A new assessment of lifecycle emissions of four common passenger vehicle powertrains in the United States has found that battery electric vehicles (BEVs) have considerably lower lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than all other power trains.
The new detailed assessment of vehicle lifecycle emissions was carried out by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) as an update to a 2021 analysis, which concluded at the time that “the life-cycle emissions over the lifetime of BEVs … are already lower than a comparable gasoline car” in Europe, the United States, China, and India.
The new analysis estimates the life-cycle emissions of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), and BEVs – for both sedans and SUVs, and it finds that the advantage of BEVs has increased.
The ICCT’s 2021 study found that the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of the average battery electric mid-size cars sold in the United States in 2021 were between 57 to 68 per cent lower than ICE vehicles – depending on the average carbon intensity of the electricity grid.
The latest assessment finds that the lifecycle emissions of model year 2024 BEV sedans in the United States are between 66 to 70 per cent lower than conventional ICE vehicles (depending on the average carbon intensity of the grid), while the lifecycle emissions for model year 2024 BEV SUVs is between 71 and 74 per cent lower than their ICE competitors (depending on the same conditions).
This number gets even higher when the grid is powered by 100 per cent renewable electricity, up to 83 and 85 per cent, respectively.
And while both hybrid electrics and plug-in hybrid electrics both outperform ICE vehicles, they are nevertheless significantly behind the performance of a BEV.
The ICCT’s assessment found that the lifecycle emissions of model year 2024 PHEV sedans are 40 per cent lower than ICE models, while SUVs are 44 per cent lower than conventional ICE models, and HEV SUVs reduce emissions by only 27 per cent.
This means that 2024 PHEV sedans and SUVs are roughly two-times higher than BEVs powered by an average grid mix, and HEVs estimate 2.2 times higher for sedans and 2.5 times higher for SUVs.
The news is even more grim for hybrids when the grid is powered by 100 per cent renewable electricity, increasing the lifecycle emissions for HEV over BEVs to 4.9 times higher.
The ICCT expects new vehicles sold in 2030 to demonstrate an even larger gap. Conventional SUVs are estimated to have 7.5 times higher lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than BEVs powered by 100 per cent renewable electricity.
And while PHEVs and HEVs will have a lower GHG footprint than ICE vehicles, the ICCT concludes that “their emissions reduction potential is more limited than for BEVs, which not only deliver emissions reduction at the tailpipe, but across the entire vehicle lifetime for representative sedans and SUVs sold in the United States.”
Joshua S. Hill is a Melbourne-based journalist who has been writing about climate change, clean technology, and electric vehicles for over 15 years. He has been reporting on electric vehicles and clean technologies for Renew Economy and The Driven since 2012. His preferred mode of transport is his feet.
And still people buy those hybrids, thinking they will be more economical and cleaner (which they are compared to ICE vehicles) It makes more sense to just pay extra and go full BEV.
I wish you were right that it makes more sense- but you’re not and in part because for many use cases BEV cost more cents. BEV use cases absolutely work in city and urban environments where charging options are plentiful and driving distances relatively short (even if it takes a long time in traffic). But for rural, remote, touring and towing, BEVs at the moment do not make sense and are not economical. Perhaps some future hydrogen hybrid options will change that – but the tech aint there yet. SO PHEVs are a great option for reducing ICE only vehicles for remote and heavy duty work.
Although Australia has vast wide open spaces the vast majority of drivers are urban short range etc. Your description, while valid, is for a tiny minority. FYI, I have a fairly remote property and fine fuelling up at home on electrons is MUCH more convenient than travelling into town for the liquid stuff (and way cheaper too). If I wanted to pull a trailer for 500kms non-stop I’d have to think and plan but I do so rarely, so this it does not rate as an issue.
Hybrid vehicles like the Nissan E:Power, Honda E:HEV and Toyota Synergy Drive provide many of the high torque/electric drive benefits of an EV in a much lighter vehicle without the hassle of charging at home and particularly charging away. These vehicles also currently offer resale values that the average EV can only dream about. The additional comprehensive insurance costs of an EV over an HEV will easily pay for more than the HEV’s annual petrol costs.
On a cost of ownership basis HEVs currently slaughter EVs.
It’s that last mile cold start the generates the maintenance revenue.
Facts & figures, charts & statistics, a nudge here, a wink there….
Outcome…?
Well….whatever you want really…
HEVs/PHEVs also massively complex mechanically. Probably more hassle and cost to own in the long run.
But they have the ability to completely replace the engine and go another 400,000km. 50% of a vehicles carbon comes from the manufacturering process. So lifecycle emissions should take both the manufacturering and disposal emissions into account.
This is what they mean by “life cycle” – it includes the manufacturing process in the calculations (manufacturing is the grey colour in the chart)
Excellent article!
I have saved the link, so I can send it to my Hydro Carbon Cave men friends!
Of course, hybrids are dirtier. You have to put petrol in the bloody things!
Range anxiety will still exist for awhile yet – and then most will wake up and see that its not a big problem at all.
Can we please rename the term from “Range anxiety” to “Charger anxiety”? The real-world anxiety is not about whether the car will be able to do the range it estimates (range anxiety), it’s about whether you’ll be able to get to a suitable working charger before you run out of charge (charger anxiety). Charger anxiety is steadily reducing due to the installation of more chargers every day, improved reliability of chargers and improvements in new cars meaning they can go further in between charges. We’re not there yet, but I don’t think it will be too many years before you won’t have to plan your long-distance country trips in advance and will be able to just stop at one of the many chargers along your route like you can with petrol stations.
Range anxiety is being somewhat replaced by charger availability anxiety as EV numbers grow.
We now have state-wide (nation-wide) public rapid/fast charging networks that were heavy publicly subsidised. But too often these chargers are out of order at remote towns and too often they are overwhelmed by users at key sites at peak times. There’s not much joy in waiting an hour for a 20 min charge.
How is the battery manufacturering and disposal process considered in this?
You also mention lifecycle… Are you really trying to imply that ICE vehicles and EVs have the same useful life? My 1995 carolla is still running well, not sure anyone would be able to say their 2005 EV is still going? Just look at the nissan leaf, those things are just garbage now with no alternative use.
Plenty of examples of Tesla vehicles with over 500,000km on the original battery with still plenty of range left. One with over 700,000km and 75% original range left I saw on YouTube recently.
Did you look at the legend on the charts? Battery and vehicle manufacture are two of the colours in the bar charts…
A hybrid with a .7Kwh battery is a hybrid in name only. Oh what a con.
What a dubious “report”. No current study defines or describes the impact of forests being clear-cut for battery plant production, mining, or distribution. Trees are a carbon sink, firstly, and they don’t grow overnight, and replanting is rarely part of a development plan. Add to this the runoff caused by soil erosion instigated by major mining and mineral extraction and the lifetime impact of any electric car far outweighs the sunny marketing of this ‘study’.
Consider also the timing – this press piece arrives as people have returned to Hybrid vehicles as EVs aren’t a green or sustainable model (yet: see solid-state batteries, etc.). The market sees auto manufacturers also move to hybrid solutions and reduce their all-EV strategy as the overall demand is weaker than projected. I don’t prefer a hybrid overall, yet their smaller batteries, extended range, ample torque, and high in-town/traffic MPGs make them compelling for a lot of people.
This ‘renewable power’ wallpaper ignores national and global trends in power production. China alone has added dozens of coal-fired power plants in the past decade, and more are scheduled. The citations and source material that led to the conclusions published include citations from themselves, and this generic message from the EPA, http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions – The simplified narratives presented, combined with the deep ties to governmental and unelected groups is all in sync with the push for EVs, no matter the true cost.
I’d hope this site, or any other, would do better than to copy/paste this PR ‘report’.
As a guy who’s owned nearly 100 cars since age 16, I take a broader perspective on EVs than what’s in the media so far. The reality is the raw materials currently used to create an electric car are exhaustive and can include violations of child labor laws and environmental standards.
(Source: https://earth.org/environmental-impact-of-battery-production/)
Because we don’t yet have solid-state batteries, and because current tech uses lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese, graphite, and steel, no EV is truly earth friendly. If your goal is focused on using fewer natural resources, buy a modern used car, since you’d actually be recycling. Additionally, battery chemistry is literally chemistry, which creates a dynamic risk at the end-of-life for electric cars. Just like old batteries in a kitchen junk drawer, they can and do become unstable.
(Source: https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Pages/HWY19SP002.aspx)