carbon footprint building a leaf vs IC car

[Mel4EV]

Just intuitively, I would find it hard to believe that battery manufacture would emit more carbon than a ton of gasoline not burnt in just one year. Anyway here is a study that has researched it, with a great graphic.


http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/climatesnapshot/do-electric-cars-cause-more-or-less-climate-pollution-gasoline-cars-take-look" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[evnow]

Re: lithium in Bolivia

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

Lithium doesn't matter in Li Ion batteries ! It is only 4% by weight.

I'd think the main energy suck is copper - and aluminum. But the interesting thing about Cu or Al is that - if the source of energy for the processing of those metals is clean electricity (like in the Columbia river basin in WA/OR), then the CO2 foot print of battery construction is quite low. The other thing to do is to recycle copper more (some 18% now) - that will make Cu lifecycle footprint much lower.

In other words, we need to do 2 things to get vehicle emissions low
- cleanup the grid
- cleanup the vehicle itself

They can & should be done independently, since each of them takes decades to implement. We simply can't wait for the grid to be clean before starting ICE eradication.

 

[tbleakne]

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 have been researching the issue of carbon footprint of EV manufacture vs ICE manufacture. I agree it is an important issue separate from the driving (fuel) footprints. I have seen the above graph, and I am not convinced it can be relied upon. It shows a high cost for battery vs ICE engine. I am still collecting information, but it appears to me that
the negligible amount for engine of CV in this graph is not credible.

Below I offer some quotes that at least partially refute these claims.

I believe different assumptions about sources of material may be some of the cause of different estimates of manufacture. For example, Aluminum requires 12-13 kWh/kg electricity to produce(see Wikipedia). To save weight, the LEAF has aluminum door panels and the Tesla body is mostly Aluminum. However, quite a bit of global Aluminum production is now done in Iceland, using geothermal power, and Norway, using hydroelectric power. Both of these sources have zero carbon footprint, except for shipping. If the aluminum comes from China, coal was probably used to produce the electricity, with a much higher footprint.

If the steel in either an EV or an ICE is produced from iron reduced from coke, which is a type of coal, that has a substantial carbon footprint.

With respect to the battery and Lithium, here are some references from a story written by Bjorn Lomborg (BL) of the WSJ that might have been the source of your friends' negative opinions.

http://www.plugincars.com/electric-...ncludes-wall-street-journal-op-ed-126685.html

In the above story BL writes:

When an electric car rolls off the production line, it has already been responsible for 30,000 pounds of carbon-dioxide emission. The amount for making a conventional car: 14,000 pounds.

This might be the source of the factor of 2 mentioned above, but I agree this estimate is suspect as well.
"The Energy Collective" story about the same piece:
http://theenergycollective.com/maxb...-street-journal-op-ed-needs-better-accountant
has this quote:

Most researchers agree that building electric cars today requires more energy than building gasoline vehicles, but estimates for production emissions from Argonne National Laboratory are roughly three times less than those used by Lomborg.

We know the batteries are expensive, but it is possible that much of this cost is due to the high precision of their manufacture, more than the cost, energy and otherwise, of the materials. The anode,electrolyte,separator,and cathode sandwich is only 100 microns thick, and any short through this sandwich kills the cell.

BJ also says:

The mining of lithium, for instance, is a less than green activity.

He appears to be using costs for Li mining, not brine. From "The Oil Drum, " a reliable reference I have used before:

Lithium production via the brine method is much less expensive than mining, says John McNulty, analyst at global bank Credit Suisse. Lithium from minerals or ores costs about $4,200-4,500/tonne (€2,800-3,000/tonne) to produce, while brine-based lithium costs around $1,500-2,300/tonne to produce.
>>>
Chile provides 61% of lithium exports to the US, . . .

As was reported in a post above, the Chile production sounds very "green":

Melting snow from the Andes Mountains runs about 130 feet (39.6 meters) underground, into lithium deposits, then gathering into pools of salt water, or brine. The brine is pumped out from under salt flats such as Chile's Salar de Atacama, and spread among networks of ponds where the desert sun and high altitude provide a beneficial environment for evaporation.

Eventually Global Warming will eliminate the snow, and then there may be a problem in Chile.

The following reference states that the focus on Li in the battery is misplaced:

Abstract
Battery-powered electric cars (BEVs) play a key role in future mobility scenarios. However, little is known about the environmental impacts of the production, use and disposal of the lithium ion (Li-ion) battery. This makes it difficult to compare the environmental impacts of BEVs with those of internal combustion engine cars (ICEVs). Consequently, a detailed lifecycle inventory of a Li-ion battery and a rough LCA of BEV based mobility were compiled. The study shows that the environmental burdens of mobility are dominated by the operation phase regardless of whether a gasoline-fueled ICEV or a European electricity fueled BEV is used. The share of the total environmental impact of E-mobility caused by the battery (measured in Ecoindicator 99 points) is 15%. The impact caused by the extraction of lithium for the components of the Li-ion battery is less than 2.3% (Ecoindicator 99 points). The major contributor to the environmental burden caused by the battery is the supply of copper and aluminum for the production of the anode and the cathode, plus the required cables or the battery management system. This study provides a sound basis for more detailed environmental assessments of battery based E-mobility.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es903729a
Fig 2 from above paper:

While writing this I see evnow has posted comments that support some of these statements. I agree recycling is key.

Ideally I want to get to the point where I can say with some confidence how far I must drive a Leaf (or perhaps a Tesla) before the saving in carbon footprint from driving exceed the carbon footprint penalty from manufacture, but that depends somewhat on driving style, so I am concentrating on manufacture first.

I would agree with the skeptics that there is some low mileage value below which an EV does not make sense. I have met several Leaf owners who are driving less that 4-5 K miles per year. Perhaps the lower bound is lower. They will be able to keep their cars for a long time, but they are going to lose some capacity just from their cars sitting in warm garages.

 

[cwerdna]

To save weight, the LEAF has aluminum door panels and the Tesla body is mostly Aluminum.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=300508#p300508" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; claims the '13 US-market Leaf has steel doors and hood. That's unfortunate...

My Prius and former Z had aluminum hoods. Whenever I raise a steel hood on a car w/o hood struts/springs, they feel so HEAVY, in comparison.

 

[mbender]

A good "live blog" on the environmental impact of EVs/EV production vs. ICEs:

Are electric cars bad for the environment? (In The Guardian, 5 Oct 2012)

It references a Norwegian study, and the authors of that study join in the conversation, responding to questions and comments from the "audience".

Caveat: as with some threads in this forum, your head may end up spinning if you read it all and try to figure out what it all means. :?

 

[ERG4ALL]

Keep in mind that Lithium is an element. It is number 3 on the periodic chart, between Helium and Beryllium. Because it is an element, it cannot be broken down into anything smaller. Just like Iron (#26 on the chart) it can be recycled. As we all know iron combines with oxygen and becomes Iron oxide or rust. We put that in a blast furnace and drive off the oxygen and we can reuse iron to make steel. The same holds true for the lead in lead (#82) acid batteries. Ninety four percent of the lead in lead acid batteries are recycled in the U.S., and if you don't recycle the battery you will pay an extra "core" charge.

Now let's look at gasoline. Gasoline is a hydrocarbon molecule, not an element. Once it combines with oxygen it forms carbon dioxide (and some carbon monoxide) and water, all of which is lost to the atmosphere and cannot be recycled.

On top of that, at least in the 2011 LEAF the material used in the seats is made from old polyethylene water bottles. Nissan has paid particular attention to the recycling of the LEAF. I cannot remember the exact figure but if memory serves me it is over 90%.

Anyway, there are some facts for you. Ask what facts the naysayers have.

 

[johnqh]

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)

Even this study did not count the electricity needed to refine gasoline. It takes about 5kw to refine one gallon of gas.

So the energy used to refine one gallon of gas is enough to power my Leaf for 20 miles. And few pure ICE car can even get 20mpg in city driving. To get above 20mpg in city, you will have to look into hybrids.

Not considering the carbon footprint of burning gas, EV is already ahead.

Now, when you look at the whole picture, most EV's are charged at night. Power companies can adjust the output by usage somewhat, but cannot shut down plants at night when the usage is low. It is like a gas engine which uses gas even when the car is not moving.

Charging EV at night utilize this portion of idle electricity. There is so much wasted electricity generation at night that the power companies can easily handle millions of EV charging at the same time without increasing output.

So, in the big picture, the EV charging at night does not have ANY carbon footprint, until we reach a critical mass that force the power companies to increase output at night.

In essence, at the current number, EV manufacturing may have more carbon footprint, the use of EV's impact is almost zero.

Now, let's talk about something interesting. There is idea of battery-to-grid technology. The EV charges at night, and then release the energy back to the grid during the day when the power usage peaks.

That kind of energy storage actually help to REDUCE the peak output of the power generation. It evens out the curve so there is less wasted energy overall. If this idea becomes reality, the carbon footprint of USING EV is actually NEGATIVE.

 

[ksnogas2112]

And what's the carbon footprint of the average convenience store? It's not just the exhaust from burning the fuel in a car but also the electricity to make the fuel, fuel burned to transport to the convenience store, the electricity to power the pump, to light the parking lot lights, to keep the coolers inside cool, to run the cash register, to air condition the store and to make ice for the fountain drinks. Since BC uses hydro you're still pretty green but down here it's all coal but getting windier every day.

 

[Smidge204]

Here's another previous thread along the same lines:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=8789

=Smidge=

 

[cgaydos]

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.

Good points, and this is points out the thing that bothers me about these anti-Hybrid, anti-EV studies ... they don't pass the basic logic tests. If batteries did in fact cost that much CO2 to manufacture - so much that creating batteries for an EV generates far more CO2 than an oil-burner generates in it's lifetime - wouldn't this have been an area of focus for CO2 reduction long, long ago? Lithium batteries are hardly new, and EV/hybrid manufacture accounts for only a small percentage of their world-wide uses.

However, in general conversation I find that it is simplest to avoid discussion of the LEAF's environmental benefits and focus on Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) and the huge savings possible with the LEAF. Yes, I know this didn't apply to the first adopters of the LEAF when lease and purchase prices were very high, but it does apply now, especially if you are able to swing a great deal. No one finds cost savings controversial. (Well, okay, some people do object to the tax credits, but I counter that if credits are offered why not take them?) Then, if they ask about range or battery issues I can answer with the facts we know - which are that the LEAF can be perfect for you depending on your situation.

 

[Mel4EV]

This graphic seems to agree with the consensus of postings on this topic.
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/climatesnapshot/do-electric-cars-cause-more-or-less-climate-pollution-gasoline-cars-take-look" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

Again, what happens to the "CO2 to make the car" numbers if the manufacturing processes themselves are electrified? With non-carbon generated electricity? Does the carbon footprint of manufacturing the car become less significant in the overall lifecycle? And does the ratio of EV to ICE production become less significant?

Evnow also noted copper as a "major suck". If you are ever traveling through the Salt Lake City area and you have a couple hours to kill, visit the Kennecott/Rio Tinto Bingham Canyon copper mine. After seeing what they go through to produce copper, you will never look at it the same way. Now I can't stand to throw away even the tiniest scraps of wire and pipe from projects around the house, so I collect them and periodically drop them off the collection at the local metals recycler (they give you lunch money for it, after fingerprinting you and doing an NSA background check). Something interesting about that mine though, the massive ore shovels are electrically powered. The haul trucks are diesel of course, but you wonder if even they could be electrified somehow, and the whole operation could be powered by wind and solar. Now that would be a contradiction, raping the land and emitting no carbon in the process.

 

[planet4ever]

Even this study did not count the electricity needed to refine gasoline. It takes about 5kw to refine one gallon of gas.

Fake science is fake science, whether it is tilted left or tilted right. This statement is fake science, and I wish people would stop quoting it. It is true that the total energy lost when converting oil to gasoline is approximately the same as the total energy that can be provided by 5 to 7 kWh of electricity, but that does not mean anywhere near that amount of electricity is used to manufacture the gasoline. It merely means that no processes are 100% efficient, and the study did take that into account. In fact it only takes about 1 kWh of electricity to refine a gallon of gasoline, and many refineries have co-generation facilities that provide part of that out of the waste energy.

See the following thread for a long and ultimately very enlightening discussion of this: 7.5 kWh of electricity to produce a gallon of gasoline?

Look, I'm as much concerned as anyone, and more concerned than most, at the rate we are destroying our planet. But you do us no favors by trying to "prove" through fake science that EVs have no carbon footprint. It merely gives some very intelligent people an opportunity to dismiss us as greenie nutcases.

Ray

 

[Publius]

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 working from memory here (too lazy to re-read the study, so correct me if I'm thinking of a different one), but doesn't the UCLA study factor in a replacement battery because it assumes a BEV will need a second battery to complete the typical car's 150,000 mile lifecycle? This would increase the manufacturing impact of a BEV and may explain the discrepancy with other studies. Even so, the UCLA study corroborates other studies that find BEVs cause less harm to the environment because whether ICE or BEV an overwhelming majority of the carbon footprint of a full lifecycle comes from the fuel source. And the efficiency/impact of the fuel source is precisely where BEVs shine, especially if they are powered with a high percentage of renewable energy.

 

[Stoaty]

I'm working from memory here (too lazy to re-read the study, so correct me if I'm thinking of a different one), but doesn't the UCLA study factor in a replacement battery because it assumes a BEV will need a second battery to complete the typical car's 150,000 mile lifecycle?

I believe that is correct, and for the Leaf, probably a good estimate.

 

[ydnas7]

The choice is either inaccurate but referenceable LCA reports
or
higher accuraty but un-referenced company certificate
http://www.nissan-global.com/EN/ENVIRONMENT/CAR/LCA/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

LCA are imprecise creatures, when dealing with embodied energy, but the Nissan LEAF LCA is very good vs its Nissan Sylphy/Sentra equivalent, and keeps getting better.

Ie the graph can be interpreted thus:
at 100% or 100,000km a Nissan LEAF has about 60% of the emissions of its ICE equivalent.
which approximates to every 50,000km driven in a ICE equivalent car could manufacture and drive a LEAF.

look at the graph and think about it.

Unfortunately, I don't have confidence than any Non Japanese/Korea/Chinese LCA reports about Li ion batteries and their applications are worth the paper they are printed on.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

I don't see where there is any allowance made for the reuse of recycled resources. Take copper for example, the first hundred million evs take more resources to produce than ice cars partially on account of higher copper content, but the second hundred million evs use copper from scrapping the first hundred million.

 

[johnqh]

Even this study did not count the electricity needed to refine gasoline. It takes about 5kw to refine one gallon of gas.

Fake science is fake science, whether it is tilted left or tilted right. This statement is fake science, and I wish people would stop quoting it. It is true that the total energy lost when converting oil to gasoline is approximately the same as the total energy that can be provided by 5 to 7 kWh of electricity, but that does not mean anywhere near that amount of electricity is used to manufacture the gasoline. It merely means that no processes are 100% efficient, and the study did take that into account. In fact it only takes about 1 kWh of electricity to refine a gallon of gasoline, and many refineries have co-generation facilities that provide part of that out of the waste energy.

See the following thread for a long and ultimately very enlightening discussion of this: 7.5 kWh of electricity to produce a gallon of gasoline?

Look, I'm as much concerned as anyone, and more concerned than most, at the rate we are destroying our planet. But you do us no favors by trying to "prove" through fake science that EVs have no carbon footprint. It merely gives some very intelligent people an opportunity to dismiss us as greenie nutcases.

Ray

Yes, read that thread by all means.

It uses 5kwh to 7kwh of energy to refine a gallon of gas. Now, not all of that energy is from electricity. Natural gas is used and a lot comes from by-product during the process.

However, that process creates carbon footprint just the same. It is no different from burning natural gas to generate electricity, then use the 7kwh to refine gas.

Re-gen is at best 25% and already counted in the big picture.

But you are right. The same 7.5kwh in natural gas does not mean 7.5kwh in electricity. In science, it is really about 3.5.

However, in reality, you as well say EV charging at night use 0 kwh energy, because power plants has huge extra at night which can charge millions of EV without increasing output.

 

[RegGuheert]

However, in reality, you as well say EV charging at night use 0 kwh energy, because power plants has huge extra at night which can charge millions of EV without increasing output.

The fact that you have huge extra capacity at night means you do not have to build additional power plants or transmission lines to charge EVs. It does NOT mean that you do not need to burn fuel to charge those EVs from plans that burn fossil fuels.

IOW, there's no free lunch here.

 

[Alric]

I seriously doubt that carbon use increase is directly proportional to the number of EVs added to the grid. I bet a lot more EVs need to be in circulation before it makes a measurable impact on consumption by electric companies.

OTOH, the emissions of an ICE are directly proportionally added to the atmosphere.