It takes so much energy to make batteries the Union of Concerned Scientists says BEVs with a 250-mile (402-km) range start out life with a carbon footprint 68% higher than a piston-engine car.
There’s a growing global movement to ban the internal combustion engine. Several cities and countries have boldly announced plans to ban piston engines in favor of electric cars. They want a shortcut to stop global warming and save the planet. And while this is a noble goal, they’re in for a nasty surprise.
Battery-electric cars are not as environmentally clean as they’re made out to be. And piston engines are not as dirty.
Regulators and legislators are making a fundamental mistake in mandating the technology they want, rather than the results they want. Unfortunately they’re focusing on tailpipe emissions, rather than standing back and looking at the big picture. They need to regulate the life-cycle emissions created by an automobile, not just the exhaust gases coming out of the engine.
What comes out of the tailpipe only accounts for one part of the emissions created by vehicles. We can’t ignore the energy used to manufacture cars, nor the energy needed to recycle them. We need to take a lifecycle, cradle-to-cradle approach if we want to achieve true environmental sustainability.
The popular phrase is “cradle-to-grave,” but the grave is just a landfill. That’s why we need a cradle-to-cradle approach, where nasty industrial materials get re-used again and again and do not get dumped into landfills. And this is where electric cars start to lose some of their environmental halo.
First off, making batteries for electric cars is very energy-intensive. They have to be baked at very high temperatures for six weeks. In fact, prismatic batteries have to be removed from ovens after three weeks, slit open to de-gas them, then be taped up and put back in the ovens for another three weeks. It takes so much energy to make them that the Union of Concerned Scientists says BEVs with a 250-mile (402-km) range start out life with a carbon footprint 68% higher than a piston-engine car. I imagine a BEV with a 370-mile (595-km) range starts out life with a 100% greater carbon footprint.
Environmentalists argue that over its lifetime, an EV will make up that difference and come out cleaner than an ICE car. That’s generally true. But it also depends on the source of electricity. In regions where electricity is generated with fossil fuels it may never make up that difference. And this assumes the piston engine will not get cleaner than it is today – even though it will.
The other problem with EV batteries is that we don’t know how to recycle them in volume or for a profit. Yes, they can be physically recycled, but it’s not really being done. There is only one recycling facility for EV batteries in the U.S. operated by a company called Retriev. (It used to be called Toxco!) And there is one in Europe called Umicore.
Once a battery pack no longer is suitable to use in an EV, it can be used for energy storage in homes or buildings. But at some point it’s going to wear out and if it can’t be profitably recycled, it’s going to end up in a landfill. Nothing will kill the BEV market faster than horrified environmentalists watching millions of batteries getting dumped into the ground every year.
Some believe that “we’ll figure it out” at some point in the future and begin to recycle batteries in volume and for a profit. That could happen, but don’t hold your breath. Despite decades of research on how to do it, 20% to 25% of the weight of a junked vehicle, mostly shredded plastics, ends up in a landfill.
But one thing you can count on is that the internal combustion engine will get cleaner and more efficient. It’s already happening. And if cellulosic or algae-based fuels become available, the ICE is going to give the BEV a real run for the money.
I have no doubt that in the long run, EVs will win out. They’re so quiet, smooth and responsive that people will prefer them once the cost, charging and range issues are ironed out. But who knows? At that point fuel cells may be the preferred technology, not batteries.
So let the marketplace decide who wins, not legislators or regulators who are picking the technology they want, instead of striving for the life-cycle sustainability we need.
Discuss this Article 3
I just read "Cleaner Cars from Cradle to Grave" Rachael Dealer, David Reichmuth, Don Anair, Union of Concerned Scientist, November 2015, (Cleaner-Cars-from-Cradle-to-Grave-full-report.pdf) and noticed a summary graph, Figure ES-2. "Life Cycle Global Warming Emissions from the Manufacturing and Operation of Gasoline and Battery-Electric Vehicles, on pp.4. So this is what it shows for combined operation, battery and vehicle manufacturing:
51% reduction for midsize gasoline vs 84-mile BEV
53% reduction for full-size gasoline vs 265-mile BEV
In our case, we have two, plug-in hybrids, 2014 BMW i3-REx and 2017 Prius Prime. Our electric miles in Huntsville AL are half the cost of gasoline miles not counting 1/3d of the electric miles we get from free chargers at local shopping malls and businesses. Retired, I can't afford to walk away from $2.50 to drive 100 miles.
LiON batteries use cobalt that costs $26.88/lb and nickel $5.37. So if you'll give me the address of the landfill full of these batteries, I'll bring my shovel and melt them down. Retired, I could use the extra cash.
Bob Wilson, Huntsville, AL
We should evaluate the entire scheme of things, not to stop progression but to make sure we are moving in a smart direction. We all need to constantly check our own biases and ensure that we are not just proving the answer we want because it supports our current comfortable monetary support. How much monetary support does Wards get from traditional technologies (ICE) vs newer technologies (BEV).
John states out of context:
". . . the Union of Concerned Scientists says BEVs with a 250-mile (402-km) range start out life with a carbon footprint 68% higher than a piston-engine car."
This comes from pp. 3 of the Union of Concerned Scientists where the complete text is:
". . .Under the average U.S. electricity grid mix, we found that producing a midsize, midrange (84 miles per charge) BEV typically adds a little over 1 ton of emissions to the total manufacturing emissions, resulting in 15 percent greater emissions than in manufacturing a similar gasoline vehicle. However, replacing gasoline use with electricity reduces overall emissions by 51 percent over the life of the car.
A full-size long-range (265 miles per charge) BEV, with its larger battery, adds about six tons of emissions, which increases manufacturing emissions by 68 percent over the gasoline version. But this electric vehicle results in 53 percent lower overall emissions compared with a similar gasoline vehicle (see Figure ES-2).
In other words, the extra emissions associated with electric vehicle production are rapidly negated by reduced emissions from driving. . . ."
When seen in the full context, the complete sentences, we can see what the Union of Concerned Scientists were actually saying. However, understanding the manufacturing energy requirement gives insights to why the Tesla Gigafactory has a roof of solar cells to mitigate the energy cost to make their 2710 cells.
Bob Wilson, Huntsville, AL