SO THE PROBLEM IS WITH DIRTY COAL...NOT THE ELECTRIC CAR..... IT'S IMPORTANT TO GET THE FINGER OF BLAME POINTING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION ON THIS MATTER.
I don't believe we are still having this debate. There is a wealth of evidence out there that shows EV are at least 50% cleaner that comparable conventional cars when the full well to wheel fuel pathways are properly accounted for
The “Life Cycle: Environmental Certificate Mercedes-Benz B-Class Electric Drive” compared the petrol powered B180 with the Electric Drive version. It looked at carbon and other environmental impacts of vehicle production, fuel production (electricity and gasoline), operation and recycling across a projected vehicle life of 160,000km. Using a European Union electricity grid mix, total operational carbon emissions for the all-electric car was 11.9tonnes/vehicle(t/v) compared to 23.8t/v in the conventional B-180: a 50% reduction. Significantly, within the 23.8t/v carbon output of the conventional B-180, 3.8 tonnes was NOT attributed to tail pipe emissions but to carbon emissions associated with the production of petrol for the proposed 160,000km travelled. This study also demonstrated that, if the B-Class all-electric was charged exclusively from a renewable energy source (hydro in this scenario) total operational carbon emissions were a minuscule 0.2t/v for 160,000km travelled. This is less than one hundredth of the 29.3t/vehicle for the petrol powered B-180.
Just as powerfully, in 2011 Renault undertook a comparative life cycle analysis of the environmental impacts across three versions of its medium-sized Renault Fluence: the 1.6litre 16V petrol, the 1.5litre dCi diesel and the all-electric version, the Fluence Z.E.. The results closely mirrored those of the Mercedes-Benz analysis. In the Renault analysis, as with Mercedes-Benz, the electric version had a greater carbon footprint in the manufacturing phase however this was quickly offset during the 150,000km operational life of the study. By the end of life, including recycling and disposal, the electric variant demonstrated total carbon emissions of 20t/vehicle if driven in the UK and only 11t/vehicle if powered in France, where nuclear energy predominates. Comparatively, the diesel and petrol variants produced up to 200% more CO2 emissions over the nominated 150,000km of the study, at 25t/vehicle for the diesel and 34t/vehicle for the petrol. With both fossil-fuel powered Fluence models weighing in the vicinity of 1200kg each, it is calculated that the diesel Fluence pumped 20 times its weight of carbon into the atmosphere while the petrol version pumped 28 times its weight of carbon into the atmosphere, over the 150,000km life cycle of the Renault study.
The Mercedes-Benz and Renault studies are valuable in that they both compare identical vehicles with the only variation being the powertrain. These studies were completed independently of each other and yet have both clearly demonstrated through rigorous processes that cars with internal combustion engines produce between 100% and 200% more carbon emissions than the equivalent battery electric vehicle over their full life cycles. Of course additional mileage, beyond the projected 150,000 and 160,000km parameters of these studies, brings even greater environmental advantage to the all-electric car over the comparable fossil-fuel powered car. Furthermore, the benefits of the battery electric car only improve as electricity grids worldwide transition more and more to emissions free renewable energy sources.
In summary, even if an electric car is charged completely from a dirty, coal-fired power source, it still reduces carbon emissions significantly in comparison to conventional vehicles and there is now a wealth of rigorous scientific evidence, much of it from car manufacturers themselves (like the two studies above), to validate this. Any comparison must take into account the sourcing, refinement, generation and distribution of the primary energy sources, along the full ‘well-to-wheel’ pathways and this includes emission outputs of ALL electricity generation through out this process. It takes about 1kWh of electricity to refine each litre of petrol and this electricity is usually sourced from dirty coal generation, but that never seems to be accounted for or even spoken of. In reality the conventional car has many more ‘long tail pipes’ of pollution than an all-electric car. The problems of emissions lie with the relatively inefficient internal combustion engine and the dirty coal produced electricity usually used to refine petroleum - not the electric car. It is important to get the ‘finger of blame’ pointing in the right direction on this matter. The problem is with dirty coal- not the electric car.
But even if one was to ignore any arguments about comparative emissions, the all-electric car is still financially more cost effective over time, reduces dependence upon limited, often imported oil resources, and uses local sources for its energy. Emissions reduction is not the only motivator or benefit to driving an all-electric car. No matter which way it is compared, the all-electric car wins hands down when it comes to reduction of carbon emissions - not to mention the many other benefits. Maybe the ‘tail pipe’ or ‘exhaust pipe’ should be called for what it is: a pollution pipe.
