All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Aug. 6, 2019 - Skeptoid
18:00
Skeptoid #687: No, Electric Cars Don't Pollute More

Popularly shared articles claim electric cars produce more greenhouses gases than internal combustion cars. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Electric Cars vs Climate Science 00:09:26
We live in an era when global warming dominates almost all policy discussions.
None more so than on the topic of electric cars.
In this case, the debate has condensed into an argument over whether electric cars actually have a net positive or net negative impact on carbon emissions, considering their battery construction and disposal and the generation of their electricity.
One side is right.
Which one is it, according to science?
Well, we're going to find out today on Skeptoid.
A quick reminder for everyone, you're listening to Skeptoid, revealing the true science and true history behind urban legends every week since 2006.
With over a thousand episodes, we're celebrating 20 years of keeping it focused and keeping it brief.
And we couldn't have done it without your curiosity leading the way.
And now we're even offering a little bit more.
If you become a premium member, supporting the show with a monthly micropayment of as little as $5, you get more Skeptoid.
The premium version of the show is not only ad-free, it has extended content.
These episodes are a few minutes longer.
We get rid of the ads and replace them with more Skeptoid.
The Extended Premium Show available now.
Come to Skeptoid.com and click Go Premium.
You're listening to Skeptoid.
I'm Brian Dunning from Skeptoid.com.
No, electric cars don't pollute more.
Ever since electric cars first appeared on our roads, they've been a lightning rod in the battle between science and the fossil fuel industry.
And once Tesla Motors began offering cars that were genuinely better in virtually every way than their internal combustion counterparts, this battle has risen to a fever pitch.
Regardless of whatever else you want to say about it, at its core, this debate is a proxy battle between those who accept climate science and those who reject it.
As the evidence that electric cars are necessary to our future grows ever more substantial, attacks on electric cars have been symptomatic of the war against climate science, a position which, like a black hole evaporating at the very end of its life, spits toxic radiation more and more malignantly until it finally collapses out of existence with a final burst of scorn.
As the arguments that electric cars are too slow, don't have enough range, can't conveniently be recharged, etc., are all now things of the past, criticism of them has taken on a newer, smarter, more subtle character.
Opponents have shrewdly concealed their arguments inside the moral foundations prized by the side of climate science and formulated a narrative in which electric cars are the enemy of the climate.
I say shrewdly because if this was true and electric cars did make global warming worse, people like me would be the first to step up and keep our gasoline cars.
The core of this argument is that giant battery found in electric cars, up to 100 kilowatt hours as of this writing.
Battery manufacturers add a whole other factory to the equation, and the mining needed to get the battery's chemicals adds yet another process.
Both of these require infrastructure, trucks, air conditioning, employees who drive cars to work, and all kinds of things.
According to this claim, adding the battery on top of the car's normal manufacture more than doubles the greenhouse gas emissions of producing the car.
The second part of this argument is that the electricity required to charge that giant battery, as you smugly drive it around town, comes from a conventional power plant, in most cases, and thus you're still driving on coal and oil, burning fossil fuels like everyone else, except that you also had that giant battery made, making you a worse contributor to greenhouse gases than the average Ford F-150 driver.
According to this claim, each mile you drive contributes nearly as much greenhouse gas as a comparable internal combustion car.
And make no mistake, both of these claims are, more or less, true, at least so far as the most basic facts go.
The battery does mean that manufacturing your electric car contributes more greenhouse gas than manufacturing a comparable internal combustion car.
And all that electricity used by electric car drivers did require burning fossil fuels to generate.
What's not true about these claims is the numbers they give, and also the other important parts of the equation that they leave out.
And what's really not true is their ultimate conclusion, that electric cars are worse for the environment.
We'll get to the actual facts in a moment.
It should come as no surprise that the authors of these papers are typically not research scientists, but rather think tanks, professional spin doctors who write quasi-research to promote whatever conclusion you pay them for.
The two most significant such papers come from IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute in Sweden and IFO Institute for Economic Research in Germany, and were then published to websites dedicated to the denial of climate science, like What's Up with That, and quasi-news websites aligned with fossil fuel interests like Breitbart.
You don't find these reports in legitimate science news, and that should give you some sense of whether it's science or spin.
Regardless, if electric cars truly are the worst producers of greenhouse gases, then is that a valid argument against them and that we should all keep our dyno burners?
I saw a version of this same argument in an article advocating against the construction of nuclear power plants because of all the fossil fuel carbon emissions required during the construction, trucks and tractors and concrete and so forth.
At first glance, the argument makes sense, but not upon looking at the broader picture.
Let's say you have to cross a river every day but you hate getting wet, so you consider building a bridge.
But the actual construction would require that you stand in the water to do it, so you decide against it.
Was that a wise decision?
Of course not, because once you build it, you'll never get wet again.
Similarly, we're already driving trucks and tractors and releasing more fossil carbon.
Continuing to do so a while longer until the nuclear plant is built would enable us to power electric trucks and tractors once the plant is running.
Long-term gains are almost always worth the short-term investment.
And so, by this same logic, even if all the claims that the construction and disposal of electric cars and batteries mean a net increase in fossil carbon release, it would still be worth it, because no matter what, getting through that exercise is a necessary stepping stone to get from a fossil fuel infrastructure to an all-electric infrastructure.
we usually have to do things badly to learn to do them well.
In a world that can feel overwhelming, spreading thoughtful, evidence-based content is one of the best ways to make a positive impact.
Ask your local public radio station to air the Skeptoid Files, a 30-minute radio-friendly version of Skeptoid that pairs two related episodes promoting real science, true history, and critical thinking.
And in these challenging times for public media, we're offering these broadcasts for free to radio stations, available on the PRX Exchange or directly from Skeptoid Media.
It's an easy ask.
Just send a quick message to your station's programming director.
By helping to bring the Skeptoid files to the airwaves, you'll help promote the essential skills we all need to tell fact from fiction.
Just go to your local station's website, find the programming director's email address, or just their general email address.
You can even use the telephone.
I know that might sound crazy.
It's an old legacy device that allows real-time voice communication.
I know that's weird, but hey, it's an option.
The world can feel chaotic, but you're not powerless.
When you promote critical thinking, you can help your community tell fact from fiction.
And that's how we shape a better future.
In uncertain times, spreading good ideas can make you feel helpful, not helpless.
Let's stand up for reason, truth, and understanding together.
Get them to air the Skeptoid files from Skeptoid Media, available on the PRX Exchange, and they'll know what that is.
However, let us not beat around the bush, but jump straight to the truth.
The Truth About Battery Emissions 00:08:12
The claim that the life cycle of an electric car produces more greenhouse gases than an internal combustion car is entirely the result of 50% carefully cherry-picked spend doctoring combined with 50% outright falsehoods.
Here's the only way that argument can be made to work.
If you buy an electric car with the biggest battery that requires the most manufacturing resources, if you drive your electric car in the least efficient way, if you drive your electric car in the worst climatic conditions for battery life, if you charge it only with electricity generated entirely by oil or coal, if you do not properly recycle the battery at the end of its life,
and if you choose for your comparison the biggest battery electric car against the smallest, lightest, compact internal combustion car.
Only then will it be true that the lifespan of your electric car generates more greenhouse gases than an internal combustion...
Oh, wait, no.
Crunching the numbers again, the answer is still no.
Even this worst-case scenario substantially beats even the most efficient internal combustion cars.
You see, there's still one more thing we have to do before our electric car will actually be worse.
And that's crash it and remove it from service before it's been driven anywhere.
Because as soon as you and your internal combustion counterpart start driving, the scale tips the other direction.
Comparing all the numbers, there's one big difference between manufacturing an electric car and an internal combustion car, and that's the electric's big battery.
Because of this, when both cars roll off the assembly line, it's true that the electric car's production has so far produced more greenhouse gases than the internal combustion, between 15% and 68% higher, depending on the size of the battery.
But by the end of the car's life cycle, this relationship has been turned on its head.
A mid-size electric car has contributed only 49% as much greenhouse gas emissions as a mid-size internal combustion car.
And a full-size electric has contributed only 47% as much as its internal combustion counterpart.
In short, internal combustion cars contribute twice as much greenhouse gases as electric cars, taking the entire life cycle into consideration.
For those of you who might be surprised to learn that the electric contributes even half as much, the reason is that there are still fossil fuel power plants generating most of that electricity.
The economies of scale realized by having one large power plant fueling many electric cars means electrics on even the dirtiest grid are still far cleaner than internal combustion cars.
But those emissions are still there.
On average, generating the electricity is responsible for right around 70% of your electric car's total contribution to greenhouse gases.
But of course, that number can vary radically depending on where you charge, from a dirty grid or a clean grid.
One way to look at this is how many miles do you have to drive your electric car before you've made up for the excess greenhouse gases from manufacturing the car?
Well, depending on the car and whether your grid gets its juice from renewables or from fossil fuels, that number, in the United States, ranges from about 3,700 miles to 39,000 miles.
But once you pass that number, wherever your car sits in that range, you are, officially, cleaner than an internal combustion car.
Now there's more good news.
All the factors that drive these numbers are moving in the right direction, making this proposition better and better every day, shaving miles off that break-even point.
Now there are a few local exceptions, but overall the power grids are becoming cleaner each year with renewables continuing to grow.
As we're beginning to see the first electric car batteries go into recycling, we're at the very beginning of realizing reductions in this part of the cost and impact of manufacturing new ones.
Combined with constant improvements in manufacturing technology, the higher initial greenhouse gas contribution of electric cars will continue moving closer to that of internal combustion cars.
I'm not expecting anyone to take my word for any of this.
You'll find all the references and further reading suggestions on the transcript page for this episode at skeptoid.com.
If you're looking for the condensed version of the true science behind this, the best source I recommend is a 2015 position paper from the Union of Concerned Scientists titled, Cleaner Cars from Cradle to Grave, How Electric Cars Beat Gasoline Cars on Lifetime Global Warming Emissions.
Available as a free PDF download.
In conclusion, I'd like to reiterate my river and bridge analogy.
No matter how wet building the bridge gets you, it's to your advantage to build it.
Also, it's to your advantage to build it as soon as possible, as that's less total net wetting you'll have to take.
So even if you disagree with every word the Union of Concerned Scientists has to say on this subject, which puts you in opposition to every publishing scientist in every relevant field, and even if you agree with every point of every argument made by the fossil fuel think tanks, it is still to everyone's advantage for each of us to switch to an electric car just as soon as we're able.
There's only one way to disagree with this conclusion, and that's to deny the totality of climate science and human-caused global warming, which at this point basically means you've adopted flat earther thought processes.
So if you are not a flat earther, go trade your car in on an electric as soon as you can.
And let's all push these metrics even farther in the right direction for the good of everyone.
It's also for the good of everyone that we give a shout out to Skeptoid Premium Financial Supporters Yannis the Skeptic on a Sky Road, Gareth Priceless from New Zealand, Karen Coy, and Jim Preston.
Thanks to you great folks and the many others like you, Skeptoid is made possible and exists.
Don't forget that the online transcripts for every episode print out from the website directly into nicely formatted PDF documents that you can print and share freely, stick on the office fridge, glue to your friend's door, whatever you want.
Just one more way to spread actual science and critical thinking.
You're listening to Skeptoid.
I'm Brian Dunning from Skeptoid.com.
Hello, everyone.
This is Adrian Hill from Skookum Studios in Calgary, Canada, the land of maple syrup and mousse.
And I'm here to ask you to consider becoming a premium member of Skeptoid for as little as $5 per month.
And that's only the cost of a couple of Tim Horton's double doubles.
And that's Canadian for coffee with double cream and sugar.
Why support Skeptoid?
If you are like me and don't like ads, but like extended versions of each episode, Premium is for you.
If you want to support a worthwhile nonprofit that combats pseudoscience, promotes critical thinking, and provides free access to teachers to use the podcast in the classroom via the Teacher's Toolkit, then sign up today.
Join Skeptoid Premium Today 00:00:17
Remember that skepticism is the best medicine.
Next to giggling, of course.
Until next time, this is Adrienne Hill.
From PRX.
Export Selection