The report compares CO2 emissions from internal combustion engines (ICE) fueled by renewable fuels to those of battery electric vehicles. It finds that ICEs can achieve well-to-wheels CO2 emissions substantially below that of battery electric vehicles. The average fuel economy of all vehicles in the United States has increased by 5 between 2005 and 2017. The report introduces a new metric, critical emissions factors (CEFs), as the emissions intensity of electricity needed for charging to ensure zero-emissions.
The report also discusses the impact of vehicle emissions on local and regional air quality. Pollutant emissions generated from fuel combustion by ICEs include nitrogen oxides (NO and NO 2), which are considered pollutant emissions. While some claim that EVs take seven years to lower carbon emissions than gas cars, studies show that they typically release fewer greenhouse gases than conventional cars. Hydrogen and hydrogen-dense liquid fuels can play a relevant role in this sense, allowing zero CO2 emissions and zero-impact pollutant emissions from IC engine powertrains.
The report highlights the importance of efficient process gas abatement, as it can have a high effect on reducing total greenhouse gas emissions. Internal combustion engines operating on fossil fuel oil provide about 25 of the world’s power and produce about 10 of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. A typical passenger vehicle emits about 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, which can vary based on a vehicle’s fuel, fuel economy, and the vehicle’s fuel type.
Life-cycle assessments show that up to 50 of greenhouse gas emissions associated with EVs are concentrated during production. The use of new, green fuels can reduce emissions of particulate matter (PM) and sulphur compounds to adhere to WHO’s recommended limits. Passenger cars are a major polluter, accounting for 61 of total CO2 emissions from EU road transport.
📹 How green are electric cars? | It’s Complicated
There’s no denying that electric vehicles are what most of us will be driving in the near-future. Countries around the world have …
How much CO2 does an internal combustion engine produce?
A typical passenger vehicle emits about 4. 6 metric tons of CO2 per year, assuming a gasoline vehicle with a fuel economy of 22. 2 miles per gallon and driving around 11, 500 miles per year. Every gallon of gasoline burned creates about 8, 887 grams of CO2. This number can vary based on a vehicle’s fuel, fuel economy, and the number of miles driven per year. Other sources of greenhouse gas emissions from a vehicle include plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), electric vehicles (EVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, and other vehicle-related emissions.
The EPA measures carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles and provides information on how to find and compare emission rates for specific vehicle models. Gasoline emissions from a gallon of gasoline are 8, 887 grams CO2 per gallon, while diesel emissions are 10, 180 grams CO2 per gallon.
What is the biggest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions?
Fossil fuels, including coal, oil, and gas, are the primary contributors to global climate change, accounting for over 75% of global greenhouse gas emissions and nearly 90% of all carbon dioxide emissions. These emissions trap the sun’s heat, leading to global warming and climate change. The world is currently warming faster than ever before, altering weather patterns and disrupting nature’s balance, posing risks to humans and all life forms.
Most electricity is generated by burning fossil fuels, producing carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide, which trap the sun’s heat. However, over a quarter of electricity comes from renewable sources like wind and solar, which emit minimal greenhouse gases or pollutants.
How much greenhouse gas is produced by electric cars?
Gas-powered cars emit nearly three times as much well-to-wheel emissions as all-electric vehicles, but all-electric vehicles still produce 3, 932 pounds of emissions annually. Plug-in hybrid and hybrid vehicles produce about 2, 000 pounds more emissions than all-electric vehicles. Electricity used to power electric cars comes from electricity production, which can be low-emission renewable or high-emission fossil fuel sources.
The average all-electric vehicle in California produces 2, 261 pounds of emissions annually, while in West Virginia, which heavily relies on coal, the average all-electric vehicle produces 9, 146 pounds of CO2 equivalent.
How do IC engines affect the environment?
Internal combustion engines contribute to air pollution through direct release of primary pollutants into the atmosphere and direct emissions that create secondary pollution when they react chemically with atmospheric elements. Burning gasoline produces various pollutants, including ground-level ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, lead, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets standards for these pollutants through the Clean Air Act. Despite progress in reducing emissions, more than 150 million people in the US still live in counties with air quality not meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
What are the top 3 sources of greenhouse gas emissions globally?
Greenhouse gases, which trap heat and cause global warming, are primarily caused by human activities. The largest source of emissions in the United States is from burning fossil fuels for electricity, heat, and transportation. The EPA tracks total U. S. emissions through the Inventory of U. S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, which estimates national emissions and removals associated with human activities across the country.
What is the pollution due to IC engines?
Carbon monoxide, a by-product of engine combustion, is toxic due to its binding to hemoglobin in the blood, inhibiting oxygen transport. Nitrogen oxides, created by high-temperature combustion, combine with ammonia and volatile organic compounds to form PM 2. 5, which can penetrate the lungs, cause respiratory diseases, and aggravate pre-existing diseases. A recent study in JAMA states that there is probably no safe level of exposure to PM 2. 5.
Nitrogen oxides also combine with sunlight to produce ozone, which traps pollution and specifically affects the lungs, causing coughing, shortness of breath, damage, inflame airways, and aggravate asthma.
Low-power engines, such as lawn and garden equipment, jet skis, snow mobiles, and mopeds, emit disproportionately high levels of pollutants compared to their four-stroke counterparts. Edmunds found that hydrocarbon emissions from a half-hour yard work with a two-stroke leaf blower are about the same as those emitted during a 3900-mile drive from Texas to Alaska in a 2011 Ford F-150 pickup truck.
The dispersion of pollutants depends on atmospheric conditions, the season, and geographical features. Temperature inversions, created when warmer air settles on top of a valley and traps colder air beneath it, exacerbate air pollution in cities surrounded by mountains, such as Mexico City and Salt Lake City. This stagnant layer of polluted air is often visible and requires mixing by a weather system before dispersing.
What is the carbon footprint of the IC engine?
The average US vehicle is responsible for the emission of 66 tons of greenhouse gases over the course of 200, 000 miles, whereas a battery electric vehicle is accountable for 39 tons.
What is the downside of CO2 emissions from an internal combustion engine?
It is anticipated that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration will result in elevated temperatures and significant climatic alterations.
What percentage of CO2 emissions are from cars?
Cars and vans are responsible for 10% of global CO₂ emissions. In order to achieve the Net Zero Scenario, the light-duty vehicle sector must reduce emissions by 6% annually through 2030. Access to the full range of free statistics is available for a fee of $2, 388 USD per year.
What percent of CO2 emissions come from cars?
Cars and vans are responsible for approximately 10% of global CO₂ emissions, with a 1. 4% increase observed in 2022, resulting in 3. 53 billion metric tons. Nevertheless, they have not yet reached the levels recorded prior to the pandemic. In order to achieve the net zero scenario, it is necessary for the light-duty vehicle sector to reduce emissions by six annually through 2030.
What are the emissions from IC engines?
High temperatures from complete combustion generate NOx due to inbuilt diatomic nitrogen in air and fuel. Primary pollutants released from IC engines include HC, CO, NOx, CO2, and PM, which are anthropogenic in nature. These emissions are a result of complete combustion and are influenced by factors such as air and fuel pollution. The use of cookies is a part of this process. Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B. V., its licensors, and contributors.
📹 Ultra-Clean Combustion Engines: A Revolutionary Leap in Efficiency and Environmental Impact
Discover how advanced combustion engines could transform our world, delivering up to 75% efficiency and nearly eliminating …
E-cars – just another way to convince us to carry on consuming regardless. The only tangible advantage is cleaner air in cities, which is not how they’re selling it to us, is it? Congratulations dear people, you have been well and truly greenwashed by the unstoppable corporate-growth machine which can obviously never advise simply consuming far less.
You’re missing a few things about petrol/gas cars. The refinement of the oil into gas, the transportation of the gasoline, the storage of gasoline at petrol stations, the oil changes/ oil filters throughout the lifetime of the ICE car, the reduced efficiency of the gas car over time. Whereas EVs get cleaner overtime ( as we switch from coal to cleaner forms of power production), ICE cars get dirtier over time.
We need to stop saying “if only we use public transport more”. Public transport is a huge inconvenience for long journeys and is often cancelled or delayed, at least here in the UK, and it’s particularly worse if you want to travel to somewhere rural. It’s merely a pipe dream to believe we will realistically become a society that chooses public transport over our cars to go somewhere. Anyone who can afford a car is 8/9 times out of 10 going to use it to get themselves around vs public transport.
It takes many years to recover the price of an electric vehicle against a normal car, and after those years the battery probably needs replacement, which is the most polluting( in production ) and expensive part of an EV. Also where and how is the electricity generated, as much of the world uses coal, gas etc and this is even more polluting
EVs create less brake pollution because they can use their engine to slow down. And it isn’t the fault of the EV manufacturer that the grid isn’t green. That is no argument against EVs. The economy has to dercarbonise, and electric cars are one piece of that puzzle. It’s up to electricity providers to dercarbonise their product, not EV manufacturers.
Truth is i don’t care. All i care about is that EVs arent taxed as much as gas cars, so they cost about the same to buy, road tax on EVs is 3 times cheaper, and electricity is on average 4 times cheaper compared to gas with reasonable fuel economy. Considering i dont drive very far, it’s a great alternative purely on budget consideration.
Its not complicated EVs are greener than ice cars. They offset their carbon footprint in less than a year and won’t produce any emissions ever. The life span of batteries can be over 15 years after that they can be used for 15-20 years as static storage before being recycled to get the rare elements back. Meanwhile petrol uses 90% of mined cobalt in it’s desulphurisation process.
That’s what I am doing – reducing my unnecessary car journeys and walking/cycling or getting public transport. I just don’t see how the UK replaces 35m ICE vehicles with just EVs. Especially with the lack of infrastructure and Grid not being able to cope. Either cut down – too many cars on roads or replace with Hybrids is the other solution. Think about when you use the car or share/borrow get taxis (they need to be green.)
you use train, which use electricity, which use the public power grid, which has the same “green” issue as using an EV by possibly relying on fossil power plants… China use hydrogen fuel buses, which use electric to generate liquid hydrogen, which use the public power grid, which has the same “green” issue as using an EV…
This is something that nobody talks about. The Guardian reported that In Norway, which has the world’s highest proportion of electric cars sales, there are between four and five times more fires in petrol and diesel cars. The Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency found that the were 3.8 fires per 100,000 electric or Hybrid in 2022 compared with 68 fires per 100,000 cars when taking all fuel types into account. Australia’s EV FireSafe found there was a 0.0012% chance of a passenger electric vehicle battery catching fire, compared with a 0.1% chance for internal combustion engine fire. The chance of survival in a EV is very high as the car smokes for quite sometime before it combusts which gives the occupants time to get out of the vehicle and clear the area. Gas and Diesel vehicles are highly combustible which gives the occupants far less time to exit the vehicle which makes far less safe as your EV counterparts
Problem with “green” energy is that it’s not environmentally clean. The heavier lithium battery cars wear tires out faster creating more airborne particle pollution. The heavy metals despoil the environment in their mining and eventual disposal with highly toxic minerals. They also require energy to be charged – most often fossil fuel energy. Hydrogen might be a far better solution. On the other hand microplastics, pesticides and pharmaceuticals pose a genuine threat to human survival.
The answer is ABSOLUTELY YES!!! Fact, 70,250,400 electric cars can be powered a month by the energy used a month to pump just the oil that is used in the manufacture of THE FUEL the internal combustion vehicles use out of the ground alone in the US and offshore!!! now add the manufacture of fossil fuel and getting the fuel to the pumps! and all of that is before it is even burned in the internal combustion engine and 70% of that energy is wasted heat before that pollution even comes out of the tailpipe! 😮
When I saw “air fuel synthesis” 11 years ago I thought to myself “yay, that’s climate change and sustainable energy sorted forever”, because generating renewable energy is largely a solved problem, but storing it in vast quantities for hard-to-electrify applications wasn’t. Just converting the renewable energy into the form we conveniently use it in was obviously *the answer*. And then it disappeared! Electric and human-powered transport are the obvious solutions for transport’s urban air pollution issue, but beyond that a mix is needed that also supplants fossil-origin carbon for things like plastics manufacturing. Only hydrocarbon synthesis gives that, and it’s being rejected by silly ‘decarbonisation’ which is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. There’s nothing inherently wrong with the carbon chemistry the world works on, only with the source of the carbon we’ve been using. No vehicle or other product is ‘net zero’ until it’s made from raw materials which are themselves net zero. The only way we can do that is to ‘cut and shut’ our economy at the refinery output stage, so that all those hydrocarbons come instead from air-captured carbon and renewable energy. If we do that, all downstream industry and applications are net zero too. Tailpipes, gas CH, and plastic sporks too, all net zero.
And seriously, are you going to complain about the problems of pay and conditions for mining of materials for batteries while totally ignoring the fact that this goes on at a scale orders of magnitude larger for the materials for producing ICE engines and the BILLIONS of tons of dirty fuel they use every year?! Yes, conditions for miners are often terrible, but that is common to all mining. The cause is capitalism, not batteries FFS.
Typical gas vehicle is only 25%, 75% is wasted. Natural Gas combined cycle power plants are 50-60% efficient. So if you use a MWh a year in a car, you get 250 kwh of locomotion. You use a MWh combined cycle generator you get 550kwh, double the efficiency of the gas vehicle. There are small transmission losses to the EV charging station and the charging and discharging has small losses also so perhaps 80% more efficient. The Guardian should hire an electrical engineer to proof this story.
A provocative and informative doc on the CO2 Pollution caused by Electric Vehicles (EV’s) during their construction, (especially of their Batteries and the rare metal used), and during their driving life; ofc the Pollution caused by driving an EV depends largely on how the Elec used to charge EV’s is generated !
I think buying used cars and taking public transport when practical is the best option until governments provide clean electricity. It’s much more sustainable to buy a one year old hybrid and use it for 10 years than ordering and building a new electric car every three years because there’s a better model.
If I saved 24% on the price of say a house I would be delighted. EVs are not a silver bullet, I agree. But continuing with the present combustion engine model of transportation is still worse over the average lifetime of both vehicles. There will always be a problem to solve. Having problems to solve with EVs is no reason to just chuck it and continue with combustion engines.
This makes me want to ditch my Guardian subscription, after decades. – Really, G. you are “just asking questions” too? Like Faux News? – Hand-wringing over lithium and cobalt mining while ignoring all the cobalt used in petrol refining? Compared with the humanitarian and environmental impacts of petrol? Perleeze! – Material resources have to be transported? You don’t say! Ditto everything else! – And let’s not forget to mention that old canard “particulates from tyre and brake wear” (but let’s not mention that EV’s rarely use friction brakes, eh?). – “In fact, one study found… blah blah blah” – but where is the citation? There’s no way we can check the methods and conclusions from that “one study,”, is there? Useless. Yes, we should all drive less. Yes, we should all drive smaller, more efficient cars. But many people will need to drive, so they should drive electric, asap. Once EVs are in the majority and it become socially unacceptable to drive a combustion vehicle, then we’ll quickly get to 100% electric and a cleaner transportation future. But by posting this, you are delaying the transition. And that’s barely forgivable.
How much of that carbon from mining and transportation is emitted from diesel? Cars are just a cost effective way to build the technology and scale of manufacturing to electrify everything. It’s simple science. Electricity is much more efficient than burning things! This is coming from massive petrol head. I would rather own a manual V8 than a EV any day
How are we going to dispose of all the batteries once they are unsuable? Whatever you saved in carbon emissions you will get it back when the lifecycle of the EV ends. Because disposing of the batteries will also be polluting the environment. All those chemicals have to outgas somewhere. When a gasoline car stops working there is no more pollution. So essentially we are transferring the pollution produce through the life cycle of a car, to the end of its life. But not really solving the problem. EVs buy us time, but needs more work.
We could make the EVs much, much smaller, about the size of a 4 seat smart car for 90% of journeys, at no more than a tonne weight- eg Dacia Spring, small battery, light and charge at home. Noone needs s 2.5 tonne EV to go to the shops or school. They should be banned. Secondly, a lot less moving parts, but about a thousand times more electronic chips and relays that all need software updates all the time. It is absolutely clear (see Nissan) that software updates will be stopped after a few years, like with smartphones, where the life is about 5 years for updates, so the EV will have to be thrown away (recycled- which is energy intensive). My ICE car is 21 years old, never goes wrong and does 45mpg, it is far more carbon efficient than any current EV. No credit is given for this reality.
I hear nothing but complete bulshit about how electric car are not harmful to the planet . Some environment activists will say you can go 800 miles on a electric car before you have to recharge it again. How mining lithium and Cobalt to make to make electric cars isn’t that bad or harmful to the environment. They also say how easy it is to recycle electric car batteries. Environmentalist activists will lie make up any excuses to defend electric clunker.
Despite the fact that electric vehicles (EVs) produce less pollution than internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, the majority of EV pollution comes before the car hits the road, while pollution produced by ICE vehicles is spread throughout their lifetime. In a sense, it seems better for the environment to use ICE vehicles than their EV counterparts. For instance, if one needs to cut a thousand trees for their wood, cutting one tree per day for three years seems better for the environment than cutting 1000 trees in a single day so that one does not have to cut the trees again.
EV is not perfect, but is certainly better than petrol. It is a start using EV, until it get better through investment because of mass acceptance. Think about how far petrol car has advance since mass acceptance. Look at mobile phone advancement. EV will improve on efficiency and technological improvement to be more green.
The claim that Electric Vehicles are environmentally friendly is a huge lie or a major misconception because the environmental impact equation is computed only after the battery is charged when one adds required battery charging process to the environmental impact equation one finds electric vehicles pollute much more than gas or diesel powered vehicles. Most power on the USA electric grid is fossil fuels (coal, diesel or gas) about 70%, nuclear provides about 20% and so called “Green” energy (wind, solar and hydro) about 10% Fossil fuel plants and nuclear plants are about 30% to 35% efficient. Line losses from the power plant to the end user are somewhere between 7 to 10%. Battery charger efficiency is between 80% to 70% Battery efficiency is about 70% for a new battery and about 50% for an old one. Note battery efficiency is significantly affected by temperature (as battery cools it becomes less efficient. ) Efficiency of EV is about 70% but add required lights, all it’s electric gadgets, compartment heating, Window defrosting and air conditioning it’s efficiency drops to about 60% The complete environmental impact equation: Best case. Worst case Fossil fuel & nuclear plants 35% 30% Line losses -7% -10% Equals. 28% 20% Battery charger. X80% X70% Equals. 22.4% 14% Battery efficiency. X70% X50% Equals. 15.7% 7% EV efficiency. X70% X60% Grand total. 9.8% 4 .2% What all this means is when charging from the electric grid to get just 1 useful watt at the EV, best case over 9 watts are used at the power plant and worst case 23 watts are used.
Saying ev’s are green is simplistic at the very best tons of hype abounds about ev’s they’re often less green than ice way too much hype by politicians and wealthy folk who’s real green agenda is the bucks they can make no serious debate is been put forward just green hype from those wit a vested interest in making lots of green banknotes
In the 20th century, government limited vehicle gas mileage to sell more gas and generate more gas taxes. Now they are limiting high gas mileage cars (we can get 500mpg, imagine 20x less CO2) so EVs appear more economical. While battery power creates 25% less CO2 today, they are devastating to the planet surface and fresh water supply. What the article fails to mention, is that the precious metals used in EV batteries are subsidized, and will NOT get cheaper as demand increases. Precious metals only increase with increased demand. You can expect to pay over $150,000 for a Honda Civic EV. The end goal of government is to eliminate personal transportation. (Grandma can ride a bike, in the rain.) And this article promotes eliminating personal transportation. If you have less movement, you have less freedom.
Here is something not complicated – CARPOOLING – you save money, time, CO2, wear and tear on the roads and vehicles. If everyone carpooled just for work CO2 realated to vehicles would be cut in half.. over night – you can do it right now – doesn’t take a $50,000 car. IF EVEN ONE CITY did this to demonstrate the benefits to the world – they’d show you no traffic jams; faster moving more efficient vehicles, 1/2 or less CO2, savings of cash for fuel in your pocket, savings for wear an tear on the roads on your vehiclles and less stress because you don’t always have to drive. Since there is no money for a Corporation – no one is pushing it – but you could.
But electric vehicles run on Diesel powered charge points 🤡 so what your saying is electric cars are not green at all not that burning diesel is bad. tell what happens to the batteries? be honest! IV saw the fields. oh and where do you get all that lithium? Child slavery n the mines are extremely damaging to our environment
EVs are greener than ICE vehicles, but they do emit EMI emissions. This is why some EV manufacturers are no longer offering AM radios in their cars due to the intrinsic nature of high speed switching electronics producing broadband RFI. The EM spectrum’s noise floor will increase substantially with the rapid growth of EVs and charging stations.
This is the most uninformed pile of nonsense, I mean really … even when charged using fossil energy EVs are so much more efficient than gas/ICE cars with that energy, not just 24% as you stated as a worst case scenario … but when charged using green energy the difference is staggering… Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water this is a total hatchet piece
I believe electric vehicles will affect the electrical fields of the Earth, like the magnetic fields, same principle as a gas engine polluting the air only more dangerous due to the fact that the electrical emissions can not be seen. Just like when the gas engine was invented, it took a lot of vehicles to affect the Earth’s atmosphere, once electric vehicles out number gas vehicles people will notice the problem, the most dangerous point will be when there is a pivotal point or balance of gas and electric vehicles, remember this.
I find it unlikely that such an engine would be mass produced. Hotter temps do mean more theoretical efficiency, but also more thermal expansion of dissimilar components. Also, how is the continuous flow of air/fuel being used to generate mechanical work, a turbine? A turbine powered automobile engine would be cost-prohibitive for the mass market.