Yale Study Debunks Myth that EVs Create More Emissions than ICE

[G. David Felt]

We have all been told, large-scale electric vehicle adoption can and will greatly reduce emissions from vehicle tailpipes giving us cleaner air.

We have also been told by industry analysts that increased indirect emissions from electricity production and battery production that are not regulated by transport policies will offset the change from ICE to BEV having no affect.

With these two statements in mind, a group from Yale SCHOOL OF THE ENVIRONMENT set out to study which statement is true, or truest in regard to the BEVs assembly and use in society.

The OEM auto industry is right now in the midst of a major multi-billion-dollar investment of creating and building electric vehicles here in the U.S. and for global consumption with many of these auto companies stating by 2030 to end ICE auto's building and focus 100% on building and selling BEVs only worldwide. The Yale School of the Environment study has been published in Nature Communications. The study found that the total indirect emissions from electric vehicles pale in comparison to the indirect emissions from fossil fuel-powered vehicles. This is in addition to the direct emissions from combusting fossil fuels, either at the tailpipe for ICE vehicles or at the power plant smokestack for electricity generation, showing electric vehicles have a clear advantage emissions-wise over ICE vehicles.

To quote Stephanie Weber, postdoctoral associate: 

“The surprising element was how much lower the emissions of electric vehicles were,”

“The supply chain for combustion vehicles is just so dirty that electric vehicles can’t surpass them, even when you factor in indirect emissions.”

Question one would ask, what is the major concern with electric vehicles?

Answer, the electric vehicles supply chain, including the mining and processing of raw materials and the manufacturing of batteries is far from clean.

Quote from the study on this: 

 “So, if we priced the carbon embodied in these processes, the expectation is electric vehicles would be exorbitantly expensive. It turns out that’s not the case; if you level the playing field by also pricing the carbon in the fossil fuel vehicle supply chain, electric vehicle sales would actually increase.” 

Also, according to the press release from Yale, the study considered future technological change, such as decarbonization of the electricity supply and found this strengthened the result that electric vehicles dominate when indirect supply chain emissions are accounted for.

The research team gathered data using a National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) created by the Energy Information Administration, which models the entire U.S. energy system using detailed information from the current domestic energy system and a forecast of the future of the electric system. Wolfram completed a life cycle assessment that provided outputs of indirect emissions, which were then plugged into the NEMS model to see how a carbon tax on these indirect emissions would change the behavior of consumers and manufacturers. Weber assisted in modifying the NEMS code.

According to the Wolfram, the study shows that "the elephant in the room is the supply chain of fossil fuel-powered vehicles, not that of electric vehicle."  In countries with a sufficiently decarbonized electricity supply, like the U.S., the faster we switch to electric vehicles, the better.

Yale_Study_EV-Emissions.pdf

Interesting enough is that studies that have been done have always pointed to life cycle of the BEV and yet no study till now has been done to the life cycle of an ICE vehicle. As such, now that one has been done, it clearly shows that humanity benefits from moving to electric vehicles from ICE vehicles.

The bigger question I would think is can society get over their political factions to ICE versus BEV for the health of society rather than cling to the past in an attitude of no change is good change?

The Yale team used a combination of life cycle assessment and energy modeling to analyze the total life-cycle emissions of conventional or ICE vehicles versus EV or electric vehicles. They then calculated a carbon price on those emissions to see what effect that would have on the vehicle market. End result is that EV sales would increase in comparison to gas auto sales due to the larger increase in cost associated with ICE auto production.

What are your thoughts on the study and the emission question?

YSE Study Finds Electric Vehicles Provide Lower Carbon Emissions Through Additional Channels | Yale School of the Environment

Pricing indirect emissions accelerates low—carbon transition of US light vehicle sector | Nature Communications

View full article

[balthazar]

It won't "have no effect" on air quality not because some projections show BE's to be cleaner   over X-number of years of operation, but because even at 100% marketshare, BEs will ALWAYS be a minority share of ALL operating vehicles. People leaning one way on the issue continue to ignore how many IC machines there are in the world, and that they will continue to operate for the rest of our lifetimes, even if at a slowly decaying rate. The issue isn't a snapshot of new vehicle sales in a given future decade - that's a thin sliver of every vehicle out there. 

It's like stamping all the ants you see on your driveway dead, then yelling to your neighbor "I'm 100% ant-free!".

[surreal1272]

11 hours ago, balthazar said:

It won't "have no effect" on air quality not because some projections show BE's to be cleaner   over X-number of years of operation, but because even at 100% marketshare, BEs will ALWAYS be a minority share of ALL operating vehicles. People leaning one way on the issue continue to ignore how many IC machines there are in the world, and that they will continue to operate for the rest of our lifetimes, even if at a slowly decaying rate. The issue isn't a snapshot of new vehicle sales in a given future decade - that's a thin sliver of every vehicle out there. 

It's like stamping all the ants you see on your driveway dead, then yelling to your neighbor "I'm 100% ant-free!".

You basically your response is "meh" and might as do nothing? Just stay with ICEs and keep on the crappy track this country (and most of the world) has riding on for the last century? F progress. F what is better LONG TERM. No offense Balth, but that is all I'm seeing here, just a litany of excuses. Just skip the fact that NOW todays cars are SOO reliable that the vast majority will last for the next 15-30 years, even with 100% EV marketshare taking hold. I'm no mathematician nor do I work in logistics, but that entire statement is flawed down to its very core and your know it.

[balthazar]

I've said here before- I support Tesla & Rivian and any new American OEM. U.S. could use more players, no question.

I'm also fine with improving the environment... as long as we don't ram head-long into complete poverty doing so.

That doesn't mean I blindly accept all the flowery prose and hyperbolic press releases that accompany them (or ANY OEM) at face value. Electric cars are generally viable (if not yet always on parity with same-segment ICs) and they can become great for many, probably even most consumers.

Some folk like to accept every claim & statement made publicly. I prefer to apply a little critical thinking, esp when the claims come off as 'too good to be true'. Never forget the MONEY behind these ventures; they're not purely benevolent gestures despite the grandiose prose.

The entire statement is not 'flawed'. If there are about 380 million vehicles in the US, and the average 'normal' yearly production is 15 million, that's 25 years' worth of vehicles. IF by -say- 2040, 100% of the US market is BE's, it would take a mathematical 25 years to replace those... except it never will- it will only 'dilute' the number or IC's, not eliminate them. There will always, and I mean always be IC vehicles. 

Recall; we've had production BE's for 20 years now. New U.S. vehicle BE marketshare is still only 2-3%. It's not going to be 100% in 8 more years- no way.

[balthazar]

1 hour ago, surreal1272 said:

Just skip the fact that NOW todays cars are SOO reliable that the vast majority will last for the next 15-30 years, even with 100% EV marketshare taking hold.

How did I 'skip' that? I literally stated that IC vehicles will never be gone in our lifetimes. A 2030 IC vehicle will be around in 2060... and I may well not be.

[ccap41]

48 minutes ago, balthazar said:

A 2030 IC vehicle will be around in 2060... and I may well not be

Don't be pessimistic! You're the Silverado of humans, you'll live welllllll past your expected life! You may be beaten on, pulling well above your rated weight, mismatching tires, and a sagging headliner, but you'll still be chugging along!

Edited February 25, 2022 by ccap41

[balthazar]

My grandfather lived to be 6 wks shy of his 101st, my father is in very good health having just turned 80… but 2060 will put me closer to 101 than 80. ?

I may not WANT to still be around.

Edited February 25, 2022 by balthazar

[surreal1272]

3 hours ago, surreal1272 said:

Just skip the fact that NOW todays cars are SOO reliable that the vast majority will last for the next 15-30 years, even with 100% EV marketshare taking hold

Apparently I forgot to put a sarcasm tag on this part. 

[surreal1272]

And just wait until we see a whole generation of mechanics that are raised on nothing but EVs (since there is the implication of 100% EV marketshare). Sure there will be some old school grease monkeys coming of age but when EVs become the dominant powertrain on the roads (notice the absence of the word "if" there), they will be fewer and fewer with each passing generation. Such is human history and all.

[G. David Felt]

I understand the point your stating @balthazar as ICE will be around for a while. Yet as we move to a pure EV sale only by 2030-2035, trade school training will change and folks then that choose a career to be a mechanic will have less interest in ICE and especially carbureted auto's than EV.

I would expect to see more and more ICE powertrains pulled and replaced by E-crate solutions.

Just got my request to answer questions as GM plans their e-Crate powertrain roll out as well as installation into older ICE auto's.

37 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

And just wait until we see a whole generation of mechanics that are raised on nothing but EVs (since there is the implication of 100% EV MarketShare). Sure, there will be some old school grease monkeys coming of age but when EVs become the dominant powertrain on the roads (notice the absence of the word "if" there), they will be fewer and fewer with each passing generation. Such is human history and all.

This I expect to happen faster than slower as we have already seen how the younger generations are taking to electronics with far less interest in older ICE type products. Heck even moving to electric yard tools is changing faster than the hell of owning ice power tools.

[G. David Felt]

Interesting story on product demands moving people to EV more than Gas prices.

Study: Product means more than gas prices in stoking EV demand (greencarreports.com)

Quote:

Why did the Model Y cause such a spike in EV intent while the Model 3 didn’t? “Americans want SUVs and are increasingly disinterested in sedans,” Kim told Green Car Reports, citing a simple market reality. “So, the introduction of the Model Y, along with other electric SUVs introduced during the pandemic like Mustang Mach-E, has resulted in a significant increase in demand in a way that the Model 3 sedan could not, despite its own popularity.”

 

AutoPacific predicts total electric vehicle sales of about 700,000 in 2022, with the total rising to more than 900,000 sales in 2023, then accelerating over the following couple of years, passing 2 million in 2026 and hitting 2.5 million in 2027. 

The firm noted that 75% of consumers see EVs as the “way to the future,” yet 89% of respondents still plan to buy something other than an EV as their next vehicle. 

“Conquesting consumers out of gasoline, diesel, and hybrid vehicles—none of which require changes in daily routine to accommodate charging—will continue to be an uphill challenge for years to come,” the company said in summation. 

 

[riviera74]

The Yale study is fine.  It does NOT answer one question:  When will EVs be cheap enough to displace used ICE vehicles?  If you want transportation to emit less pollution and fewer emissions, then ICE vehicles need to be replaced.  How fast that will be done, given the current EV market share is 2% in the USA and even less worldwide, is the only real question that matters.  Whoever can sell at least one million EVs a year will make this somewhat plausible.

[balthazar]

On 2/25/2022 at 4:05 PM, David said:

89% of respondents still plan to buy something other than an EV as their next vehicle. 

Jives with the other recent survey that said 95% do not plan their next vehicle to be a battery vehicle.

NOT good news for OEMs going all in.

 

[G. David Felt]

13 hours ago, balthazar said:

Jives with the other recent survey that said 95% do not plan their next vehicle to be a battery vehicle.

NOT good news for OEMs going all in.

 

I will say that with reviews like the following, if one was not told it is electric, that if OEMs deliver on this kind of experience, EVs will replace ICE faster than ICE grew in the 1900's.

Quote: "there are no real disadvantages" to owning one. If Ford has achieved this with the Mach-e, the F150 Lighting will truly fuel the changeover to BEV.

Love the new Term, Front Gating rather than Tail Gating. Ultimate Beer Cooler in that Frunk according to Jay!

 

[G. David Felt]

 Just watched this video a second time and I realized that Jay just knocks that the Mach-E is better than the Mercedes SLR.

Guess that answers the question of is "The best or nothing?" Guess for Jay, Mercedes is Nothing especially compared to the Mach-E