Gridlock: Examining The Electric Car’s Darker Side

By Joseph Gunning, Policy Analyst

The upcoming release of Tesla’s Model 3 electric car is perhaps the long-awaited bellwether for the electric car’s breakthrough into the mainstream. For many, the rise of the electric car is inexorably tied to the death of the internal combustion engine as a means of powering motor vehicles. Indeed, the idea of solar panels on a suburban household charging up a slick all-electric supercar ties in well with the life goals of many sustainability-conscious individuals. However, some less slick realities of energy may mar the idyllic image of a society filled with electric vehicles zooming along quietly on the nation’s freeways.

The main issue with electric cars are not in the carbon footprints of the vehicles themselves, but rather, it is with the energy production implicit in the charging and use of their batteries. As of 2015, around 83% of all energy produced in the U.S. is generated from non-renewable sources, and 67% is produced from fossil fuels.

Furthermore, a recent Yale study found that depending on the length of an EV’s lifecycle and energy origins, the environmental impacts and carbon footprint could be “indistinguishable” from a conventional diesel-powered vehicle. This impact is largely generated by variances in regional power production mixes, and the environmental impact caused by the lithium batteries powering EVs.

These caveats don’t mean that electric cars are inherently incapable of replacing ICE vehicles as a more sustainable option. In fact, in many ways, they are more sustainable. Take for instance the amount of energy needed to travel 100 miles is far less in an EV vs an ICE vehicle, 144 MJ vs 215 MJ. This means that a coal-powered EV releases around 1 LB less CO2 into the atmosphere compared to an ICE vehicle. Natural gas-powered EVs are even better, releasing 10 LBs less than ICE vehicles.

However, these issues on electricity source and lifetime usage do raise important questions about long-term energy strategy and battery production, as well as the role in subsidies for EV consumers and producers. For one, the proper mix of energy sources is important in optimizing the efficiency potential of the EV and in minimizing their carbon footprint. And as for the batteries themselves, more efficient methods of production and proper disposal procedures will be key in reducing the lifetime environmental impact of EVs. Also, the role of tax incentives and other subsidies must be critically analyzed to avoid stagnation in innovation and rewarding of sub-par products. Finally, consumers need to realize that, while the positive impacts of EVs can and will be substantial, by no means should they be considered a panacea for global warming. Consumers should dispose of their used EVs properly and be aware that purchasing a state-subsidized EV should be evaluated on their projected usage of the vehicle and of the energy production sources on their region’s power grid.

Joseph Gunning is a Policy Analyst for the Center for Development & Strategy

  • tech01xpert

    You should look at the LCA analysis provided by Mercedes for the B-class electric which uses a Tesla powertrain as a starting point. There are a lot of studies that make unrealistic or outdated assumptions that do not apply to Tesla.

    Further, Tesla knows that the carbon footprint of the battery cell production is a critical part of reducing the overall carbon emissions footprint of the vehicle. Hence the Gigafactory will have energy management unlike other supply chains which reduces cost and carbon footprint. In addition, when they install onsite renewables as well as source renewable production for other parts of Nevada’s grid, the carbon footprint of the battery production will drop even further.

    Obviously, as the emissions from grid electricity providers drops, so does the emissions from EVs. There are plenty of places today where the emissions are already very low, especially in areas where there are a lot of Tesla’s. EVs can also charge at super-off peak times and act as a energy sink to soak up intermittent renewable energy production. For instance, there are times where wind power is in excess and during those times, EV charging can help keep those producers profitable. Both the high production of solar during the afternoon in areas like California and the high production of wind in Texas can cause limitations of investment without sufficient demand during peak production. EVs can provide that demand.

    • thaddeusbuttmunchmd

      1. Climate Change is REAL, folks, m’kay??
      2. OPEC nations are scumbags. The Saudis funded 9/11. Three Fourths of the skyjackers were
      3. Oil producers like Mexico and Russia are Evil as well.
      4. Texas is an Evil Oil Nation, Too. It’s a backwards Red State. And, the reason they can afford
      those low taxes (which attract all the non-petroleum companies) is the Oil and Gas.

      SO…the solution is SIMPLE.
      a. Electric Vehicles. Cars use most of the Gas.
      b. Overhead electric lines on the superhighways to power the 18 wheelers. This is being done
      already in Germany
      c. Geothermal Heat Pumps, particularly in the Northern States, and Solar Roofs in the Sunny

      We can reduce fossil fuel consumption by 70-80% over the next 25 years.

  • virtualvillian

    99% of new electricity capacity added in Q1 2016 was renewable:

    Dynegy Inc announced on that it will shut down multiple Illinois coal-fueled units totaling 2,800MW:

    Electric cars will help, self driving cars will help, e-bikes, solar panels, improved building construction, geothermal cooling/heating, conservation and efficiency improvements are all needed and real progress is being made to reduce energy consumption as we transition to a cleaner society.