How Much Cleaner EVs Are Over Gas Depends On Country/Electricity Source

SEP 25 2016 BY MARK KANE 108

Tesla Model S

Tesla Model S

A new study of CO2 emissiosn per mile driven in both a regular and electric car to find out the average differences between countries has been undertaken by Bloomberg New Energy Finance

The indirect EV emissions put out are near-zero in countries like Norway and France, where (respectively) renewable energy sources, or nuclear, provides near clean electricity.

While in other countries, average CO2 emission differences obviously varies, but in general are still significantly lower taking into consideration the energy mix.

“The London-based research arm of Bloomberg LP and the Union of Concerned Scientists both have analyzed the ultimate contribution that electric cars make to emissions and found that on average they’re 40 percent to 50 percent cleaner than those that fuel from gasoline or diesel.

Those estimates — and the forward view on where emissions from the power generation industry are going — are crucial to understand how much global-warming pollution will come from transportation in the decades ahead.”

source: Bloomberg

Categories: General

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

108 Comments on "How Much Cleaner EVs Are Over Gas Depends On Country/Electricity Source"

newest oldest most voted

People should keep in mind that this type of “energy mix” study tends to overestimate the emissions from EVs. Charging is often done during off-peak times, reducing the chance they would increase coal consumption, and facilitating a switch to solar and wind.

I also wonder how much they consider personal home solar, which tends to be a common companion to EVs.

I can not see how they would compare clean counties like Norway and New Zealand with no nuclear power plants to the likes of France which lives on nuclear power.

Depends where you see nuclear power. If you are concerned that CO2 is a big problem (like the vast majority of climatologists), then nuclear is nearly as clean as Norway. There is probably a bit more CO2 generation in the plant construction but dams aren’t made of fairy dust either.

Nuclear may have issues but CO2 is not a big one.

Since Norway is one of the largest (the largest?) oil exporters in the Rich Western world, the is nothing particularly saintly about Norway. Depends on how you look at things.

The comparison is perfectly valid IMO

Nuclear is the stupidest dangerest of all technologies. Only one accident can (and does) increase cancer rates all over the planet… for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

There is more danger from radiation exposure from coal than from a nuclear power plant.

Nuclear may be cheap enough and a coal substitute in places like China.
But in developed world, where energy sources other than coal are available and nuclear gets too expensive, it is total nonsense, leftover from nuclear arm race that receives more subsidies than it produces energy.

It makes intermittent solar/wind redundant too, as nuclear can’t scale up/down on demand. It is fixed financial commitment for decades.

I’m sure this will come as a great surprise to France, where they get about 80% of their electricity from nuclear power, and have for decades. It’s also cheap enough for France to sell excess to its neighbors, at a profit.

The amount of B.S. that the public has been convinced is true, regarding nuclear power plants, is absolutely ridiculous. The propaganda campaign by anti-nuclear activists has been, unfortunately for everyone and for the environment, surprisingly successful.

Trying to compare the French nuclear power plant system to the US is like comparing US health insurance system to the French health insurance system. They both may produce nuclear power, but that’s where the similarity ends. The US system is older, chaotic, and unorganized compared to Électricité de France’s well organized system (which is essentially a public/private quasi-governmental entity, majority owned by the French gov’t). If the US wanted to see the benefits the French have seen from their nuke power plants, we would have to decommission the majority of our nuke power plants, and start all over again with completely new plants and infrastructure and grid distribution. Unfortunately, this isn’t even slightly possible. Especially since we haven’t managed to solve our nuclear waste problem, and nuclear waste just keeps piling up at plants and “temporary” storage. Sadly, there is the theory of how nuclear power could be successful, and then there is the reality on the ground in the United States. Where nuclear power in the United States is still not viable without subsidies, with subsidies exceeding the value of the actual electricity produced in many cases: Even after 50 years of subsidies, spending on nuclear subsidies… Read more »

France’s nuclear plants scale up and down. They can’t respond instantly but are able to handle typical load-following profiles.

US nukes were not designed to do this since we had oil (and later, natgas) plants for load-following.

The burning of coal with ash produce radon, sulfur and mercury. Build fast reactors, they use depleted uranium as fuel.

To a certain degree, the nuclear reactors that rely on heavy water for cooling are dangerous. There are other types of nuclear reactors that are meltdown proof and are able to consume most of the fuel rod before it is discarded.

The reason why most of the world went with heavy water reactors was political/military in nature. Not because of safety/efficiency.

Light water reactors are far more numerous, they require uranium enrichment which leaves depleted uranium. Fast reactors use that as fuel.

Nuclear is one of the cleanest energy sources of all. And when it comes to CO2 it’s most studies have it as the cleanest of all.

French-generated electricity is a lot cleaner than in New Zealand. New Zealand has about 20% fossil fuel in electricity generation, that is hardly considered clean.

The problem with nuclear is it is horrendously expensive and slow to build:

It is just MUCH better to put those resources into Wind and Solar since they can be built much faster and at a much lower cost per kwh produced and they have very low decommissioning costs and are inherently safer.

Yes. And even more important, it gives a picture only of driving an EV or ICE today – not of adding one to the fleet. Since cars live 15-20 years before going out of circulation, what really matters is not the energy mix today but the average energy mix over the next twenty years. That favors EVs even more, since it moves towards clean energy. On top of that, ICE vehicles lose more efficiency over time, despite the already low base.

True about the next 20 years.

I’m not sure we should be using the failing efficiency over time of an ICE car as a major arguing point. It isn’t that significant. Arguably they are tested when new and gain more efficiency for a while. EV’s gain a bit too but not nearly as much.

A reasonably maintained, modern fuel injected, computer controlled ICE probably loses less than 5% over its lifetime. And arguably it gained almost 5% in the first 10,000 miles.

I would say it is valid!
You have to add the maintenance of an ICE, oil, filter, fluid, tune-up and so on that’s not done with prescribed or needed timing.
Many owner tend to let go good maintenance of their car as they get older.
If you figure the aging that decline efficiency of almost any after treatment device, EGR, catalyses, injector, exhaust
and so on.
Put in some modified tuned car for a few ones that usually throw all the after treatment hardware and fiddle with the combustion mapping and it get nasty.
Of course, all of those incumbent can’t happen on an EV.

Ok – the .1% of cars that get modified are not a huge part of the CO2 problem – maybe SOx and NOx but sometimes tuning helps efficiency.

OBD-II regs and mandatory inspections (in most states) limits the effect of all this and all the maintenance neglect. That is easy low hanging fruit.

Oil changes at 10-15k mile intervals are just not that bad. On the CO2 effect, it is probably less than 0.1%

Of course EVs are better but picking up the small ways that EVs are better just brings up noise. Stick with the good arguments

Well the hard fact is EV are a hell of a fun to drive!

But noise is unfortunately overwhelming in some place.
It’s a hard fact that older car pollute more for many reason.
Still, new ones pollute too. So much that changing to a new one ain’t necesseraly a greener choice.
Better run your car until the graveyard then.
Still many jurisdiction don’t have smog test or else to avoid degradation of the fleet.
In fact many jurisdiction are trying hard to push them in the scrap yard.

Something that is seldom said, when it comes to CO2 emissions in Germany is that Germany even takes mining and building CO2 emissions into account. So even solar cells have CO2 emissions in Germany.

I am not sure if thats the case everywhere, but you can’t just compare tailpipe emissions of ICEs and emissions through electricity use at least Germany. If you’d do that, you would have to include refining and drilling to the emissions of ICEs.

You can and should in areas with smog and poor or non existing airflow.

Like some cities…

Every gram of pollution “extported” outside that zone is saving health, lifes, and a lot of cash.

CO2 is harmless when inhaled. What matters in cities, is variety of smog creating emissions that are not so easy to calculate and they don’t come just from tailpipes.

It’s true that it’s fallacious to call CO2 a “pollutant”, or that it’s dangerous to breathe (unless it’s in much higher concentrations than we’re talking about here). But CO2 emissions do serve as a useful yardstick by which to measure air pollution. In general, sources of CO2 are also sources of actual harmful pollution. Sure, you can point to exceptions, but that doesn’t mean CO2 isn’t a useful yardstick for general purposes.

I don’t think it is valid to consider the PV production emissions because unlike ICE emissions, PV production emissions are dependent on the production process that can actually be completely zero emissions. That is the case if the PV plant use solar energy (quiet likely) and if they transport is done by electric vehicles and trucks (now possible). So the PV production emissions are not an obligation contrary to ICE emissions where it is the process of combustion itself that is the inherent base of the working.

You misunderstood my point. Germany includes all those emissions in its emissions per kWh. I think its right to do that, since things like coal mining and even building solar panels, if not done with 100% renewable power, produces CO2. So its also important to lower those emissions, for example by going to a production like you envisioned and to incentivize that. While CO2 emissions are still very low for PV, things like mining greatly increase net CO2 output of coal powered energy plants, compared to natural gas for example. Fracked natural gas on the other hand is a completely different story and thats why you should include as much information into your calculations as possible.

But what I really wanted to say is, that because Germany includes those emissions, you can’t just look at tailpipe emissions of ICEs either. You also need to look at the whole process of drilling refining and transportation to get the whole picture. Or you exclude those factors for the EVs, too, both would make the difference between EVs and ICEs bigger in Germany.

Yes it is good to incentive producers to pay attention on raw materials emissions as well and much can be made in that area. For instance I don’t hear much development on a very positive use of Hydrogen which is the Direct Reduction Iron Process. Iron ore reduced by Hydrogen instead of carbon dioxide producing coal. In such a situation Hydrogen can be a real plus for the environment, if it is produced from renewable of course, not from coal, otherwise we just go circles.

If you go to site like, they provide upstream green house gas emissions too, not just tailpipe, calculated using scientific methods, not just some simplistic studies. It isn’t that big really, and total may be rather different between economy hybrids and oversized trucks/SUVs/cars, using just average doesn’t tell whole picture.

While you are at all these details, you may try to look at full manufacturing emissions that of course are reflected in car price tag and not easy to calculate directly. Don’t forget PM emissions that are related to car weight.

Of course it’s the case everywhere. The problem is that electricity in Germany is very very dirty.

It’s one of the dirtiest electricity grids on the planet.

UCS shows how charging EVs in the eastern U.S. emits more carbon than elsewhere.

No it doesn’t. The coasts are pretty good

In US, not that many electric cars in coal heavy West Virginia,Indiana,Kentucky and Wyoming.

Lots of electric cars in hydro heavy Oregon and Washington. Lot of electric cars in natural gas and solar heavy California.

Indeed. It’s too bad these comparisons always use the national average for CO2 emissions, rather than weighting the figures to reflect which States in the USA, Provinces in Canada, etc. have the highest number of PEV (Plug-in EV) registrations.

California is by far the largest State in terms of PEV ownership, as well as having (last time I checked) only about 6% grid power from coal. That’s far lower than the national average.

And as has already been pointed out above, this also ignores the contribution of home solar power to charging PEVs.

Frankly, I find the data used in comparisons of this type to be a demonstration of laziness and superficiality. Just looking up the national average CO2 emissions of a particular nation is a kindergarten-level analysis.

If the purpose is to show what would be achieved by switching to EVs, using national averages is of course correct. The real weakness is to fail to account for the evolution of the energy mix. Even if all cars sold starting tomorrow are electric it takes 20 years to get to 99% of the fleet. And another 20 before “all” those EVs are out of circulation.

Of course this means speculating about the future energy mix is required. But to assume it’ll be unchanged is really what this does, and that’s not likely at all.

Terawatt said:

“If the purpose is to show what would be achieved by switching to EVs, using national averages is of course correct.”

That’s only partly true. It ignores the fact that one of the main motivators for people switching to PEVs is a reduction in pollution emissions. In States (and Canadian provinces) with lower emissions from electricity generation, there is a bigger motive to switch to a PEV.

Lower pollution emissions is also one of the biggest motives for people installing home solar power systems. There, the motive is actually stronger in States with higher emissions… which is another factor which kindergarten-level analyses like this one ignore.

EU has committed to raising renewables share in electricity production, e.g. Germany to 50% by 2030…. So within a decade or two EVs at least in EU will be even greener.

Today’s numbers aren’t all that important. What’s important is that we keep moving towards cleaner electricity and electric cars, and doing it as quickly as is prudent.

Some times these tests forget the amount of electricity used to produce a gallon of gas which will take your ev quite a distance

I still have a big issue with the numbers. They just don’t make a lot of sense.
Which is more emissions efficient? A small gas lawn mower engine? A small car engine at load, a diesel truck at load?
While the diesel truck is going to put out more pollution, when you compare it to the amount of work done, I believe it to be far more efficient.

I can’t believe that a gas car, with its idling, none optimal operation, and non-optimal tuning, is worse than a multi-mega watt power plant.

Here’s another way to think about it. Let’s take one of the worse power plants and compare it against all of the electric miles driven. How many days and then how much pollution would be created from the energy to charge all of the electric vehicles.

And when it comes to hybrids, are we saying that the ICE produces less emissions than the equivalent electricity? I just don’t think so.

It is not about one car but millions. Cities like London, Paris and Mexico City have hundreds of thousands of vehicles running at the same time. Electric cars do not have tailpipe emissions. Plants that burn whatever to produce steam to produce electricity also pollute. Solar and wind are non polluting and that is where the planet needs to go. But it takes steps and time and billions of dollars. From zero miles on electricity to over 30 billion miles by Dec this year is a super achievement. Do this: run your gas power engine and go inhale the exhaust. To get the smell oil rigs had to dig then extract then transport then processed then transported via pipes then taken by tanker trucks to the retailer. The CO2 trail is huge.

This argument is akin to arguing over whether it’s more efficient to drag a load on wooden skids than it is to roll it on Wheels and then making the argument that the skids could be more efficient depending on what surface you drag them over EV’s are cleaner To whatever degree in most every scenario of a cradle to grave comparison. and the location of, drilling, pumping, transporting, refining, storage, transporting “again” and pumping ” again” of gasoline into the vehicles, which require an entire fleet of vehicles that actually burn the fuel that they’re trying to deliver so you can burn the rest of it is a very energy-intensive process and creates a ton of waste most of which never seems to be factored into these type of studies. How far could I drive a modern Bev on just the in efficiencies and losses mentioned above in the oil well to wheels supply chain? Bottom line electric vehicles as I’ve stated and most realize will always be cleaner over their entire cycle life no matter how you generate the electricity. Next!

Since EVs are three to four times as energy efficient as ICE you can drive one at less than half the energy wasted just in the car itself! However, this was not about efficiency. It does look like they cheated in two ways, both of them big – with EVs still coming out clearly on top: 1) CO2 emissions from ICE appear to be simply tailpipe emissions, while EVs are total system emissions. A European level of 180 grams per mile seems about right as the average tailpipe emissions of new ICE vehicles – it’s less than fleet average tailpipe emissions. And there’s no way it includes all the CO2 emissions generated to get the fuel to the car in the first place. 2) It takes no account of the evolution of the energy mix, effectively assuming it will remain constant. Taking this into account is necessary because it will change significantly in the life of even the EVs already on the road, never mind by the time our fleet is mostly electric. Looked it up. Average emissions from new cars sold in 2015 in the EU was 119 grams per kilometer, which is 191 grams per mile. Hence its… Read more »

Terawatt said:

“CO2 emissions from ICE appear to be simply tailpipe emissions, while EVs are total system emissions. A European level of 180 grams per mile seems about right as the average tailpipe emissions of new ICE vehicles – it’s less than fleet average tailpipe emissions. And there’s no way it includes all the CO2 emissions generated to get the fuel to the car in the first place.”

Quite correct. And this is why Big Oil shills like zzzzzzzzzz are happy to cite government sources for emissions comparisons… because those numbers are weighted in favor of gasmobiles.

while i hesitate to call electric power in france “clean”, for me, the moral of this story is that regardless of the power source, you are better off from a perspective of co2 with electric vehicles than you are with gasoline vehicles.

i’m ok with phasing out the subsidies on electric vehicles, but i think that they should implement co2 taxes for gasoline vehicles along with higher taxes on gasoline.

Nuclear power is certainly clean by any objective standard. Sure, there is nuclear waste… which is produced in an amount positively microscopic by comparison to other types of power generation.

Even hydroelectric and solar power isn’t completely clean, due to the pollution-emitting processes of building hydroelectric dams and building solar panels. If we’re gonna call solar or hydroelectric power clean — and not “clean” — then nuclear power certainly deserves the same label.

There is no rational reason to treat industrial waste from the nuclear power industry as any more unacceptable than the toxic waste from other industries. And contrary to the hysterical propaganda from anti-nuclear activists, the problem of long-term (or permanent), safe storage of nuclear waste was solved long ago. What remains is only a political problem due to public hysteria over “RADIATION!!”, not any technological or engineering problem. Details given in the link below:

Calling the nuclear waste case solve is very naive.
Nothing exist that’s is 100% safe.
Even the sun, the safest nuclear reactor has some ill effect like skin cancer.
But I would favor this source over any other.
Besides, being microscopic is what make atomic power awesome and dangerous and the same applied for them waste.
The relation to the volume of the waste and the hazard is irrelevant, because of what lies in it.
Microbial can give you all sort of disease and even kill you without you ever notice it.
Radiation is just the same, only more powerful.

Djoni said:

“The relation to the volume of the waste and the hazard is irrelevant, because of what lies in it.”

Do you realize you’re arguing that it doesn’t matter how much or how little waste from the nuclear power industry there is? That’s self-evidently false.

Here’s a relevant quote:

“The average coal plant burns approximately 200 coal cars a day, with 100 tons per car. This makes 73,000 cars per year, or 7,300,000 tons per year.

“The average nuclear plant uses about 0.005 of a rail car of fuel per day. 20 tons per year.”

Full article here:

Not really PP.
You twisted my comment.
I’m not saying that there is nothing worse than nuclear waste.
I’m saying that you can’t ignore them because there are not the same volume, weight or quantity.
And pretending that nuclear waste disposal is a case solve is totally misguided.
And you can find thousand of credible source of dumping that has occur, not counting what is still going on.
And guess what, they will be a hazard for quite a while.
So my quote is, don’t let the size of thing fool you, what matter is their power to doing bad or good if you like in your reactor, but not in their unregulated disposal.
Coal burning also emit radiation and it’s not pretty, but that’s not the point.

you sound like j frank parnell from the movie “repo man”:

I cite actual scientific facts. You cite movie clips.

I think we’re done here.

surely you don’t think that the pbs article that you cited was “actual scientific facts”, so i assume that you are relying on the second article that you cited.

the problem with that second article is that it only refers to the amount of waste generated by a single “average” nuclear power plant: 20 tons. there are 100 nuclear power plants in the united states (for your information, there are a lot more nuke plants in the US than there are in france); so we are talking 2,000 tons of nuclear waste per year.

the other thing to keep in mind is that the half life of that nuclear waste is measured in the *tens* of thousands of years. that is the real “scientific” problem with nuclear waste.

for you to suggest that nuclear waste and “radiation” are nothing about which people should worry…you’re talking “loony tunes”, man! that’s why i cited the clip from the movie “repo man”, because the stuff you are writing is about as crazy.

Someone is crazy, that is true. But it’s not Pushmi-Pullyu.

Facts and science has never been your strong suit.

oh, so then *you’re* the person who is crazy? thanks for sharing.

It might be better if you made no comment.

A better study would be to compare against traditional hybrids, that require no charging infrastructure or the environmental impact of mining and putting together large battery packs. But of course, then the case for electric cars won’t be that great.

Sure it will because you are conveniently eliminating the process of locating and Drilling for and or fracking to get oil out of the ground let alone all of the pumping transportation and refining costs which also use electricity as part of the process and delivery costs which also burn part of the fuel just to drive a truck to the station where you’re going to actually use it in your car.. It doesn’t make any difference which resource you’re trying to recover the energy and efforts involved are similar. And at the end of the day electricity is renewable fossil fuels are not, end of story. You can beat the dead horse if you’d like but the economics of it just don’t make sense. Electricity and electric cars win whether you or everyone else likes it or not it’s a better mousetrap.

So much emotional words.
Go to and look up real numbers on upstream GHG emissions on a car like Prius Eco.

You mean, the biased numbers which ignore the waste and pollution emissions from refining and transporting gasoline and diesel, because the oil refining industry isn’t required to report those numbers.

No surprise that Big Oil shills like to cite that source of biased data.

Since none of these studies include the cost of fossil fuel wars, millions of lives lost, pollution of our water, and the cancer costs of fossil fuel pollution, they are all heavily biased!

The only issue I would have with a comparison with hybrids is that it isn’t fair from a consumer acceptability standpoint.

Case in point – I drove a Civic hybrid for 6 years and then went to a Leaf. The Leaf was faster, smoother, so much better a/c when hot. The HCH was a total dog when it had to run the a/c. On a typical a/c day, the difference in drivability was amazing.

I’m not sure which EV they are using and that makes a big difference. But if they are using a Tesla for example, it doesn’t have a lot of the compromises that the number one selling hybrid has – a Prius.

Apples to Apples is important. The chart in US would look about the same if you compared a sedan to a SUV – about a 50% reduction.

Hey I see that the serial anti-Tesla and forever big-oil shill Dr. FUD Spreader from Seeking Liars is here to once again lie about the facts and slime another thread:

CO2 problem is so far off in the future as to be meaningless. Instead of CO2, how about talking about really nasty stuff like NOx, HC, SOx, etc. While gas cars have gotten better, I still smell them when driving around, even from seemingly newer cars. That can’t be good for one’s health.

How do these real pollution comparing EV from power plant vs gas cars? I suspect EV is lot better, but hard number is lacking on these real pollution.

SparkEV: I agree, CO2 is the least of my worries, it’s the NOx and SOx that have given me and my family asthma. Every time I go on a busy highway (particularly with diesel trucks) I carry my puffer just in case I get stuck in the smog. I had anaphylactic shock from diesel pollution a few years ago … barely survived … wake up Diesel drivers, you’re killing me! (+7,000,000 others every year according to WHO)

more than half or even 3/4 of Europe cars are rotten,cheater ,cancerogene polluting Diesels……..(included technologicall very proud Nations…..)

SparkEV said:

“CO2 problem is so far off in the future as to be meaningless.”

You really have to be the proverbial ostrich, burying your head in the sand, to so completely ignore the effect of excess CO2 in the atmosphere causing acid rain in the oceans, resulting in massive die-offs — an ongoing mega extinction event within the span of a human lifetime. One only has to look at the worldwide effect on coral reefs to see just how important this is.

Now, I do agree that the piffling approx. 2 degrees of global warming isn’t anything to get excited about. Humans have withstood far greater shifts in climate in the past. The temperature swing from ice ages to interglacial periods averages 10 degrees!

But we shouldn’t let the “Chicken Little” hysteria over an insignificant bit of global warming cause us to ignore the very real, and very alarming, effect of acid rain on the oceans.

No significant disagreement here but the reefs are pretty far off in the distance. Less than 1% of people have seen them. I don’t like the loss of biodiversity but that doesn’t pry the ICE SUV out of American hands.

Just got back from Europe. I’m not sure what is happening there. I honestly don’t want to go back until EV’s take over. My only thought is that the politician’s all smoke cigarettes so they are so used to smoke that it doesn’t bother them.

Score one for the US on diesel policy.

“CO2 problem is so far off in the future as to be meaningless”

No it’s not. One problem is that there are huge delays in the system, the effects of what we do today will show up in 50-100 years so it might not seem too important at the moment but it really is.

Global warming might not exterminate us but it will cause enormous problems and cost for us in the future. This is something we really don’t want so we need to combat it now.

“what we do today will show up in 50-100 years”

This is why I say the problem is so far to be meaningless. That means what we do now won’t matter much for next 50 to 100 years, and the problems we face in our lifetime are already set.

Radio lab had a podcast on horse poop problem in cities of late 19th century. When you depend on horses for transportation, poop piles up. But as soon as automobiles appeared, poop problem went away. Same will happen with CO2; in 50 to 100 years, far better source of energy will be found.

But NOx, etc. are immediate problems. They kill people. I never noticed how badly gas cars smell until driving SparkEV; people (or just me) got de-sensitized with fossil fuel cars that they don’t see (smell) the problem. And when only CO2 is emphasized / mentioned, it takes away from the real problem.

I should emphasize that one shouldn’t drive EV to save others from pollution; some EVs are just better than all cars in price range (what’s my name?), no excuse is needed. And that’s where all EV need to be.

You are contradicting yourself quite a bit here.
How come Nox is a problem that will not last any more than Co²?
Sure NOx, HC, Sox can kill you right now and in fact it already doing it.
The fact that you can now smell it does impair your reasoning with Co², that no one can see, smell or ear.
And this is why it’s so hard to grasp.
But I will trust 98% scientist agreement about Co² concentration over your personal belief about it.
It’s real and the writing is on the wall all over the place.
Just need to be inform better.

With the level of concentration of CO2 you get from normal driving, even from gross polluters, it will not have detrimental effect. In fact, global atmospheric CO2 concentration was almost 20 times of today in the past, yet animals thrived. CO2 is non-issue as far as today is concerned.

But look at zzz post below; stuff coming out of power plants are more difficult to compare to vicinity output of gas cars, but they can be pretty bad. Depending on scattering and absorption rates from power plants to populated areas, one could make an attempt at quantifying the nasty stuff.

Again, I suspect it’d be less bad than gas cars, but I’m not aware of any hard study on this with CO2 hype taking all the “oxygen” out of research.

Oh REALLY? Atmospheric CO2 has indeed been much higher than today, but you are absolutely wrong about the state of the planets life at the time. Go look up in what era the Earth had twenty times the concentration of CO2 and come back to let us know what kind of animals inhabited the place at the time, and how they were doing in that environment.

By the way, do you even know what 98% scientist agree on? It’s that climate is changing and humans have a part in it. It’s like asking the scientists if humans breath in oxygen and expel CO2 or that Earth goes around the sun instead of the other way: a completely well known phenomenon that 100% should agree on. I’m surprised it’s only 98% and not 100%, but any field has crazies.

Yes, it is easy to push off the death and destruction we are doing to the environment that will lead to truly massive effects on future human populations not to mention all the other living things on the planet.

Good way to screw over all our descendants in the name of “conservatism”.

This should enlighten you but probably won’t even bother to read it:

I’m well aware of all the doom and gloom hysteria. It is you who should put things into context instead of running around like chicken little sky is falling. But I doubt you’ll see anything other than “end is near” whatever you read.

It seems human beings need a religion and repentance, and that’s what global warming has become: a cult. Look at reality, and it’s 2ft of sea level level rise in 100 years, etc. extrapolating current levels. Anything beyond 5 years is just nonsense when it comes to prediction related to human activity, so no, I don’t believe that “end is nigh” cult.

But I am well aware what is going on, what will happen extrapolating current level without regard to any technological breakthrough. Unfortunately for climate change cult, whatever you do won’t matter much unless you make that breakthrough, and EV is not it. That’s why I say CO2 is meaningless while real pollution kills.

By the way, how much CO2 do you think will be reduced if every car become BEV? Hint: it’s tiny percent.

Did you mean 10%? – because that is about right with the potential to get to 20% as the grid is cleaned up.

CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 100 years, so we have the last 100 years still up there and adding to it every minute.

Yep and CO. While not slighting the problems with CO2, I think breathing and these gasses effects on it’s apparatus, (lungs) are more pressing too.

You don’t have power plant on the road, so it is hard to compare what is in front of you to something far away and high away.

On the other hand, stuff like SOx is by orders of magnitudes higher in world power plants than in car exhaust for the same energy use. Species of fish high in food chain are not eatable anymore due to high mercury content not because of oil, but because of coal burning.

The study misses a lot of important points. The biggest is most plugins charge at night Off Peak. All power companies have excess energy at night since they can’t turn down COAL,Nuclear or EVen Hydro. They actually dump excess at night. That is why you get low Off Peak rates.

It’s also why thousands of EVs could charge at night on the dirtiest generated power and it wouldn’t raise the amount of pollution one bit, since they are running and polluting anyway.
Which brings us to the point: why aren’t all these people worried that the power plants pollute the air for the electricity they run their homes on? Why only EVs?

Well they aren’t paying a premium to replace their homes every few years.

People want excuses to stick with what they know. They love that.

But in fairness, they want reassurance that buying an EV isn’t trading one type of pollution for another. I was concerned myself so I only did it when I could do solar simultaneously.

There is a lot of BS on forums from both sides. The analysis of electricity generation at night is very confusing and not clear. My father (PHD Nuclear) who has worked on energy conservation at National Labs is my best source. He states that very little energy is actually wasted at night. At the cheap price, industries buy it and use it.

So nighttime EV charging gradually raises the night time price and industries shift. It is a very complicated analysis. But EV’s are not free here in the big picture.

I wonder if in CA, the night time wholesale rate is starting to climb. Residential rates move too slowly.

It is NOT free power at night, physics tells you so.

Newer natural gas plants can come up and down in seconds.

I like your source.
Just bad I can’t read it:)

How wonderful to see a graph which really highlights the huge advantage which France gets from all its clean nuclear power!

And what a tragedy that the U.S. hasn’t done the same.

Now more nukes!

Except eventually France and anyone else who was going that route is going to wind up with 11 D bazilian tons of nuclear waste that will kill you for thousands of years that we’ve yet to figure out what to do with. Nuclear is not the long term answer. It generates waste that will kill you so that can’t be the answer

Only hysteria over “RADIATION!!” would cause you to make the various false claims in that post.

1. The amount of waste from the nuclear power industry is astoundingly tiny when compared to other industries.

2. Toxic is toxic. You wouldn’t be any more dead from toxic waste from another industry than you would be dead from toxic waste from nuclear power industry. The 1984 Union Carbide plant leak in Bhopal, India, killed an estimated 16,000 people from a toxic leak. Yet nobody is yelling that we should stop using batteries. Why is nuclear power singled out in this manner? Because the news media promotes public hysteria over “RADIATION!!”, that’s why.

3. Contrary to what anti-nuclear activists keep claiming, the French already use a safe method of long-term nuclear waste storage. 90% of the waste is recycled; the remaining material is dispersed in particles in stable glass blocks, where they will remain despite any natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, etc.

A already I linked to an article giving details about the latter in a post above, but here it is again:

I partially agree with the sentiment, but as usual you are just as bad yourself, giving a completely unbalanced view the other way. Nuclear has a very good track record in terms of safety if you measure it as number of people injured or killed per gigawatt hour produced. Coal is the worst in this respect as it is with respect to environmental damage (which also kills, btw, but even discounting those just the mining alone is killing more than nuclear has). But nuclear also has many problems. To say the waste is no problem is ridiculous. It has to be safeguarded for tend of thousands of years. And not just to prevent accidents. With the reactors used today (light water reactors) it’s a potential nuclear weapons proliferation risk. There have been many instances, and some successful, of attempts to steal the waste (usually from the trains transporting France’s waste abroad since they won’t have it in their own back yard). Perhaps if terrorists manage to blow up LA in a single great back of fire you will admit nuclear can present some risks. And that’s far from all. The biggest reason nuclear has not stopped out the fossil sources… Read more »



Well, nuclear agencies now says it’s not if an accident will happen, but when.
We had a reactor running a few minutes without any control (Feissenheim), and the personal onsite stops the reactor throwing boric acid to stop it. This summer, the reactor was closed because the heat exchanger contains steal that may break under pressure (primary circuit).
If it had gone wrong, Luxembourg, South of Germany and Switzerland will had been impacted as well, with millions of people to move out of contaminated area.
Don’t read the news from the ASN (French Nuclear Safety Authority). You may get very scary…

There have been some fantastically bad choices in nuclear design and location. Poor Japan – no oil, gas, coal and no safe place for nuclear.

You can’t equate that to a modern, ideally sited reactor.

Yes, sure, just upgrade to new version, and all your problems will be solved. Preferably Over The Air, just like new brave folks from Silicon Valley do 😉 Who cares about all these multi billion loans for few decades that are already done building an old reactor that was “absolutely safe & latest & greatest” and supposedly not so expensive (after giant subsidies of course) when construction was started a decade ago but is not yet completed due to “unexpected” difficulties and huge cost overruns. Ratepayers and taxpayers will pay for it, just slap extra fee on their electricity bill, who cares.

+1 and more.

Zero Emissions is Zero Emissions.

Hey, Inside EVs, maybe you should do a minimum of fact checking before publishing junk “studies”??

I didn’t notice the error immediately, but I was struck by the difference being smaller than I anticipated. But then I noticed the EU countries are shown with about 180 grams per mile as ICE emissions. That means they’ve used only the tailpipe emissions on the ICE side of the scale. Since EVs tailpipe emissions are equally low everywhere is clear they weighed this against the system emissions of EVs. That’s cheating.

In addition, they’ve ignored the evolution of the energy mix, further disadvantaging EVs. This has to be included because it will change significantly in the life of a vehicle, and even more by the time a country’s fleet has become electric. Even if 100% of new car sales were EVs tomorrow (2030? 40? 50?) it takes twenty years to replace the ICE vehicles sold last week.

The average tailpipe emissions from new cars sold in the EU in 2015 was 191 grams per mile:

I think you might be a bit too hard on InsideEVs. The source was Bloomberg and it was with collaboration from the Union of Concerned Scientists. That has to be published. Now it would be fair to run a counterpoint about all the issues.

They also spend a fair amount of time discussing the future energy mix. The conclusion is that electricity is the future.

It is of course our role in the comments to pick apart some of the assumptions.

A simplistic analysis on two big fronts. Completely ignoring the production, refining, distribution of oil and the manufacture of batteries. They might actually balance each other but as we all know LCA are tough and have even more assumptions.

Would be nice to see a 20 year lifespan graph with presumed electricity generation over that time period. The assumptions they use about future generation are fairly conservative

Batteries manufacturing small pollution doesn’t even come close to the huge mess of extraction, transport, refining and distribution of oil.

Even not considering the oil production pollution : EVs are more than twice cleaner including battery production..

That is a fun graph. One source with no backup. Interesting how the 0.5 kwh battery in a HCH makes it take more CO2 to produce than an Escalade.

Oh wait – no – they just used some average battery number that made the Leaf the same as a HCH and presumably a Tesla 100.

Garbage in, garbage out. They averaged all battery cars including a non plug in HEV.

I repeat, there is so much garbage on both sides of the argument. Please get the facts right.

My bad – I read it wrong and see the battery is separated out.

But I still don’t buy it. Somehow the car minus battery of a Leaf is more CO2 to produce than an Escalade. Didn’t realize that massive EV motor took so much carbon to produce along with the complex battery thermal control….

Even looking at those jaded numbers, we all expect the average battery on an EV will be twice as big as a Leaf. It isn’t insignificant CO2.

If strong man Trump gets in he will destroy all BEV incentives and promote ICE technology.

Strong man Trump? Try pandering to idiots Trump. Trump won’t get it. But if he does hypothetically, he’ll spend billions in tax money to build the wall and then complain the illegal aliens got ladders. Maybe he’ll take the cue from gun control crowd and push for ladder ban in Mexico.

As for BEV incentives, they will have to expire eventually, not sure if now’s the best time. Thankfully, Trump won’t get in, so I’m not worried.

I hope you’re correct but I’m not as confident as you about Clinton winning. Living and voting in Florida has taught me that Florida’s voters make crazy choices.

it’s not like trump is a good candidate, because the guy is a buffoon, who is actually running for the political office of buffoon-in-chief; it’s more that hillary is a terrible candidate. what is so crazy about this election is that much of trump’s support is from people who hate hillary and much of hillary’s support is from people who don’t want trump to be elected as buffoon-in-chief.

in reality, a president donald trump, buffoon-in-chief, would be too busy promoting his hotels and golf courses to actually have much of an operational role as president. instead, he’ll delegate that to mike pence.

With any normal set of candidates, this election cycle would normally be a power shift election, where the party in power for the last 8 years typically would be replaced by a member of the opposite party. With the power shift over the last 6 years in the House and Senate also turning against the party who was in power, that trend would also normally point to the Presidency being very vulnerable to a shift in political party. Calculate in the fact that 2/3rds of the governor’s are now from the party in opposition to the serving President, and the math yet again points towards the President’s party losing power. By all traditional political math, this election should already be a landslide against the current President’s party. Whatever candidate was nominated by the current President’s party statistically had 3 strikes against them already, before even being nominated — no matter who they were. Statistically, anybody running as the Republican nominee in this election cycle should have entered the race with a double-digit advantage. For the race to be competitive at this point in the election cycle, the Republican nominee has already thrown away a massive statistical advantage they had going… Read more »

SparkEV — Trump officially dropped his own budget policy after he won the primary, and replaced it with the existing House Budget proposal.

That proposal outlines an immediate end to ALL gov’t support of EV production and sales. The House budget proposal would also eliminate regulations that impact fossil fuel production and defund the EPA. That includes eliminating CAFE requirements, requirements to clean up oil/gas/coal burning and production, etc.

Not only have they stated their intentions to prematurely sunset EV, Wind, and Solar incentives and tax credits (badly hurting those industries) they would also make your current electric vehicle DIRTIER instead of cleaner through removing regulations that make the grid cleaner.

You may respond that it was a Republican, Richard Nixon who created the EPA, or that Bush Jr. passed the original EV incentives. But those days are over. The Republican base has been in full revolt against the old guard of the Republican Establishment since 2009 when the Tea Party revolted. Those days are over in the Republican Party, and there are no signs of any return to supporting centrist legislation like that any time in the foreseeable future.

SparkEV — Sorry if my post sounds more negative than I intended towards the end.

I wasn’t trying to go after you, I was intending to expand on your comments about Trump’s policy, and got a bit caught up in the frustration as I typed….