They’ve been made trendy thanks to Tesla. But are electric cars really greener?
By Chiara Spagnoli Gabardi
Since the lockdowns started around the world in 2020 due to the pandemic, millions of people noticed something. The air quality in most cities vastly improved. This was obviously due to extreme cuts in industrial activities, as well as a reduction in the use of personal cars.
Desperate to retain the clean air benefits of the quarantine, several eco-pundits have been insisting that now is the time to start phasing out diesel and petrol fuelled cars in favour of electric ones.
In fact, a trip to the used car dealership may soon be a thing of the past, as many countries, especially in Europe, are considering banning all petrol and diesel fuelled cars by 2035. Which is pretty shocking, and actually not all that eco-friendly at all, since, for example, anyone who has bought a car this year will have to scrap it in less than 15 years! And what about all the older cars before that date? There are billions of them. Is it really eco-friendlier to dump those cars into landfill and have billions of new cars made? Obviously not!
Benefits of electric cars
Electric cars can carry a few benefits. For example, they’re quieter on the roads, reducing noise pollution. They themselves don’t produce smog-forming pollutants, reducing air pollution. If you chose to take automatic driving lessons instead of more complicated manual ones, you’ll be pleased to know that electric cars only have one gear. Simple!
In most cases, despite the initial higher cost of buying the car, electric cars can save you money in the long run. This is mainly because domestic electricity is a lot cheaper than petrol or diesel. They also don’t need to be serviced as often as conventional cars today do.
But…are electric cars really greener?
EVs: the positives
The supporters of electric vehicles (EVs) have sustained that since the Nineties, there was an attempt to push these cars in the market, but that they received strong opposition from automobile manufacturers, the oil industry, and federal governments that feared of having their businesses comprised by vehicles that would not require fossil based fuels.
As a matter of fact, American filmmaker and environmental activist, Chris Paine in 2006 released a documentary called Who Killed The Electric Car?, which explored the limited commercialisation and disappearance on the market of the battery electric vehicle in the United States, specifically the General Motors EV1 of the mid-1990s.
While there may well have been such a conspiracy to save the oil and car industry from change, it doesn’t necessarily mean that EVs are better for the planet than conventional cars. Here’s why.
Are electric cars really greener?
Recent studies have demonstrated that electric cars are equally hazardous to the environment, if not more so, than diesel cars. This has been corroborated by Christoph Buchal of the University of Cologne, who revealed that electric vehicles have “significantly higher CO2 emissions than diesel cars,” due to the large amount of energy used in the mining and processing of lithium, cobalt, and manganese, all of which are critical raw materials for the production of electric car batteries.
Furthermore, German researchers criticised the fact that EU legislators have classified electric cars as being zero-emission vehicles. This is a deception, because electric cars actually produce more emissions than the diesel vehicles. The reason? Well, when you plug in your EV, it charges based on electricity. And that electricity has to come from somewhere.
Right now in the world, most energy is still produced by coal. So sure, your EV may not be emitting fumes on the street – but plugging it in is creating some serious air pollution elsewhere!
But that’s not the only reason why the answer to the question: are electric cars really greener? is NO.
Environmentally hazardous components
Electric vehicles use a number of rare earth metals in their design, such as neodymium, which is used to make very strong magnets. What is detrimental about sourcing this element is that it generates thorium contamination. This is a radioactive element found in the metals that can seriously negatively affect the surrounding environment. This rare metal can be found also in headphones, smartphones and electric motors.
At the beginning of 2019, Tesla became one of several electric car makers to use motors with neodymium magnets, installing them in its Tesla Model 3. The electric car company imported over four million pounds of automotive parts from Taiwan and China. The latter is where more than 80 percent of the world’s neodymium is produced. According to the Chinese Association of Rare Earths, between 9,600 and 12,000 cubic metres of waste in the form of a gas containing concentrated dust, hydrofluoric acid, sulphur dioxide, and sulphuric acid, are expelled for each tonne of extracted rare-earth elements.
Lithium: worse than you think
Furthermore, the making of batteries for electric vehicles involves a great deal of mining to process lithium, cobalt, and manganese. In real terms, this means it takes twice the amount of energy to manufacture an electric car than a conventional one. Indeed, a new IVL report commissioned by the Swedish Energy Agency, which investigates climate emissions associated with electric car battery manufacturing, has revealed that, “production of lithium-ion batteries on average emits somewhere between 61-106 kilos of carbon dioxide equivalents per kilowatt-hour battery capacity produced.”
But that’s not all. A potential European Commission (EC) act to classify lithium as a Category 1A reproductive toxin. In fact, lithium and cobalt, both used in lithium-ion batteries, have demonstrated serious toxicity to humans. That’s why you see warnings any time you receive a product containing one. It’s also why you cannot dispose of them in a landfill.
The human cost of electric cars
Not only is the environment is at risk with the extraction of these exotic materials, but so are those who are mining these harmful elements needed to build electric cars. Quite often, the employees behind EV batteries are child miners living in Congo.
In the Katanga mines, the regular wage is of just 8p a day, and the children’s job requires them to check the rocks for streaks of cobalt — a crucial material that is essential for the batteries that power electric cars. This extraction is carried out by underaged workers, without protective clothing or modern tools.
As a consequence, these children can end up buried in the rubble of collapsed tunnels. Furthermore the proximity to cobalt has affected miners with the so called “Cobalt Lung,” a respiratory disease similar to pneumonia which causes coughing and leads to permanent incapacity and even death.
Each year, 40,000 children risk their lives and health, for our alleged “clean energy,” since manufacturers of electric vehicles procure their cobalt from the impoverished central African state, where 60 per cent of the planet’s reserves are located.
Political turmoil
Additionally, we need lithium for the batteries of electric cars. The greatest source for this right now is in Bolivia.
On July 24 of this year, Tesla’s Elon Musk received this tweet from someone on Twitter:
“You know what wasn’t in the best interest of people? The US government organising a coup against Evo Morales in Bolivia so you could obtain the lithium there.”
Musk then wrote: “We will coup whoever we want! Deal with it.”
Musk claimed his tweet (now deleted), was a ‘joke’. But the truth is that President Evo Morales lost his office in November 2019 due to a coup. Many said this was because he wanted to keep Bolivia’s lithium supply for the people of that nation.
Musk, however, has long wanted cheap access to the large lithium deposits in Bolivia since it’s the key ingredient for Tesla’s batteries. Earlier this year, Musk revealed that he wanted to build a Tesla factory in Brazil, which would get its lithium from Bolivia. It seems that lithium is the ‘new oil’ – poor countries that are rich in it have their democracies and stability threatened by it.
Economically difficult
In addition to the environmental and social horrors caused by the production of electric cars, these vehicles are economically unsustainable. They are incredibly expensive to buy and only a small segment of the population can afford them. Average prices are currently around double that of a gas vehicle. No wonder car leasing is the most popular option for those who are interested in electric vehicles.
Moreover, the batteries of EVs run out quickly. When you plug in your electric vehicle, it can take from 30 minutes to more than 12 hours to charge, depending on the battery and the speed of the charging point. A typical electric car (60kWh battery) takes just under 8 hours to charge from empty-to-full with a 7kW charging point.
Manufacturers guarantee that the EV batteries last from 8 to 10 years. But if you do the maths, it doesn’t add up. The number of charge and discharge cycles are usually around 600 before the battery dies. Therefore, if you’re charging your EV every day the battery won’t even last two years! 365 days in a year times 2 is equal to 730 cycles. According to my calculations, if you charge your EV daily, the battery will only last around 19 months! And did I mention the battery is usually the most expensive part of the car?
Bad legislation
In order to reduce CO2 emissions, the European Union passed a carbon dioxide regulation that went into effect on April 17th, 2019. It decreed that from 2030 onwards, European carmakers must have achieved average vehicle emissions of just 59 grams of CO2 per km. This corresponds to fuel consumption of 2.2 litres of diesel equivalent per 100 km. This is impossible for your average fossil fuel based car to achieve at the moment. In other words, by 2030, all European-made cars will likely be electric.
The UK government has essentially decreed the same situation by banning the sale of diesel and gasoline cars by 2035.
These laws seem ridiculous. Especially when you consider that current studies don’t demonstrate that fossil fuelled cars are more polluting than electric vehicles.
For instance, to address the question: are electric cars really greener?, Professor Hans-Werner Sinn and physicist Christoph Buchal published a paper showing that: “in the context of Germany’s energy mix, an EV emits a bit more CO2 than a modern diesel car, even though its battery offers drivers barely more than half the range of a tank of diesel.”
Several other studies, following this paper have confirmed this thesis. These include data published by Volkswagen. explaining that its e-Rabbit vehicle actually emits slightly more CO2 than its Rabbit Diesel.
In addition, findings by Austrian think tank Joanneum Research shows that a mid-sized electric passenger car in Germany must drive 219,000 km before it starts outperforming the corresponding diesel car in terms of CO2 emissions. But that’s not the only reason why we need to ask: are electric cars really greener? There are many other reasons they are NOT.
What electric car advocates won’t tell you
For example, did you know that each EV requires 250 tons of minerals to be mined? That means an energy expenditure of 86 million BTUs, which is equal to 1.5 person-years of total energy consumption.
And although charging at single-family homes seems straightforward, neighbourhood power transformers are generally intended to supply eight to 10 homes without EVs.
That means major renovations of local grids need to be undertaken. Which will have not only a huge environmental cost, but a monetary one, too.
Plus, are we willing to tear up our streets to install chargers for city dwellers? Let’s not forget that all the wires and equipment needed for this massive renovation also have an ecological cost And who pays for and manages a vastly expanded garage charging infrastructure? All this while we’re producing less reliable and more expensive electric power.
Seeking lesser evils
Considering the limitations of electric vehicles, researchers worldwide are exploring the potential of hydrogen fuel cell technology. This combines hydrogen and oxygen to convert power into electrical energy, without creating any emissions other than water vapour. Prominent automotive companies such as BMW and Toyota are currently developing hydrogen-powered cars.
Although the technology is promising, the hydrogen car still needs work. It’s hard to recharge at the moment, and it’s not affordable for the masses. But there is some good news on the horizon! According to researchers at the University of Waterloo in Canada, eventual advancements in such fuel cell technology will make them much cheaper compared to traditional gasoline engines in vehicles. Eventually, they will be more commercially viable – and eco-friendlier than EVs – when mass produced.
Conclusions
So, are electric cars really greener? The clear answer is: NO. They take just as much – if not MORE – energy as petrol vehicles, but from different sources. It will cost billions of dollars and CO2 to create new charging points around cities. And let’s not forget the wastage of all the cars that Europe and the UK will soon be banning!
Pushing electric cars on we, the people, through legislation is unfair, costly, and will generate incredible amounts of waste. It’s nothing but a greenwash.
While it’s fine to buy an electric car if you wish, it’s false to think they’re greener than petrol cars. This is especially true when we consider the intensive mining that’s necessary to make their batteries.
Ultimately, if you really want to go 100% green, travelling by public transport is probably the best solution.
What are your thoughts? Are electric cars really greener? Let us know in the comments, below!
- The Best Organic Underwear Brands For Every Day - April 2, 2024
- What Happens To Unsold Clothes Is Shocking! - March 24, 2024
- Our Best Eco Friendly Laundry Tips - March 17, 2024
Completely agree. Battery EVs are just the next “diesel gate.”
Biodiesel has several advantages: It generates minimal waste because of the many uses glycerine has e.g. in soaps.
It is biodegradable and less toxic than petroleum fuels, meaning fewer pollutants are produced when burnt. It is fully degraded from a waterway environment within 28 days. With a flash point that’s considerably higher than petroleum-based diesel fuel, it’s also less of a fire hazard.
With a 70% reduction of carbon monoxide emissions compared to standard petroleum-based fuels and a virtually sulphur-free composition, biofuel is a relatively cleaner and greener fuel. And in the event of accident, there’s no hazard to soil or groundwater. In addition, it has potential to create significant employment opportunities for British people and boost the UK economy.
British people should be commended for making use of our buoyant second-hand car market and having a “make do & mend” attitude which oftentimes keeps our family cars in service for a great many years. Moreover, if every UK car was replaced by an EV, the “green” electricity capacity from solar and wind simply will not cope. Especially if every British household is also coerced to replace gas boilers with electric heating & hot water (electricity is a relatively inefficient heating fuel). Expect power cuts and electricity “curfews” at peak times. And Nuclear Power as energy source certainly has its own environmental challenges. In Brazil, a very high proportion of vehicles successfully use 85% Ethanol made from sugar cane. In UK, sugar beet could be a realistic alternative source for ethanol-running Flex-Fuel cars. Ethanol is greener than petrol. Another option is to utilize the millions of tons of waste used cooking oil (such as rapeseed oil) from restaurants, cafes, burger bars and takeaway food shops to make biodiesel. Biodiesel is greener than petroleum derived diesel. Worth consideration – no?
Definitely! Anything is better than electric!!