carbon footprint building a leaf vs IC car

[Galiano]

Sorry if this question has been dealt with. I did a search and didn't see it.

I am going to buy a 2013 Leaf once they are available in Canada, but I need a question answered. I have a couple of friends who say that the carbon footprint for the build of a Leaf outweighs all the benefits gained by driving one. They say that construction of a Leaf puts out a large carbon footprint, larger by a lot than the construction of an IC car.

I can't find anything to contradict this on the net and would feel better if I knew the answer to this.

We will likely drive about 6 to 8000 miles a year and I think our hydro here in BC is 6 cents a KW/h. And it is clean electricity from hydro electric sources.

 

[cwerdna]

OTOH, I don't have Leaf references handy but I'm sure someone will chime in.

Sounds like the same type of FUD/thoroughly debunked junk science that has been leveled against hybrids, like the Prius. See http://prius.wikia.com/wiki/Environmental" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and http://prius.wikia.com/wiki/Lifespan/Operating_costs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; for refutations re: the Prius.

I strongly suspect those "friends" don't drive an EV. Ask them for their sources. Then we can analyze their validity, or lack of.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

It would be nice to get some objective answers on this that don't come from people supporting one agenda or the other.

There are two aspects, the "well (or mine) to wheel" emissions of fueling each of the respective vehicle types, and the emissions of manufacturing each of the vehicles, including all the component inputs. It seems now we also need to factor in the impact of replacing the battery every five years.

Electric seems to be a hands down winner from a fueling standpoint. BEV/PHEV seems like it could be a loser from the manufacturing standpoint, but recycling could really complicate that computation. Some have argued that the greater manufacturing impact outweighs the reduced impact from fueling, but they didn't take the full lifecycle impact of the liquid fuel production into account.

 

[cwerdna]

I just found http://www.environment.ucla.edu/media_IOE/files/BatteryElectricVehicleLCA2012-rh-ptd.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (I think we've actually discussed this report here on MNL before) and http://www.treehugger.com/cars/life-cycle-analysis-of-electric-car-shows-battery-has-only-minor-impact.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

From skimming the 1st, it basically points to the same conclusion as for hybrids. The VAST majority of a car's energy consumption and CO2 emissions come from its use, NOT from manufacturing nor disposal.

The keywords to Google for are "nissan leaf" lifecycle analysis or "electric vehicle" lifecycle analysis.

 

[peter]

Also see previous discussion here with many interesting links: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=10699" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[Galiano]

great replies so far. thanks.

I find it odd having to defend my upcoming purchase of a leaf with friends. I imagine this will get worse once we own one. so I'm trying to be "fore armed " with as much information as I can find.

here in bc we have 95 % renewable electricity so the car itself becomes the issue - the carbon footprint in manufacturing and disposal / battery recycling seems to be a conversation point for doubters.

 

[Stoaty]

From skimming the 1st, it basically points to the same conclusion as for hybrids. The VAST majority of a car's energy consumption and CO2 emissions come from its use, NOT from manufacturing nor disposal.

Even more important is that the UCLA study found that for California's power mix, the BEV had the lowest life cycle CO2 emissions. If you have mostly renewable power, it would lead by an even larger margin.

 

[electrifeyed]

great replies so far. thanks.

I find it odd having to defend my upcoming purchase of a leaf with friends. I imagine this will get worse once we own one. so I'm trying to be "fore armed " with as much information as I can find.

here in bc we have 95 % renewable electricity so the car itself becomes the issue - the carbon footprint in manufacturing and disposal / battery recycling seems to be a conversation point for doubters.

Check to see if your "doubter" friends own a lot of stock in oil wells & energy production.

As far as the energy to build a car, that depends on the vehicle's content. Having worked in a car assembly plant for 15 years, I can tell you that there a some things you can do that increase the build carbon footprint (leather seats, lots of accessories, make the vehicle huge). The Leaf has relatively low content, except for the battery. During assembly itself, building & painting the body uses the energy, and this is largely dependent on the car's size; very small in the case of the Leaf. So really the question is about the battery.

You have to balance the energy (and CO2 creation) to build the Leaf battery against the energy and CO2 to build all the items in a ICE car that a Leaf doesn't have, i.e., a complex IC engine, fuel tank, exhaust system, catalytic converter, fuel-vapor canister, etc. With some research, one could do this; the energy and CO2 per kWH to make batteries has been documented. You would have to get comparable information for building all the all the other parts of the ICE.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

Detractors like to make a big deal out of what it takes to mine/produce lithium, but I saw this spot on some news show I think it was Bolivia where they have it just laying on the ground in giant salt flats. Of course it isn't like you just dump the stuff into a battery pack with a front end loader, but still, looked to me like lithium is pretty much like dirt.

You know there's got to be a lot of copper in EVs, and copper mining and production is rather intensive, but at the same time it's totally recyclable, so you have to weigh that into the calculations too.

 

[evnow]

They say that construction of a Leaf puts out a large carbon footprint, larger by a lot than the construction of an IC car.

Tell them they are wrong - and ask them for reference.

 

[Galiano]

well I'd prefer to tell them they are wrong and provide them with proof.

 

[cwerdna]

well I'd prefer to tell them they are wrong and provide them with proof.

Why do we have to do the hard work?

Why don't they provide their sources? It's very easy for people to make up unsubstantiated statements and/or to echo junk science and incorrect information.

 

[mbender]

They say that construction of a Leaf puts out a large carbon footprint, larger by a lot than the construction of an IC car.

Tell them they are wrong - and ask them for reference.

+1

Go on the offensive and see if they are "armed"!

It's funny too that often the people who raise these kinds of issues are also 'deniers' to one extent or another. ie, in doing so, they mostly just want to put you on the spot. Otherwise they are buying into the premise that the environment is an issue! (just saw your follow-up: you might arm yourself but still not show them until they point you to a reputable source that makes their argument.)

You could also tell them that you're buying it for any number of other good reasons...

 

[RegulusBlack]

Re: lithium in Bolivia

They recently discover lithium in Wyoming as well. A lot of it as I recall.

 

[Galiano]

the batteries really seem to be the issue. good suggestion to ask for some sort of proof. I would also like to know for my own satisfaction. If the carbon footprint to manufacture a Leaf was the same as it is to build an IC car, I'd fell really good about owning a Leaf.

I suppose my having to defend how green a Leaf really is will eventually come to an end. I am totally excited about owning one. Not sure when they will be available here in Canada but I'll be first in line.

 

[cwerdna]

the batteries really seem to be the issue. good suggestion to ask for some sort of proof. I would also like to know for my own satisfaction. If the carbon footprint to manufacture a Leaf was the same as it is to build an IC car, I'd fell really good about owning a Leaf.

So, why don't those naysayers provide some of their own supporting data?

As for the bolded statement, from glancing thru the UCLA study, we already know the carbon footprint of building a BEV is higher than that of an ICEV. Over the entire lifecycle, the carbon footprint of a BEV is lower than that of an ICEV. Again, the vast majority of a vehicle's carbon footprint is from use, not manufacture.

Why not consider the weight of gasoline and CO2 emitted by burning it, esp. since you state that your electricity comes from hydro/clean sources?

Let's take your 8000 miles/year. Over 10 years, that's 80K miles. Assuming you have an ICEV that averages 30 mpg (this is above the avg car mpg for the US at http://blog.truecar.com/2013/06/12/average-fuel-economy-for-new-vehicle-transactions-steady-but-still-at-record-levels-for-3rd-consecutive-month-according-to-truecars-truempg/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false, that'd mean ~2666.67 gallons consumed, weighing 16,800 lbs. Burning it would produce 53333 lbs of CO2. The gasoline comes from oil that must be explored for, drilled for, pumped multiple times, shipped multiple times, refined (yet more energy input needed), then carried around as dead weight in an ICEV.

Per http://www.mynissanleaf.com/wiki/index.php?title=Battery_specs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, the Leaf's battery pack weighs 648 lbs.

 

[planet4ever]

cwerdna has given you the answer, but to try to make it simple for your friends, look at it this way:

1. The carbon footprint to run an ICE is probably 50-100 times as high as the footprint to build it. As a worst case, let's assume it is 50 times.
2. The carbon footprint to build an EV is unlikely to be twice that of an ICE, but let's assume that as a worst case.
3. With clean hydro energy, the carbon footprint to run an EV is less than half that to run an ICE, but we'll assume half.

With those assumptions, if we start with x carbon to build an ICE, it will produce 50*x while running, for 51*x over its life. The EV would produce 2*x to build, but only 25*x while running, so 27*x altogether. The EV is the clear winner, no matter how much carbon is produced while building it.

Ray

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

We won't save the planet by reducing carbon emissions by 27/51 (let's call it half) current levels.

Here's an interesting question - to me anyway - let's say we can get to near zero carbon on all electricity generation... electricity to run steel mills, factories, yes even to power refineries... now what is the carbon footprint of ice vs ev?

 

[Stoaty]

1. The carbon footprint to build an EV is unlikely to be twice that of an ICE, but let's assume that as a worst case.

Hold on there. Let's use some data from the UCLA study:

http://www.environment.ucla.edu/media_IOE/files/BatteryElectricVehicleLCA2012-rh-ptd.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

1) Carbon footprint to build an EV is about 5 times that to build an ICE (see attached graph, take sum of blue plus red portion of bars)

 

[planet4ever]

1. The carbon footprint to build an EV is unlikely to be twice that of an ICE, but let's assume that as a worst case.

Hold on there. Let's use some data from the UCLA study:

http://www.environment.ucla.edu/media_IOE/files/BatteryElectricVehicleLCA2012-rh-ptd.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

1) Carbon footprint to build an EV is about 5 times that to build an ICE (see attached graph, take sum of blue plus red portion of bars)

I'm astounded, but it still doesn't matter, as I said. 5*x + 25*x is still much less than 1*x + 50*x.

Of course I didn't have any scientific basis for my other ballpark numbers, either, so maybe I can still be proven to be wrong. However, the overall results of the UCLA study came in amazingly close to my wild guess, and that was for a CA power mix, which is about half natural gas. I would expect Galiano's higher hydro to skew the numbers even further in the BEV direction.

Ray