What's the real environmental cost of electric cars?

It's always seemed crazy to me that just because electric cars are non-polluting, people forget that dangling on the other end of that charging cable is probably a coal-fired power station.<p>I've never seen figures on this before but it's nice to finally see something quantifying that. This study found: "For a European average power generation mix, and if you use your car for 150,000km, you could hope for a 25% improvement [in global warming impact] relative to a gasoline car"<p>and also points out that: "some cars make almost double the impact on global warming as conventional cars. This is mostly because of the raw materials and energy needed to build the lithium-ion batteries."<p>I'd love to see more data around this. I'm not anti-electric but it does seem we could apply our efforts, natural resources and budgets more effectively to other places, like loft insulation.

Aside from the fact that EV are plugged into dirty power sources, lithium in their batteries is a huge problem as well: [1] [2].<p>The reality is that we know how to build efficient charging systems, and we can even build some efficient power sources, such as wind turbines, nuclear reactors, and even solar panels. The problem is that we don't have a good way to store all this energy so that we can make a vehicle go. A compressed air vehicle [3] might be a better design than a lithium battery one, but it's certainly more dangerous. Other batteries just don't seem to measure up to lithium in terms of charge/discharge cycles and/or energy density [4].<p>The best we can hope for is a better energy storage system than what we've had up to now. Ideally, something that's clean to manufacture, recyclable, efficient, and long-lasting, but that's been the battery pipe dream. After all, our current cars still use the lead/acid batteries which have not changed much since they entered production in 1881, aside from the invention of a sealed version in the 1970s.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/05/25/us-lithium-analysis-idUSTRE54O2CP20090525" rel="nofollow">http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/05/25/us-lithium-analysi...</a><p>[2] <a href="http://junkscience.com/2012/08/09/rare-earth-mining-in-china-comes-at-a-heavy-cost-for-local-villages/" rel="nofollow">http://junkscience.com/2012/08/09/rare-earth-mining-in-china...</a><p>[3] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_car" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_car</a><p>[4] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechargeable_battery#Table_of_rechargeable_battery_types" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechargeable_battery#Table_of_r...</a>

I think there's no doubt in anyone's mind that electric cars themselves are reliant on the grid, and if its a coal burning station then obviously you're burning coal to drive. I hope that as greener energy forms such as solar and wind catch on we'll be able to really reduce our carbon footprints. While we as consumers can make a personal change on our end and go electric/hybrid it's really up to govs to help make the grid cleaner with legislation and regulation. It's kind of sad that individuals can't go all the way but I want to be optimistic about this. Maybe combining your own solar panels + electric car can some day in the near future get us where we'd want to be?

I am no fan of conspiracy theories, but I truly believe that some oil corporation or related investors <i>might</i> have had their influence on this article. Media is an easy source to manipulate people and BBC does it really well (They have a very good history of writing up biased articles in favor of/against certain companies/industries). I wait for the day when some anonymous source like Wikileaks publishes a link on how corrupt these fucking media organizations are from top to bottom. Really.

I think the promise is in the future. Right now electric cars might not be as eco-friendly as you'd expect, but once they've become popular, recycling techniques for the batteries will improve, and we can easily switch the generator of the electricity from coal to something like nuclear power to cut back on emissions, the car won't care. When you're driving a gasoline car though, you're basically stuck with gas.

I'd prefer to drive my bicycle on a street with electric cars, rather than on a street with gasoline cars.

I think since 2010 fuel consumption has declined a lot even though weight has increased. So when manufacturers decrease weight, combustion cars will become even more environment friendly.<p>For example: a big Audi nowadays can do 20-30 km/l. When losing a lot of weight it could even do more. Losing a lot of engine power maybe even more (there is hardly any need to go faster than 160 km/h).<p>Edit: wow, reading a little into it: in 1899 a electric car was the first to break the 100 km/h barier.<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car</a>

And the alternative is to keep using ICE automobiles? Our very existence impacts the "environment". We're either using up a finite amount of oil, or a finite amount of materials to make electronics. This argument against electric cars makes no sense.<p><a href="http://greenmonk.net/2010/01/07/what-if-we-create-a-better-world-for-nothing/" rel="nofollow">http://greenmonk.net/2010/01/07/what-if-we-create-a-better-w...</a>

Yes and no.<p>No technology is going to be a cut and dried solution to all our environmental problems. None. Period. Not even Mr. Fusion.<p>Ultimately the question is whether or not electric cars are an important stepping stone along the line to a future where more environmental problems are solved or significantly ameliorated compared to today. I think the answer to that question is probably yes, even with the extremely flawed electric vehicles of today (although with enough evidence I might be convinced otherwise). However, we very much do need to keep in mind that this is at best a baby step, and the work remaining outweighs the work that's been done by a huge amount.

Elon musk claims that even if you take the same source fuel and burn it into stationary power plants, you're still better off. If you burn natural gas in a modern general electric gas turbine, you'll get about 60% efficiency. If you put that same fuel in an internal combustion engine, you get about 20% efficiency. So electric cars 'make sense' if this logic is valid.<p><a href="http://youtu.be/IgKWPdJWuBQ?t=59s" rel="nofollow">http://youtu.be/IgKWPdJWuBQ?t=59s</a> I summarized at 59 seconds of this youtube clip you can see his exact claim. Is his claim logically/mathematically sound?^

The key number to look at in these "well to wheel" type holistic studies in the assumed lifetime of the car. In this study they used 150,000km, which is about 94,000 miles. That seems low to me. Most cars manufactured in the 1990s could last a lot longer than that, and cars are made even more reliably now.<p>This matters because the payoff for an EV improves with every mile driven. They are very energy-intensive to manufacture, but more efficient to operate. In addition, the EV's efficiency can be "upgraded" over time as the mix of electricity sources improves.

I have a mind-bending question (at least it makes me wonder)<p>I think it does not matter which energy storage unit we consume right now. Eventually all of them will be consumed. Renewable energy? nope it is not really renewable, it is just another energy storage unit, just renews faster than oil, because it stores less energy. Ultimately the only energy source we have is the sun. What will happen when our daily consumption rate becomes larger than the amount sun can suppl?

I think the most environmentally friendly option is to just avoid buying a new car.

Electric cars are a form of self-denial. We think we're doing the environment a favor when in reality we're terrified of a future without cars.