A new study finds “the total CO2 emissions will be much lower with continued use of the old but operational combustion car instead of buying a new electric one.”
It has long been assumed that replacing internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles with electric vehicles (EV) will lead to dramatically lower CO2 emissions. [bold, links added]
But after analyzing the CO2 emissions associated with producing an EV, the EV battery manufactured and replaced every ~5 years, and the power supply of the charging stations (whether coal, gas, or wind/solar), scientists (Neugebauer et al., 2022) have determined that an EV emits only eight percent less CO2 over its lifetime than an ICE vehicle does in a country with an electrical grid energy mix like Poland has.
But even an eight percent CO2 emissions “savings” by switching to driving an EV may be an overly optimistic scenario.
With the average annual driving distance in Europe about 7,500 km/year per vehicle, it would take 12 years of driving the same EV to realize a net CO2 emissions reduction relative to just continuing to drive an ICE vehicle. (Nearly all EV owners purchase replacements well before 12 years have elapsed.)
Worse, if an ICE vehicle is driven only 4,000 km/year, there is no scenario – no matter how many years an EV owner drives her car – when replacing an ICE vehicle with an EV will ever realize a CO2 emissions “savings” relative to continuing to drive the ICE vehicle.
And in the case of EVs powered by electricity derived from coal combustion (which is the primary electrical power source in countries like China), the CO2 emissions are “more than 10% higher for the electric car” compared to an ICE vehicle. (In China, over 13% of vehicles are electric.)
In sum, the old, reliable internal combustion engine may actually be better for CO2 emission reduction scenarios than the “green” vehicles favored by climate change activists and governments.
“Ultimately, the replacement of an electric car every five years with a new model, from the point of view of cumulative CO2 emissions and based on our calculations and simulations, will result in more CO2 emissions than the consistent use of an old combustion car for the remainder of the vehicle life cycle.”
Read more at No Tricks Zone
Regardless of this study, the entire debate currently going on regarding the “energy transition” is ill advised & borderline nonsensical. We are DECADES away from developing the required technology to fully REPLCE fossil fuels. I would argue that even IF you come up with a more efficient power/fuel source, there remains a myriad of useful consumer products that benefit society that will continue to derive from petroleum. Vilification of a critical commodity like oil & gas is completely counter-productive. INSTEAD of the “central planners” dictating market trends, investment, resource allocation and R & D, we would be better served if they STEP ASIDE and let the free market & American innovation step in. Instead of picking winners & losers, try this for a start: Offer an incentive for a Half Billion tax credit to the first automaker that can create an ICE vehicle that on average gets (at least) 30% better gas mileage and a 50% reduction in tailpipe emissions? THAT would go a LOT further to conserving resources & bettering air quality than misdirecting the market to EV’s, battery storage, etc. Everything has it’s place. This is an engineering challenge, not a “dance troop” exhibition…
Randy, the free market solution was tried under President Trump. Under this approach the United States reduced our emissions more than any other larger industrial nation.
I would also like point out that the economy in the Soviet Union was run by “central planners.” We all know how well that worked out.