Lifecycle Analysis Electric Vehicles

author: FutureCar Staff    

This article is part of my informal series on electric vehicles (EVs), where I aim to examine the claims, reality, and propaganda surrounding them. While there are many complexities to consider, overall, I believe that most concerns about EVs are outdated or exaggerated. Although there are still certain locations and use scenarios that currently favor internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles or hybrids, the battery and EV technology is rapidly advancing, and infrastructure is being developed. As time goes on, the percentage of the population for whom EVs are the best choice will gradually increase, potentially reaching around 95%. During this same period, which spans approximately 20 years, we should also be working towards decarbonizing our energy production. Additionally, we can reduce our reliance on individual cars by investing in mass transit, creating walkable living spaces, and eventually transitioning to a car-as-a-service model with self-driving vehicles. For trains and long-haul trucking, hydrogen may eventually become the preferred option, while electric vehicles are becoming more feasible for short flight planes. To minimize the carbon footprint of long-distance jet travel, biofuels will likely be necessary.

After my recent articles on EVs and the discussions that followed on the SGU, one question that has been raised and that I would like to explore further is whether EVs are still superior to ICE vehicles when considering the entire vehicle production process. Spoiler alert: I believe that the consensus is that EVs still come out on top. They have a lower overall carbon footprint throughout their lifetime compared to ICE vehicles. However, this is not a universally held opinion. For example, in a podcast I was pointed to, a businessperson and physicist host argues that pushing for an all-EV world could actually increase CO2 emissions.

What we are discussing here is a lifecycle analysis of EVs versus ICE vehicles or hybrids. From the initial concept to the eventual disposal of the vehicle, how much carbon is released? Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly from a critical thinking perspective, why do experts seem to disagree on the answer? Let's address the second question first. Experts differ in their opinions because there is uncertainty in the data and disagreements on how to conduct the analysis.

The main question is: what factors should be included in the lifecycle analysis? Some elements are uncontroversial, such as sourcing raw materials, manufacturing the vehicle, the vehicle's efficiency, maintenance, operation, repair and replacement parts, and end-of-life recycling and scrapping. However, should we also consider infrastructure costs? Should we take into account the cost of building and maintaining gas stations or recharging stations? Should we factor in geopolitical conflicts in oil-rich but unstable nations? How deep should we go in analyzing the supply chain? And how do we ensure a fair analysis that considers everything with the same criteria on both sides? It is easy to manipulate the process to produce different outcomes. Additionally, we can choose to emphasize what we know or the unknowns. Any complex analysis like this will always involve assumptions and unknowns, and depending on one's perspective, these can be used to support different narratives.

In short, I don't believe there is a way to definitively end the debate on this issue, nor should we necessarily strive to do so. However, despite the uncertainty, we still have to make decisions, and doing nothing is also a decision in itself. Therefore, we need to rely on a risk-benefit analysis based on the preponderance of evidence. This approach is similar to how medical decision-making works. So what does the best current data indicate?

According to a representative analysis from the International Energy Agency (IEA), the lifetime carbon footprint of EVs, even under the worst-case scenario regarding the mining of battery materials, is approximately half that of a comparable ICE vehicle. Another analysis breaks down the carbon emissions visually by source and finds that EVs emit 39 tonnes of carbon equivalent, hybrids emit 47 tonnes, and ICE vehicles emit 55 tonnes. Once again, EVs come out on top. In a study focusing on light-duty trucks, EVs were found to have 64% lower emissions than their ICE counterparts.

There are different ways to interpret this data. For instance, one analysis examines the probability that EVs will have lower lifetime CO2 emissions than comparable ICE vehicles based on the energy production mix, and then breaks it down by country and fuel type (gasoline vs diesel). The findings reveal that for every European country, there is a greater than 50% probability that EVs are better than gasoline vehicles. In the case of diesel vehicles, most still have a greater than 50% probability of being better, but a few countries with high carbon intensity energy grids fall below 50%. Therefore, if you live in Latvia, diesel may be the better choice, although this is unlikely to remain the case for long.

Another way to approach the data is by considering the carbon emissions associated with manufacturing an EV versus an ICE vehicle. EVs require more carbon emissions during the manufacturing process but emit less during use. Thus, we can ask: how long or how far do you need to drive an EV before its carbon footprint becomes lower than that of a comparable ICE vehicle? The answer depends on the type of vehicle, battery, and the energy mix used to recharge the EV. While there are multiple analyses on this topic, the overall results indicate that with a completely green energy mix, the break-even point for EVs is around six months. However, with a fossil fuel-intensive electricity source, this point extends to approximately five years. Most cars and locations fall within this range. The average lifespan of a car on the road is 11 years, and EVs are projected to have a longer lifespan than ICE vehicles (300,000 miles vs 200,000 miles). Therefore, for the majority of people, they will continue driving their EVs long after reaching the carbon break-even point.

After reviewing numerous analyses and reviews, it seems that there is a strong consensus that EVs have a lower lifetime carbon footprint than ICE vehicles. This holds true for most cars and most locations, with an average break-even point of a few years. However, these numbers are not set in stone and will depend on the choices we make today. As battery technology improves, EVs will become more efficient. There are already batteries in development that can provide twice the distance using the same raw materials as current EVs, and these batteries are expected to be integrated into cars by 2026. Furthermore, new battery designs are less reliant on raw materials like cobalt, which are considered the worst in terms of environmental impact. Additionally, now that we are paying attention to these issues, we need to ensure that our supply lines are green, efficient, geopolitically advantageous, and humane.

The biggest variable in this equation is our energy infrastructure. While EVs already offer advantages, their carbon advantage over ICE vehicles is closely tied to the carbon intensity of our electricity production. The assumption is that we will continue transitioning to greener energy sources and gradually phase out fossil fuels. Therefore, in 20 years, we should have batteries and EVs that are significantly better than what we have today, and our energy mix should have a much lower carbon intensity. Consequently, the future looks even more promising for EVs.

FutureCar Staff