[BigJohn043]

I could be wrong here, but my interpretation of the IEA data is that the additional GHG cost of BEV's is shown in the two green bars, which represent the emissions cost of mining the metals that go into the batteries that power a battery electric and the emissions associated with assembling the battery.  So, while manufacturing of an ICE vehicle emits 6 tCO2e, the manufacture of a BEV emits 8.0 - 9.4 tCO2e (5.4 tCO2e for the car itself, 1.4 - 2.8 tCO2e to mine the battery minerals, and 1.2 tCO2e to assemble the battery).  I could be wrong, but I don't think BEV's have more steel than ICE equivalents; virtually all of the extra weight comes from the batteries, and a lot of electric car makers try to reduce the amount of steel that goes into the car because the cars are already heavy (for example, the of immense proportions glass roof that Tesla's have is mostly a way to save weight).

The analysis assumes the cars will be driven 200,000 km, which is 124,000 miles, which I think is pretty close to what you said (I don't think the 133,000 k you quoted is km as that is only 82,000 mi, but correct me if I am wrong).  Fair point as to whether electric vehicles are driven as much as ICE.  If they don't, it reduces their total lifecycle carbon footprint, but if divide it by vehicle miles traveled, then on a per mile basis, electrics won't look as good.

Where on the bar you land depends on the electricity mix where you live.  PG&E quotes 0.524 lbs CO2 per kWh for their electricity (https://www.pge.com/includes/docs/pdfs/a...ptions.pdf), which converts to 237 g CO2/Kwh.  The range the IEA shows for BEV represents a best case of 50 gCO2-eq/kWh and a worst case of 800 gCO2-eq/kWh.  So, at least in CA, if you drive a BEV, you will be closer to the bottom than the top of the range, which would put the car's lifecycle CO2 emissions well below a typical ICE car.  Note that they are pretty generous with the ICE's fuel economy (6.8 L/100 km = 34.5 mpg).  The fleet average fuel economy in the US is only about 25 mpg (https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/avera...pa-report/).  You are right that a hybrid or PHEV ought to easily beat that; the newly unveiled Prius gets 57 mpg, which is only 4.1 L/100 km, and which would cut the yellow bar from 35.9 tCO2e to 21.6 tCO2e, which would put it just about even with a BEV in California, and well ahead of BEVs in states with a more carbon intensive electricity mix.


BC

In terms of manufacturing the vehicle, that is the blue bar in the IEA analysis.  As you can see, it is the same for ICE and EV.  But EVs are much heavier.  That means you need more steel to maintain the structural integrity.  FWIW, all auto makers for the last 40+ years have been trying to make cars lighter and with less steel.  But more weight = more steel = bigger carbon footprint.  IEA misses this in their analysis.

I read the 133K somewhere but can't find it now.  It is for sure K but may have been the EU.  I have seen 150K in other places as well as 200K.  But given less driving with EVs and their lack of longevity the 200K assumption is quite aggressive.

You actually have to do this analysis on comparative models.  There is a pretty detailed report out of Jefferies if you want to look at it.

Others have mentioned other issues with EVs and the batteries.

The point is that Hybrids have none of these issues and a very clear improvement for almost no cost.  But Hybrids have lost out as auto makers invest in EVs that don't really help the problem.

FWIW, Detroit has never liked the BEV model for all of these reasons.  It isn't that they love the ICE engine, they are just more in tune with the overall issues.  The stock market value of Tesla however has forced them all to chase EVs.

I would also say that the smartest people in Detroit believe that Hydrogen Fuel Cells are the real answer...

Good discussion.

[BigJohn043]

I could be wrong here, but my interpretation of the IEA data is that the additional GHG cost of BEV's is shown in the two green bars, which represent the emissions cost of mining the metals that go into the batteries that power a battery electric and the emissions associated with assembling the battery.  So, while manufacturing of an ICE vehicle emits 6 tCO2e, the manufacture of a BEV emits 8.0 - 9.4 tCO2e (5.4 tCO2e for the car itself, 1.4 - 2.8 tCO2e to mine the battery minerals, and 1.2 tCO2e to assemble the battery).  I could be wrong, but I don't think BEV's have more steel than ICE equivalents; virtually all of the extra weight comes from the batteries, and a lot of electric car makers try to reduce the amount of steel that goes into the car because the cars are already heavy (for example, the of immense proportions glass roof that Tesla's have is mostly a way to save weight).

The analysis assumes the cars will be driven 200,000 km, which is 124,000 miles, which I think is pretty close to what you said (I don't think the 133,000 k you quoted is km as that is only 82,000 mi, but correct me if I am wrong).  Fair point as to whether electric vehicles are driven as much as ICE.  If they don't, it reduces their total lifecycle carbon footprint, but if divide it by vehicle miles traveled, then on a per mile basis, electrics won't look as good.

Where on the bar you land depends on the electricity mix where you live.  PG&E quotes 0.524 lbs CO2 per kWh for their electricity (https://www.pge.com/includes/docs/pdfs/a...ptions.pdf), which converts to 237 g CO2/Kwh.  The range the IEA shows for BEV represents a best case of 50 gCO2-eq/kWh and a worst case of 800 gCO2-eq/kWh.  So, at least in CA, if you drive a BEV, you will be closer to the bottom than the top of the range, which would put the car's lifecycle CO2 emissions well below a typical ICE car.  Note that they are pretty generous with the ICE's fuel economy (6.8 L/100 km = 34.5 mpg).  The fleet average fuel economy in the US is only about 25 mpg (https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/avera...pa-report/).  You are right that a hybrid or PHEV ought to easily beat that; the newly unveiled Prius gets 57 mpg, which is only 4.1 L/100 km, and which would cut the yellow bar from 35.9 tCO2e to 21.6 tCO2e, which would put it just about even with a BEV in California, and well ahead of BEVs in states with a more carbon intensive electricity mix.


BC

In terms of manufacturing the vehicle, that is the blue bar in the IEA analysis.  As you can see, it is the same for ICE and EV.  But EVs are much heavier.  That means you need more steel to maintain the structural integrity.  FWIW, all auto makers for the last 40+ years have been trying to make cars lighter and with less steel.  But more weight = more steel = bigger carbon footprint.  IEA misses this in their analysis.

I read the 133K somewhere but can't find it now.  It is for sure K but may have been the EU.  I have seen 150K in other places as well as 200K.  But given less driving with EVs and their lack of longevity the 200K assumption is quite aggressive.

You actually have to do this analysis on comparative models.  There is a pretty detailed report out of Jefferies if you want to look at it.

Others have mentioned other issues with EVs and the batteries.

The point is that Hybrids have none of these issues and a very clear improvement for almost no cost.  But Hybrids have lost out as auto makers invest in EVs that don't really help the problem.

FWIW, Detroit has never liked the BEV model for all of these reasons.  It isn't that they love the ICE engine, they are just more in tune with the overall issues.  The stock market value of Tesla however has forced them all to chase EVs.

I would also say that the smartest people in Detroit believe that Hydrogen Fuel Cells are the real answer...

Good discussion.