EVs 'crush' gas/diesel. Greenhouse emissions from use, manufacture and supply chains. (Page 1/3)
rinselberg JAN 14, 04:57 PM
it's a new report from the School of the Environment at Yale University, and this is a pared-down version of the press release:

quote
With new major spending packages investing billions of dollars in electric vehicles in the U.S., some analysts have raised concerns over how green the electric vehicle industry actually is, focusing particularly on indirect emissions caused within the supply chains of the vehicle components and the fuels used to power electricity that charges the vehicles.

But a recent study from the Yale School of the Environment published in Nature Communications 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 conventional vehicles or at the power plant smokestack for electricity generation — showing electric vehicles have a clear advantage emissions-wise over conventional vehicles. . . .

The research team combined concepts from energy economics and industrial ecology — carbon pricing, life cycle assessment, and modeling energy systems — to find if carbon emissions were still reduced when indirect emissions from the electric vehicle supply chain were factored in.

“A major concern about electric vehicles is that the supply chain, including the mining and processing of raw materials and the manufacturing of batteries, is far from clean,” says Gillingham. “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.”

The study also 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. . . . “the elephant in the room is the supply chain of fossil fuel-powered vehicles, not that of electric vehicles.” He notes that the faster we switch to electric vehicles, the better — at least in countries with a sufficiently decarbonized electricity supply, like the U.S.



This is the Abstract from the report in Nature Communications:

quote
Large–scale electric vehicle adoption can greatly reduce emissions from vehicle tailpipes. However, analysts have cautioned that it can come with increased indirect emissions from electricity and battery production that are not commonly regulated by transport policies. We combine integrated energy modeling and life cycle assessment to compare optimal policy scenarios that price emissions at the tailpipe only, versus both tailpipe and indirect emissions. Surprisingly, scenarios that also price indirect emissions exhibit higher, rather than reduced, sales of electric vehicles, while yielding lower cumulative tailpipe and indirect emissions. Expected technological change ensures that emissions from electricity and battery production are more than offset by reduced emissions of gasoline production. Given continued decarbonization of electricity supply, results show that a large–scale adoption of electric vehicles is able to reduce CO2 emissions through more channels than previously expected. Further, carbon pricing of stationary sources will also favor electric vehicles.



"YSE Study Finds Electric Vehicles Provide Lower Carbon Emissions Through Additional Channels"
Yale University press release; December 19, 2021.
https://environment.yale.ed...s-through-additional

"Pricing indirect emissions accelerates low—carbon transition of US light vehicle sector"
Paul Wolfram et al; Nature Communications; December 8, 2021.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-27247-y
blackrams JAN 14, 06:06 PM
Didn't read the entire article and won't go to the linked sites but, I'm curious if anyone has studied the environmental effects of disposal/recycling of all those batteries that will soon be at the end of their useful lives?

Rams
williegoat JAN 14, 06:30 PM
This will keep some happy...until they begin to understand how lithium is mined. But we don't have to worry for a little while, since it happens in far away places inhabited by poor people with funny sounding names.

edit: See if you can guess which country makes the most money from lithium mining.

[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 01-14-2022).]

D3M6B JAN 14, 06:54 PM

quote
Originally posted by williegoat:

See if you can guess which country makes the most money from lithium mining.




Do I have to guess? Can I just Google it and act like I knew it?
williegoat JAN 14, 07:02 PM

quote
Originally posted by D3M6B:


Do I have to guess? Can I just Google it and act like I knew it?


Aww, it'll be a fun game, like checkers, except with marbles.
rinselberg JAN 14, 07:05 PM

quote
Originally posted by blackrams:
Didn't read the entire article and won't go to the linked sites but, I'm curious if anyone has studied the environmental effects of disposal/recycling of all those batteries that will soon be at the end of their useful lives?


quote
Originally posted by williegoat:
This will keep some happy...until they begin to understand how lithium is mined. But we don't have to worry for a little while, since it happens in far away places inhabited by poor people with funny sounding names.


The Yale University press release doesn't go into that much detail.

The report itself, which was published in Nature Communications, is not easy reading. Not for me. I looked for hints that the researchers were concerned about these factors of lithium mining, and end of vehicle or end of battery service life disposal/recycling. I think they tried to take these factors into account, but only in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. I see nothing that makes me think that this research, as it stands to date, tries to strike any balance or tradeoffs involving other kinds of environmental impacts, which I envision as mining byproducts and other harmful substances that could have damaging effects on air, water and/or ground or soil resources.

Nevertheless, I have the impression--having tried to penetrate this "fog" of research and discern the outlines of the reality that's enshrouded within--that this research has gone farther than previous research, in terms of understanding the implications of road vehicle electrification.
williegoat JAN 14, 07:10 PM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

The Yale University press release doesn't go into that much detail.

The report itself, which was published in Nature Communications, is not easy reading. Not for me. I looked for hints that the researchers were concerned about these factors of lithium mining, and end of vehicle or end of battery service life disposal/recycling. I think they tried to take these factors into account, but only in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. I see nothing that makes me think that this research, as it stands to date, tries to strike any balance or tradeoffs involving other kinds of environmental impacts, which I envision as mining byproducts and other harmful substances that could have damaging effects on air, water and/or ground or soil resources.

Nevertheless, I have the impression--having tried to penetrate this "fog" of research and discern the outlines of the reality that's enshrouded within--that this research has gone farther than previous research, in terms of understanding the implications of road vehicle electrification.


So in other words, they pick and choose their choices of environmental damage, in order to promote their preference. I guess its just a coincidence that the world's largest lithium mining company is Chinese.

I mean, America and capitalism are so passe.

[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 01-14-2022).]

rinselberg JAN 14, 07:45 PM
It's not like there hasn't been various kinds of damage to air, water and soil, in countries all around the world, from producing and transporting gasoline and diesel fuel.

I'm all for metrics, numbers, comparisons, tradeoffs--but they're not easy to discern.

I've seen reports, just in the last few days, of new plans for lithium mining in the United States and maybe South America.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-14-2022).]

williegoat JAN 14, 07:56 PM
The point is that none of this has anything to do with mending the environment or helping the poor, underprivileged people of the world. It is all about lining Chinese pockets.
rinselberg JAN 14, 08:23 PM

quote
Originally posted by williegoat:
The point is that none of this has anything to do with mending the environment or helping the poor, underprivileged people of the world. It is all about lining Chinese pockets.


It doesn't have to be only about advantaging China because of lithium mining.

Road vehicle electrification--and it's already underway, obviously--is a moving target, in terms of where the lithium is mined. Some of it will be recycled. And there are possibilities for moving away from lithium and using other, more readily available materials instead. I think I was just reading about using iron instead of lithium.

"Carbon (greenhouse) gas emissions are the 'boss' . . ." as Austan Goolsbee might well say. And how do I know he might say that? He said "The virus is the boss" when he was talking about the economic impacts of Covid-motivated lockdowns and curtailments.