They’re using optimistic numbers for gasoline and pessimistic numbers for electric.<p>A gallon of gasoline emits about 11.8 kg of CO2 if you include refining.
<a href="https://innovationorigins.com/en/producing-gasoline-and-diesel-emits-more-co2-than-we-thought/" rel="nofollow">https://innovationorigins.com/en/producing-gasoline-and-dies...</a><p>One kilowatt-hour of electricity currently emits about 372grams of CO2, a number that has dropped from 500 grams in 2012.<p>A new Chevy Malibu gets 32.5mpg combined. Hummer EV gets 47mpge combined, or about 1.394 miles per kWh.<p>363gCO2 per mile for the Malibu, 267gCO2/mile for the Hummer.<p>I don’t think using hyper-specific region specific metrics makes a lot of sense considering the grid is all connected. (At least, the East Coast and Midwest, Texas doing its own thing, and then the west Coast.) in any case, the grid is getting lower emissions over time and could go MUCH lower than current (maybe half or less) over the full life of any new vehicle.<p>Also, a Hummer EV is displacing other large vehicles. And if everybody drove subcompacts or other hyper efficient gasoline cars then we’d have less of a problem anyway. But not everyone is doing that. And a lot of people don’t want to. From a political economy standpoint then this is still a huge net win. Every new car and truck needs to at least have a plug in it within the next 5 to 10 years, and then we can start penalizing larger and heavier vehicles more directly.<p>EDIT: what we should do is expand the EV tax credit. GM no longer qualifies as they used theirs up, like Tesla. Mostly just foreign EV makers qualify, which cannot be the real intention of lawmakers when they made the law.<p>We can use the EV credit as a tool for improving efficiency. Instead of subsidizing per kWh of battery, we subsidize per mile of range. The first 50 miles of range (ie to be a plug in hybrid, but need at least 6.6kW charging speed) are incentivized at $100/mile of range. The next 200 miles of range $25/mile (under the condition of 100kW fast charging capability).<p>That way car companies are incentivized (even more) to maximize miles per kWh. Small, hyper-efficient EVs will be disproportionately credited. For a given kWh of battery, you’ll make more EV credit money as a carmaker putting it in a small, very efficient car than a big Hummer. But unless we renew the EV credit (and make it per kWh), there isn’t this (additional) incentive.
“ Comparing larger vehicles, the original Hummer H1 emits 889 grams of CO2 per mile and the new Hummer EV causes 341 grams, demonstrating that behemoth EVs can still be worse for the environment than smaller, conventional vehicles”<p>So 1/3 the emissions of a normal hummer… I don’t think the normal hummer owner is going to ever switch to a sedan so that seems like a major improvement
Carbon costs per-vehicle can be calculated based on your local grid power source, duration of ownership, and more: <a href="https://www.carboncounter.com/" rel="nofollow">https://www.carboncounter.com/</a> -- be sure to click the "Customize" tab<p>If your annual driving distance is low (<5,000 miles) and your grid is relatively dirty (e.g. the midwest [SRMW] grid), a range of EVs have more CO2 emissions/mile than conventional internal combustion vehicles.<p>(This is a project from the MIT Tranick lab / <a href="http://trancik.mit.edu/" rel="nofollow">http://trancik.mit.edu/</a>)
If I was worried about this offsetting purchases of Chevy Malibus, then maybe yeah? But they are still going to produce significantly less CO2 than their actual competition.<p>In the long run, manufacturers making all of their halo cars ostentatious EVs is a good thing. Offroad car bros are not one wholesome lecture away from switching to a bicycle. Let's let car makers make electric cars cool and then focus on actually providing better sources of electricity.
On the one hand - bad for an EV.
On the other hand - yes a big giant EV truck may be less efficient than a sedan.<p>The thing is Americans just do not buy sedans.<p>We can hem & haw and browbeat consumers, but if they want to buy big trucks.. better EV flavored ones than V8 coal rolling polluters.<p>The more form factors are available in EV flavor, and the more price points they can hit.. the better.
> The CO2 calculations are based on the national average, but electric grid emissions vary considerably across the country.<p>Keep this in mind. If you live in VT you’re at 0. If you live in TX or FL maybe don’t bother.
<a href="https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/excel/electricity.xlsx" rel="nofollow">https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/excel/electr...</a>
SUVs should be banned, or taxed the point of economic non-viability. The fact that such a deadly category of vehicle, on top of being much less energy efficient, is being allowed to take over the market, is completely inane.
It’s not good to do this analysis with figures from the entire U.S., which has a wildly variable mix of electricity sources depending on where you are and what time of day it is. This also obscures the difference between <i>unavoidable C02 emissions from burning gasoline</i> with <i>emissions from industrial processes that may not emit carbon in the future.</i><p>In general people are not careful readers, and in my opinion, headlines like this tend to feed cynicism and inaction.<p>What I see here is enormous opportunity in decarbonizing the processes that lead to high lifecycle emissions for this and other vehicles.
Remember, vehicles over 6,000 lbs qualify for immediate business tax deductions(vs depreciating it over many years) because they're treated as heavy equipment. <a href="https://nypost.com/2022/03/02/tax-deductions-of-the-rich-g-wagons-wine-dinners-guard-dogs/" rel="nofollow">https://nypost.com/2022/03/02/tax-deductions-of-the-rich-g-w...</a>
I think it's misguided to regulate like this, there's a natural incentive for efficiency in electric vehicles (more range, better battery life, consumers want this). People buying a mega car like this very likely COULD want it for a practical use case, trucks are tools as well as transportation and many people legitimately use their trucks for actual work in the US. I think the real problem here is the efficiency of the local grid.<p>If I buy an array of solar panels and use it to charge my car, it doesn't matter at all how efficient my car is, grams of CO2 emitted is basically 0.<p>We should really focus on regulating and improving the efficiency of grids across the US, investing in renewables and nuclear. This is the biggest benefit of electric vehicles anyway, the fact that it pushes the burden of efficiency from every consumer who owns a car to the much smaller set of infrastructure providers.
Some historical fun, around 2008 there were various articles analyzing whether a Gas-powered Hummer H2 had less embodied co2 emissions than a Toyota Prius: <a href="https://slate.com/technology/2008/03/is-it-possible-that-a-hummer-s-better-for-the-environment-than-a-prius-is.html" rel="nofollow">https://slate.com/technology/2008/03/is-it-possible-that-a-h...</a> (google and you'll find a number of other articles)
If absurdities like 9,000lb EV hummers is what it's gonna take to substantially accelerate EV adoption across the national fleet, I don't personally care.<p>We'll have a far easier time generating clean electricity from stationary grid-tied power plants than getting the fleet to stop spewing co2 sans electrification. Worst case we build a bunch of modern nuclear plants, just get the damn combustion engines physically decoupled from all the automobiles already.
Kind of a weird comparison considering the Malibu is 1/3 of the weight. It's certainly more efficient than a Chevy Malibu at moving 9,000lbs around.<p>I'm not sure how Americans can undo the colossal car arms race... taxes based on weight? I believe there are actually tax <i>breaks</i> aimed at businesses with vehicles over a certain weight, which seems backwards.
Disclosure: I work for GM; what follows is SOLELY MY OWN OPINION.<p>I would be surprised if there are ever more than 50,000 Hummer SUV and Trucks made in a single year. For comparison, a decent year for the Malibu would be 300,000.<p>My perception of the Hummer EV is that it is meant to be a halo vehicle that gets people excited and in showrooms. You don't have to love it, but someone will.<p>Also, as other commentors have pointed out - these will largely be purchased by people who have other large SUVs. And you can't roll coal in an EV! I don't really like how ridiculously big these things have gotten either (solely my own opinion). I'd rather have a truck the size of the old Chevy S-10 or old Ford Ranger or current Ford Maverick.
OK; there are a few issues with the article and the other comments. I suggest using this to estimate a particular vehicle's footprint in a given US geographic region:<p><a href="https://evtool.ucsusa.org/" rel="nofollow">https://evtool.ucsusa.org/</a><p>Also, note that grid electricity's carbon intensity is extremely time dependent. Here is 2021 data for California:<p><a href="https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/fuels/lcfs/fuelpathways/comments/tier2/2021_elec_update.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/fuels/lcf...</a>
Regulators must indeed consider EV efficiency and manufacturing emissions, but most importantly the national average of CO2 per kWh must be pushed much closer to zero for developed nations too.
I would be curious so see how the Hummer EV compares not based on national average, but in a markets where electricity is not produced via fossil fuels, and in a market where electricity is produced via fossil fuels.<p>Engineering Explained covered this in part, in his video asking whether or not it is better for the environment to keep your current (presumably ICE) car, or buy a new EV.<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2IKCdnzl5k&t=24s" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2IKCdnzl5k&t=24s</a>
Sure...when 60% of the grid is powered via fossil fuels. If that number hits 80% or 90% then what. How about Hummer EV vs. H2? What if someone pays for completely green energy from their electric company? Also...why not include the Hummer EV on your fancy graphs???<p>Comparing with the H1 does nothing since that was a military vehicle that wasn't really meant to be for consumers. That is also a 20+ year old vehicle at this point.
This WSJ analysis is quite good - an EV has about half the carbon emissions relative to a comparable car after 200k miles. [<a href="https://www.wsj.com/graphics/are-electric-cars-really-better-for-the-environment/" rel="nofollow">https://www.wsj.com/graphics/are-electric-cars-really-better...</a>] Naturally, an EV that is much more massive than a regular car will have more emissions, use more materials to manufacture, and tear up roads quicker. Ironically, there are tax incentives towards purchasing large vehicles which destroy roads quicker.<p>Even if all vehicles were electric, overall emissions wouldn't budge much. [<a href="https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector" rel="nofollow">https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector</a>] >80% of global emissions are from fossil fuels, mainly oil, coal, and gas. [<a href="https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix" rel="nofollow">https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix</a>] Electric vehicles require more materials to produce and require significant grid infrastructure, which is mainly powered by fossil fuels.<p>A carbon tax is one of the only realistic policies that could help lower carbon. There has been minimal progress in developed countries, and even less in developing ones. Sweden has the highest carbon tax at nearly 150/ton, and 1/3rd the emissions per person relative to the United States. [<a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/483590/prices-of-implemented-carbon-pricing-instruments-worldwide-by-select-country/#:~:text=As%20of%20April%202021%2C%20Sweden,carbon%20tax%20back%20in%201990" rel="nofollow">https://www.statista.com/statistics/483590/prices-of-impleme...</a>.] Switzerland is similar. [<a href="https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/" rel="nofollow">https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-pe...</a>]
Full EV is obviously the dream, but I have been interested in cars like the e-power Nissan Note which is a series hybrid. Same concept as a diesel electric train essentially. The car is mechanically an EV, but with a small 3 cylinder engine used to charge the (much smaller than usual) battery. Sounds insane at face value, but the the setup is far more efficient than a regular ICE setup, getting 1000-1300km range out of a 45litre tank. In a country like Australia where I can be city driving one week but still need to do 1500km journeys to go see family, this is a truly attractive stop-gap and they also end up being far cheaper to buy.<p>They fill a very big niche for people who need an efficient car but don't have plugin capabilities or need more range but can't afford a full EV, or maybe a full EV doesn't work for them.
Such huge BEV also needs big battery. Since EV production is now constrained by battery supply, saving battery usage is also important. One Hummer battery would be equivalent to almost four Model 3. Replacing a ICE Hummer to a EV hummer vs replacing four ICE Camry or BMW 3 to four Model 3s, which is better?
Using average CO2 per watt for grid power is incredibly deceptive.<p>(Sensible) electric car owners charge their vehicles over night, not at "average time" due to EV-specific utility rates available in 28 states.<p>Overnight CO2 emissions have significantly higher concentration of renewable and nuclear power than peak demand power.
Moving the contractor's fleet of F-150 and the likes into EV is a good thing. With that background Hummers is just a noise not worth the bandwidth we are spending discussing it. Instead, muster some empathy and compassion for and have a pity on the guys who feel the need for such a car.
I've wondered for a while, why don't EV vehicles use transmissions? I understand they don't need them but wouldn't it make the motor even more efficient?<p>Any ICE vehicles goal would be to put the lowest gearing (over drive) you can, without eating all of it's "passing power", nor dropping the RPMs too low. The lower the gear, the lower the engine needs to spin to keep that speed. The catch being, you need lots of torque to spin that gear, which electric motors have plenty of.<p>It just seems like you can easily sacrifice your horsepower for some more efficient highway speeds.
Can't you choose power source in the US?<p>Where I live, the city supplies the power network but I can choose between dozens of electricity providers. AIUI there are several for any taste or opinion. Running one of those cars without CO₂ emissions would be as simple as picking a suitable provider and charging the battery for >15 minutes at a time (the statistical model that governs power allocation is based on 15-minute time units).<p>Is the article author dense or is this kind of competitive electricity provision unknown in the US?
Realistically shit is going to hit the climate fan in the next 50 years so bad that even Americans will be driving tiny EVs. And they will count themselves lucky.
This article <i>completely</i> ignores the fact that changing a zillion distributed point sources of pollution and concentrating that into a much smaller number of industrial facility pollution sources makes tackling the pollution problem <i>HUGELY</i> simpler.<p>Yes, we need laws about the efficiency of these cars. However, just switching to electric is a huge benefit <i>even if there is no net decrease in emissions</i> over combustion engine cars.
I'm amused by the "grams per mile" emissions measure - if you're going to mix SI and imperial, why not "ounces per kilometre"?
Who cares? Car companies will likely need to enter the EV space by starting with offerings in their highest margin categories to ensure they have the wiggle room to develop new technologies or methods of production and still hit a price point acceptable to customers. The actual practicality of the specific car is secondary to this.
Two steps forward, one step back. It’s like people complaining a decade ago that the electricity was from coal, which is now 20% of US electricity. Although, globally we’re still at 40% coal power generation.<p>What’s important is that the technology is developed, improved, then improved again until it finally becomes a viable technology.
I don't understand the purpose of this article...it's making multiple comparisons but in a way that seems intentionally biased to incite discourse?<p>It's also hard to ignore that electric motors provide almost near instantaneous torque on demand...talk about a major wooooooo factor that's hard to say no to.
This is dependent on the area where it's driven. A 9K lb hummer EV driven exclusively in the PNW will find that most electricity is generated by renewables (mainly hydroelectric) power, but the same car driven in WV will have significantly higher CO2 emissions...
Odd that they omit fabrication emissions of a 9000 lb vehicle, with tons of lithium, aluminum, steel, plastic and the implied water impact, from the emissions.<p>If a tesla requires ~ 9 years to offset its fabrication, this beast needs 18.
I think this article is missing the elephant in the room by putting too much emphasis on efficiency: the biggest issue with EVs is in the manufacturing, and the reason why I often hear Tesla and other big EVs referred to as tools to ease one’s conscience, but certainly not long-term (or even medium-term) solutions to global warming.<p>My figures are from Switzerland [1], so assume the Swiss grid (mostly hydroelectric and nuclear, so about as good as it gets).<p>Using the same car, to ease the comparison: Peugeot 208 (ICE) vs Peugeot e-208 (BEV). Manufacturing takes 9.0 tCO2eq for the ICE version, 15.9 tCO2eq for the BEV version. Over the lifespan of the car (200,000 km): 42.0 tCO2eq for the ICE version against 22.7 tCO2eq for the BEV version. So as expected the BEV version wins: it breaks even at about 50,000 km.<p>But note that it's "only" cutting emissions in half. And that's on the Swiss grid. Of course it's better than nothing, but unless manufacturing costs (in terms of GHG emissions) are massively reduced, it's a dead end.<p>This is for a rather tiny BEV without much range, looking at Tesla Model 3 Long Range: 21.4 tCO2eq for manufacturing, 29.0 tCO2eq over 200,000km. Nearly 70% of the emissions of a Peugeot 208 ICE over the lifespan of the vehicle. And again that's with a nearly optimal grid in terms of emissions. I'm not even sure a coal powered Model 3 would break even with a Peugeot 208 (ICE).<p>To give some perspective, to stabilize the climate we basically each have a 2.0 tCO2eq / year quota, of which currently about 1.0 tCO2eq is eaten by public services (infrastructure, hospitals, police, firefighters, etc.), rough estimation for France, YMMV depending on where you live. How to reconcile this with a car that emits 21.4 tCO2eq just for manufacturing, I don't know.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.tcs.ch/fr/tests-conseils/conseils/achat-vente-vehicule/recherche-auto-comparaison.php" rel="nofollow">https://www.tcs.ch/fr/tests-conseils/conseils/achat-vente-ve...</a>
Model 3 absolutely crushing in efficiency for its price.<p>What is interesting is also the Lucid hanging up there despite all the extra weight. Suggests either aero or drivetrain advantage at play.
I find it strange that the article doesn't mention the Hummer's exact weight. Is it really exactly 9,000 pounds, or is it about 9,000, or is it over 9,000?
The shear weight of EVs compared to combustion engine vehicles scare me as a pedestrian/motorcyclist. I think this one is like twice the weight of the H3/H2.
The best part of this is that you have to drive a Tesla 400k+ miles to totally offset the carbon it takes to manufacturer the vehicle and to generate the electricity to operate it.<p>You probably have to drive this hummer 800k+ miles to offset the carbon to manufacture and operate.