Contrary to what many critics claim, research shows that driving an EV produces significantly fewer greenhouse gas emissions than cars powered only by gasoline, writes Silvio Marcacci of think tank Energy Innovation in San Francisco. And much less pollution. This will only get better as the electricity mix becomes cleaner.Â
Driving an electric vehicle (EV) has obvious climate benefits: zero tailpipe emissions. But because EVs are charged by power grids that burn fossil fuels, they aren’t necessarily zero-carbon. An EV’s carbon footprint depends on whether its power comes from renewables or fossil, and quantifying exactly how clean EVs are compared to gasoline-powered vehicles has been tough – until now.
In every corner of the United States, driving an EV produces significantly fewer greenhouse gas emissions than cars powered only by gasoline, regardless of the local power mix
New data shows that in every corner of the United States, driving an EV produces significantly fewer greenhouse gas emissions than cars powered only by gasoline, regardless of the local power mix. Today, an average EV on the road in the U.S. has the same greenhouse-gas emissions as a car getting 80 miles per gallon (MPG). That’s up from 73 MPG in 2017, and far greater than the average gas-powered car available for sale in the U.S., which hit a record 24.7 MPG in 2016.
Union of Concerned Scientists
Average miles per gallon equivalent of electric vehicles, 2018
Average EV emissions have continued to decline over time thanks to accelerating coal plant closures and the decarbonization of America’s power sector (down 28% since 2007), so while burning gasoline won’t get much cleaner, driving on electricity can get cleaner every year – saving billions in health expenses and climate impacts along the way.
Average U.S. EV emissions equal 80 MPG in a gas-powered car
The EV emissions analysis comes from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), and is based on transportation fuels emissions estimates from Argonne National Laboratory and power plant emissions data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
UCS finds driving on electricity is far cleaner than gasoline – charging up an EV equals 50 MPG for 75% of U.S. drivers, and it’s much higher in regions where clean power composes a significant portion of the power mix: 102 MPG in New England, 109 MPG in California, and a whopping 191 MPG in New York State. UCS also provides comparative emissions data down to the zip code via their online calculator – for instance in my Oakland, California zip code the average new car powered only by gasoline gets 29 MPG compared to 114 MPG for an EV.
Transportation sector emissions supplanted power plant emissions as America’s top source of emissions for the first time in 2016, while electricity emissions continued a decade-long decline
This difference between gas-powered cars and EVs is important to U.S. climate change concerns. A typical gas-powered car emits around a pound of carbon dioxide per mile traveled, and the U.S. reached an all-time high of 3.17 trillion annual vehicle miles traveled in 2016. As a result, transportation sector emissions supplanted power plant emissions as America’s top source of emissions for the first time in 2016, while electricity emissions continued a decade-long decline.
Tailpipe emissions also carry a hefty human health price tag: The American Lung Association says gasoline-powered transportation costs $37 billion in hidden impacts like asthma attacks, premature deaths, lost work days, and hospital visits across just 10 states. Since Americans won’t stop driving cars any time soon, the cars on our roads must be as clean as possible – to get serious about cutting emissions, we must rapidly electrify transportation.
EV sales increasing in time to tap cleaner U.S. electricity
EV sales are rising in the U.S. just in time to capitalize on the influx of cheap and clean generation coming online across the country. EV prices are falling rapidly, and many analysts project they will soon overtake gas-powered engines as the primary source of new car sales in America.
200,000 EVs were sold across the U.S. in 2017, up from 158,000 in 2016, and sales grew an average of 32% annually between 2012 and 2016. More than 760,000 EVs are currently on the road, and while EV sales are slightly more than 1% of total U.S. light-duty vehicle sales today, they could compose 65% of all new U.S. light-duty vehicle sales by 2050.
Energy Innovation
U.S. electric vehicle deployment forecast to 2050
These rapid market expansions are happening due to rapid technology cost declines – lithium-ion battery prices have fallen 73% since 2010 and could decline another 70% by 2030, pushing EVs to price parity with gas-powered cars by 2025.a
The emissions-reduction potential of EVs may hinge upon the U.S. grid’s power mix, but nearly every power plant retired since 2008 has been powered by fossil fuels, and the wave of utilities retiring coal plants sped up in 2017. Renewable energy cost declines have fallen apace, making renewables the cheapest available source of new electricity without subsidies in 2017, helping push renewable energy up to 18% of total U.S. generation – double the amount from a decade ago.
Truly plugging into the potential of EVs to decarbonize the U.S. transportation sector requires policies to accelerate consumer adoption of EVs
The effect of all this clean electricity being added across the country is clear in the emissions profile of EVs – driving an EV has gotten much cleaner in nearly every region of the U.S. in the past decade.
2009 UCS data in the graphic below shows just how fast EV MPG has risen: New England jumped from 75 MPG to 102 MPG, California accelerated from 78 MPG to 109 MPG, and New York State surged from 115 MPG to 191 MPG.
Union of Concerned Scientists
Average miles per gallon equivalent of electric vehicles, 2009Â
 Smart policy can help drivers go further, cleaner than ever before
Decarbonizing our power supply is integral to making EVs cleaner, but truly plugging into the potential of EVs to decarbonize the U.S. transportation sector requires policies to accelerate consumer adoption of EVs.
- Federal and state subsidies, which have been among the most effective policies to promote EVs up to this point, can be phased out as decreased battery costs and increased EV production lowers overall vehicle costs.
- Governments and private entities can also accelerate EV adoption by expanding charging station access through consumer incentives, updated building codes, or permitting utilities to build charging infrastructure – which in turn allows utilities to increase stagnant power sales and increase grid stability.
- Automakers themselves can increase EV adoption (and boost their own fortunes) by increasing awareness about the cost advantages of their ever-increasing assortment of EV models for sale – consumer awareness of EV availability continues to lag behind the number of electrified vehicles on the road.
Charging can also become a way to reduce the cost of renewables. Unlike necessities like lighting, device charging, or air conditioning, electric vehicle charging is one of the most elastic sources of electricity demand – as long as charging is available, fast, and convenient.
America’s rapid power sector decarbonization means EV drivers can go further, cleaner than ever before
Momentary fluctuations from wind and solar due to gusts of wind or cloud cover can be easily offset through managed EV fleet charging, and EVs can soak up excess renewable energy at cheap charging rates when solar or wind electricity is plentiful.
Vehicle electrification is a critical aspect of transportation sector decarbonization, and America’s rapid power sector decarbonization means EV drivers can go further, cleaner than ever before.
Editor’s Note:
Silvio Marcacci is Communications Director at the San Francisco-based think tank Energy Innovation, where he leads all public relations and communications efforts.
This article was first published on Forbes.com and is republished here with permission.
[adrotate banner=”78″]
N West says
This article is comparing the worst car polluter in terms of CO2 being petrol vehicles (only the US calls it gas!) with only pure EVs it seems. Why exclude hybrids and diesels? Many are on the roads in Europe. Hybrids and diesels are low emission vehicles that are just as good as BEVs.
Karel Beckman says
The article compares averages, average gasoline/petrol car compared to average EV car, perfectly transparent. The U.S. doesn’t have a lot of diesel cars. Of course hybrids will score better, what is the big point you are trying to make here? You don’t even mention numbers for hybrids and diesels, you only seem to want to make a negative comment.
Nigel West says
The article cherry picks the worst ICE vehicle to compare with BEVs. Why is that I wonder? California based commentators seem fixated on BEVs being the future excluding other options like hybrids which are very popular too and ultra low emission. Yes, the US has not gone for diesel and US commentators like to dwell on diesel gate and how they avoided Europe’s problems with diesel emissions. However on CO2 alone small diesels compete well against BEVs. That will remain so in most countries other than say France and Scandinavia where carbon emissions from generation are very low.
TESLA’s share price this week is collapsing as analysts are reportedly concerned about profitability and the safety of driverless systems. BEVs also remain more costly to produce, and Government subsidies are being withdrawn. Another issue is safety in crashes where lithium fires can’t easily be extinguished so closing highways for hours, and are hazardous for fire services to deal with. So predictions by other posters here that BEVs are unstoppable seem premature. Indeed in the UK hybrid sales far outstrip pure EVs.
Yes, I have been negative. I believe in free markets and customer choice. Forcing drivers to adopt BEVs as some Governments are proposing is not needed. The roads need low emission vehicles, not BEVs to the exclusion of other low emission vehicles. It’s a similar argument to renewables where the ill informed say only renewables is the future, whereas the balanced approach is to go for low carbon generation.
Karel Beckman says
if you are in favor of free markets and customer choice, do you apply that to your favorite nuclear power as well? If there is one big government program, it’s nuclear power!
Besides, you keep repeating lies, such as your claim that the article “picks the worst ICE vehicle”. It does not.
David M Cupo says
Karel,
How do agencies differentiate between Diesel and Gasoline emissions? Yes, we do not have market penetration of diesel cars as in Europe but we have a lot of Diesel powered Tractor Trailers and seem to be adding more Diesel powered Light Trucks on a annual basis. The US also have an appetite for light pickups which are not as efficient which skews the #. I don’t doubt that EV’s are more efficient on a MPG basis and would benefit certain areas of the US like the Northeast and West Coast where population density is an issue from a emissions point of view. This is not a silver bullet fix. Better of utilization of Locomotives to move cargo vs. using commercial trucks would be much more efficient and reduce damage to our roadways. Again, not doubting your figures, but this is a bigger issue than a simple switch and I haven’t even gotten into the EV distance constraints. Plus if you add more EV’s and infrastructure do you add that into your emissions calculations? Thanks for the article
Roger Lambert says
Diesels are low emissions vehicles?!? You may want to bone up on the diesel scandals.
“just as good as BEVs”? Seriously – did you read the article?
Roger Lambert says
“Federal and state subsidies, which have been among the most effective policies to promote EVs up to this point, can be phased out as decreased battery costs and increased EV production lowers overall vehicle costs.”
Why would we want to phase them out? Subsidies exist not only to provide market impetus, but to accomplish societal good through directed policy. Spending government money to reduce CO2 emissions, which have an atmospheric lifespan of about ten thousand years, has a thousand-fold ROI.
EV subsidies should remain in place until ICE vehicles are banned.
Nigel West says
Roger, small diesels have lower CO2 emissions than petrol vehicles. That’s one reason for Europe having so many diesel cars now. Euro 6 emissions standards that new cars are built to in Europe remove particulates and NOX using catalysts/filters. Older diesel vehicles still on the roads are polluting and Governments have admitted mistakes chasing CO2 only emission reductions. Small diesels compare well on carbon to BEVs where they are charged in countries where electricity gen. sources remain carbon intensive.
Roger Lambert says
Nigel
Real-world pollution levels from diesels are 2- 20 times higher than the standards.Even well-maintained brand new diesels have emissions no better than petrol.
http://theconversation.com/fact-check-are-diesel-cars-really-more-polluting-than-petrol-cars-76241
And petrol cars have higher emissions than BEV’s, even if the BEV is charged using fossil-fuel-derived electricity, because an electric motor is more than 4 times more efficient than an ICE engine. And, of course, electrical power generation is getting cleaner every day.
There is no place for diesel cars in our future, and policies which sustain them are a slow-motion suicide pact.
Olaf says
Does the report take into account emissions related to energy losses on the grid?
Do the forcasts presented take into account emissions related to capacities needed to stabiliase the grid in the future?
Finally and most importantly, does the study take into account emissions related to the production of cars and batteries (significantly higher for EVs and based on shaky reporting from Asian governments)?
Hans van der Loo says
If the scope is narrow enough, anything can be made to look good. Of course scientifically there is only one correct way to assess alternatives and that is holistic or integrated approach.
If everything is taken into account, (incl longevity, mining, grid changes for super charging) there are very few places where BEV’s perform better on OVERALL greenhouse emissions than ICE’s.
With regards to pm (particle matter) Euro VI standards have made both diesel and petrol/gas exhaust emissions so clean, that as a source of pm, the exhaust is now nr 3 after Tyre wear and brake dust.
Particularly heavy powerful cars (such as Tesla’s) top this list.
So not only in OVERALL green house gas emissions, but also in fine dust, BEV’s in most places perform worse than Euro VI ICE’s.
With Cobalt prices up 400% in less than 2 years and Lithium up 200% in the same period, with BEV’s still such a small market share, it is inconceivable that BEV’s will ever get big.
If in most streets more than a few BEV’s would want to (super) charge after their owners have come back from work, the system would break down, unless every copperwire in our grid would be replaced. Why that will not happen is explained well in the third animation on this website : http://www.EnergyandStuff.org
Is fossil the answer? But as highly condensed, prehistoric solar power, it gives some clues for humanity. As mimicry often does. Chemical concentration at the beginning of the chain – rather than adjusting the entire grid for power transmission – is the only way we will ever be able to use renewable electricity in our transportation system.
The physical impossibility to replace all copper in the grid and the equally physical (and recently economic) impossibility of the number of batteries, seems to have eluded the BEV fans.
We should seek to emulate the process nature used to condense solar power into hydrocarbons. By using surplus renewable electricity for hydrolysis and then merging the H2 with CO2, to make green methane as result of synthetic photosynthesis.
Synthetic methane can be used for cooking, heating and transport in fewer, lighter weight vehicles. A further not insignificant advantage is that in many parts of the world the infrastructure for this already exists. The existing gas grid.
Those that criticise Power-to-Gas and praise the cycle efficiency of batteries, do not understand that we would never judge the efficiency of a Coca Cola bottling plant – where most coke would be spilled on the floor (because a battery can only absorb energy until it is full) – by how much coke they can actually take out of a bottle that was filled.
This is merely a lack of sySTEMic understanding.
The importance of renewable power storage in general is vastly underestimated and will become a major challenge in the future and will impact the size of the economy/GDP in a way that few people understand today.
Roger Lambert says
I don’t think there is a single sentence in your comment up until your link that would bear critical examination. It’s a Gish Gallop of anti-BEV disinformation.
I would invite readers to research the many articles at CleanTechnica which address these specific issues.
Karel Beckman says
Well, they can look at Energy Post too … I think Hans van der Loo’s reaction is ideological. It lacks specifics.
hans van der Loo says
sySTEMic thinking has nothing to do with ideology and everything with bio-physical reality.
Have a look at the animations, and comment on those, before you use words like disinformation.
Narrow casting of a single technological solution is of little societal relevance. The scale of the challenge is far bigger than most professionals in the sector are even aware off. This includes experts at the European Commission looking into dijournal storage only.
I will be going to the EU Energy Summit in Brussels, so am afraid not to have time for further reactions, other than advising to Do the Math. The https://dothemath.ucsd.edu can helpful with that.
Roger Lambert says
BEV’s are clearly cleaner than ICE’s. The Union of Concerned Scientists just published yet another report verifying this. The average BEV now gets an equivalent of 80 mpg all told (including all that manufacturing, etc). That 80 mpg will only get higher and higher, as it is dependent on the carbon mix of the electrical generation. Driving a Tesla in upper New York State, for example, returns about 250+ mpg equivalent. Driving your Tesla off your own PV panels returns about infinity mpg equivalent.
The world has an abundance of lithium already and new sources being discovered. It is NOT impossible to replace the copper in the grid as if that would mean anything. BEV battery and battery storage prices continue to fall dramatically, not rise.
Is that enough specifics? Is that enough “doing the math”? Or must I fisk every misapprehension of Mr van der Loo? Cleantechnica deals with these questions every single day. Consistently.
Energypost is schizophrenic on renewable energy, publishing factual articles at times, as well as opinion pieces which are not in step with current understanding in the field. Case in point – a recent article by amateurs making the (absurd) case that new nuclear power plants will deliver electricity more inexpensively than renewables. That article was defended by the staff at energypost.
Karel Beckman says
Huh? Why are you picking on me Mr Lambert? I happened to agree with you. Maybe you should read the comments above again more carefully.
As to an article “defended by the staff of energy post”, it would be nice to know which article you mean.
And as to being “schizophrenic on renewable energy” this is a platform where we publish different opinions which we find valuable. It’s called being independent and open to reasonable viewpoints, not “schizophrenic”.
The fact that we publish an article does not mean our “staff” (whoever that may be) “defends” it.
Hans van der Loo says
Pity you were not both at the EU Energy Summit. http://energypolicysummit.eu Perhaps you can see the various tweets. A true holistic analysis clearly shows BEV’s to be worse than Euro VI ICE’s in MOST countries on greenhouse gas emissions, and in ALL countries in particle matter.
Most people think all costs follow the economies of scale curves trending forever down. This maybe true for manufacturing & processing industry but not for natural resource. It is a law of nature that these will forever go up. Ofcourse this will hopefully encourage re-use an circular economy. Whilst Landrover engines are far from the cleanest, old landrovers are quite sustainable (I see Mr Lamberts cringe) because after 20 years in Europe and another 20 years in Africa the straight panels often serve another 20 years as billboards or furniture.
All the natural resource going into a Tesla are limited to about the lifetime of the battery. An Audi A7 after which it is modelled will have a lifetime 3x as long. Taking CO2 emissions per km (as many alledged scientist content with) is like running a company looking at variable cost only an forgetting about fixed cost. Bankruptcy awaits such a company, as well as such research. Embedded CO2, longevity, etc must be taken into account for a holistic analysis.
Note Dominique Ristori’s comment (on my question) that indeed storage must become the priority in renewable energy policy.
Marco Alvera pointed out that transporting electricity is more expensive than transporting gas.
NOT storing surplus renewable energy chemically, immediately after generation, would mean transporting vast quantities of power through the grid.
When one is able to think sySTEMically and realise how much copper (for the grid) and how much cobalt (for the batteries) are needed, it is quite obvious that biophysically these ideas are beyond the scope of reality.
Yes the future will be electric. No there will not be as much transport of power, nor as many batteries around as some think. Because they not think sySTEMically.
Helmut Frik says
And where is tha problem of transporting vast quantities of power threw the grid? We are not in the 1950’s anymore, where a 1,4 GW 380 kV was considered big. Welcome to the 21 Century, wher 12 GW on two wires are only the beginnig (as ABB engineers use to say). Higher amouts of power transprted over long distances was not REQIRED by conventional generation. Tis is why it was not built yet. It is required by variable renewable power generation, but it can be built wherever neccesary.
Hans van der Loo says
Hello Helmut, see the third animation on http://www.EnergyandStuff.org
We are indeed only at the beginning. In most production environments, wee are used to constantly shifting price curves, leading to lower and lower cost for goods, based on improvements in technology and efficiency, which is probably what you are referring to.
However, for resources requiring extraction, the pattern is different. After the easy finds have been used and extraction technology has matured, costs only go up. This is already reflected in strong cost increases, at still quite moderate increases in demand.
This is why it will NOT be build at a sufficient scale and why thinking has to move from electric storage to chemical storage. Its merely Laws of Physics.
Helmut Frik says
There is no shortage or high costs in the cables used for power transmission, e.g in the 850/150 Al/St cables, nor for the towers, nor for insulators. And raw material costs are only a small fraction of power line costs.
Alkè says
There is no doubt that electric cars are greener than traditional ones. In less than 5 years the electric car has become a valid alternative to gasoline-powered vehicles. We hope that this trend won’t stop.