Electric car owners will sometimes get questions about the real environmental impact of their vehicles. ‘How can it be clean if you’re dependent on electricity that is created by burning oil (or coal)?’ is the question.
There have been a number of studies conducted to measure the actual impact of EVs based on the fuel mix associated with the grid and the data suggests that EVs are better for the environment even in states where electricity comes from a ‘dirty’ (coal, oil, or gas fueled) grid.
A Forbes article from earlier this year summarizes findings from research conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).
“UCS finds driving on electricity is far cleaner than gasoline – charging up an EV equals 50 MPG for 75% of U.S. drivers…”
The UCS also provides a nifty calculator that allows you to determine the carbon pollution impact of your vehicle. Use this to get answers to the question and be prepared to respond.
Relevant articles:
- UCS – Cleaner Cars from Cradle to Grave (2015)
- UCS – Cleaner Cars from Cradle to Grave (Full Report)
- UCS – New Data Show Electric Vehicles Continue to Get Cleaner
- InsideEVs – Driving Electric Is Cheaper Than Gas In All 50 U.S. States
- Volta – Switching to an EV Is the Top Climate Action in These 15 States
- Energy Matters – Wells to wheels: electric car efficiency
- Transport & Environment – Electric vehicles: the truth
The article nicely describes what most Europeans (I lived in Switzerland from 2006 to 2016) knew, but that nobody at the time could prove: that the German car manufacturers acted (as they continue to act) in close coordination to minimize competition between their various marques.
In the case of diesel (an attractive replacement for gasoline as it produces much less CO and CO2, but unfortunately one that requires a dedicated system for reducing the emission of sulfur compounds), Daimler (Mercedes) had validated diesel engines for personal cars, not just trucks, in the early 1970s, and popularity of diesel-powered cars grew quickly in Europe, in some countries coming close to 50% of the market. (In many European countries, diesel remains cheaper than gasoline, and diesel engines consume less than equivalent gasoline engines.)
In turn, this popularity led to the requirement for diesel filters to remove particulates from exhaust (soot and other compounds), resulting in engines that no longer produced foul black smoke on acceleration. Then came the realization that diesel combustion produced a lot of volatile sulfur compounds.
Mercedes had found a way to filter out those compounds quite efficiently, but it was based on an additive and thus required a liquid reservoir (about the size of the water reservoir for cleaning the windshield) that had to be topped off regularly.
VW decided this requirement would turn customers away from its diesel cars and decided to develop its own system (which it failed to do). Then Mercedes, curiously, seemed to decide its diesel cars were clean enough not to need the additive and suddenly all car ads from the big three German manufacturers (VW, Daimler,. BMW) were extolling how clean diesel engines were — a clear sign something was not right, since the three had publicly disagreed not long before on the best way to reduce sulfur emissions. Apparently, they were all convinced by VW’s argument and wanted to avoid installing the proprietary Daimler additive system for fear of turning customers away from diesel, which represented a very large portion of their production, (None of the three was able to improve on the Daimler system.) But claiming the engines were clean did not make them so, and thus began the saga of the defeat software.
It’s important to note that it took the US to uncover the “DieselGate” conspiracy: had US drivers not started buying VW diesel cars, it’s quite clear that nothing would have been discovered or pursued in Europe, because the collusion was not just between the major car makers there, but also with their national governments. (This is especially true of Germany, since the big German car makers are Germany’s largest employers as well as largest exporters.)
Bernard – Thanks for this additional insight. We should make this more apparent so that these egregious practices can be a source of lessons. It will be difficult as money and jobs speak loudly but we must not let up on the pressure to shift towards more sustainable products and services.