cycle. Plants split water, and release the oxygen, and use the hydrogen along with carbon dioxide from the air to grow.

When the plant dies, OR if it is eaten, the same amount of carbon eventually makes it's way back into the air. And the oxygen is breathed in by animals, and use it with the carbon in our food to grow. We breathe out carbon dioxide, that is then used by plants.

The long term balance of the system is neutral - unless humans pull carbon out of the ground, and burn it. Volcanoes also release carbon, but it is carbon 13, so we can measure how much that is.

Burning plants releases mostly carbon 12, with a known proportion of carbon 14 - the radioactive isotope of carbon. (Carbon 14 is how we do carbon dating.)

Burning fossil fuel releases ONLY carbon 12 - because it is older than 50,000 years (which is the total time it takes for carbon 14 to decay). This is one of the reasons we know that the additional carbon dioxide in the air is from fossil fuels.