Eine wegweisende MIT-Studie entlarvt hartnäckige Mythen über Elektrofahrzeuge | Determinanten der Emissionseinsparungen und -kosten von Elektrofahrzeugen an Standorten und Einzelpersonen

Some useful portions of the writeup:

>No matter where you live in the United States or what your driving habits are, a battery electric vehicle is likely to have a smaller carbon footprint and cost less overall than a comparable gasoline-powered vehicle, according to a new analysis.
>
>The study calls into question some persistent myths about EVs – and gives policymakers and individual drivers tools to evaluate the benefits for their specific situation.
>
>It’s well known that the emissions savings from EVs vary due to a number of factors, such as the greenness of the local electricity grid, climate, and a person’s driving habits. EVs also tend to cost more upfront than gasoline cars, but have lower fuel and maintenance costs. How all these tradeoffs pencil out can be hard to figure.
>
>Most previous studies have looked at just one or a few of these factors at a time. In the new study, the researchers gathered data from every U.S. zip code and systematically analyzed a host of factors that might affect emissions or costs: local climate, electricity sources, congestion, urban versus rural driving and traffic patterns, electricity and gasoline prices, and individual variations in driving habits.
>
>…
>
>In any given area, EVs reduce emissions more for those drivers who drive more often, drive bigger vehicles, and spend more time stuck in traffic.
>
>In most parts of the country, an EV reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 40-60% compared to a gasoline car. Not surprisingly, the greenness of the local grid is the biggest factor in driving differences in emission savings from place to place.
>
>Many members of the public assume that EVs are no better than gasoline cars if the electricity that powers them comes from fossil fuels. But grids have gotten greener, and even in areas with the most carbon-intensive electricity, EVs almost always come out ahead, the researchers found.
>
>Moreover, because grids everywhere are getting even greener yet, this will become less of a source of variation in the future, and individual driving patterns will matter more and more. Already, in some instances individual differences in driving patterns can matter as much as all regional factors combined, the analysis shows.
>
>EVs also reduce emissions even in the most unfavorable climate conditions, upending assumptions that they have little environmental benefit in cold climates. It’s true that battery function takes a hit in the cold, but considered over the course of a whole year the effect on emissions savings is pretty small.

—

Journal link: [Determinants of electric vehicle emissions savings and costs across locations and individuals](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ae0c23)

Abstract:

>Electric vehicles (EVs) such as plug-in hybrid and battery EVs (PHEVs and BEVs) promise to lower greenhouse gas emissions compared to internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs). However, these emission reductions depend on regional and individual factors, which have been considered largely in isolation from one another and separately from costs. Here, we evaluate how current electricity mixes, driving behaviors, climatic conditions, prices, and fees affect lifecycle emissions and ownership costs of BEVs compared to ICEVs and PHEVs across locations and different individual vehicles within those locations. We conduct this analysis for the United States, which offers a wide range of background conditions and driving patterns. In most locations, BEVs save 40%–60% of emissions compared to ICEVs, though these values can vary substantially at the extremes (0–4700 kgCO2eq yr−1 or 0%–82%). The electricity mix is the most important contributor to these regional variations, leading to more uniform and greater emissions reductions if the electricity supply decarbonizes. Regional driving patterns mean that PHEVs achieve 80%–90% of the emissions savings of BEVs in urban areas and 60% in rural areas, assuming regular charging. Individual driving patterns can, however, lead to as much variability in emission savings and costs of EVs as all regional factors combined. Collectively, these effects mean that a company or community prioritizing clean electricity and vehicles with high annual mileage and frequent urban driving may need to adopt only 9% BEVs to achieve 10% emissions reductions across their fleet, whereas a fleet with low annual miles and infrequent urban driving may need to adopt 42% BEVs to reach the same emissions reductions. Local climate has a more moderate effect on these results than is sometimes assumed. We also find that electricity costs are a key determinant of EV costs relative to ICEVs, along with gasoline prices and fees. In many locations and for many people, however, the costs of EVs—especially BEVs—are competitive with those of ICEVs. These results can inform efforts to decarbonize vehicle fleets and to develop platforms that provide personalized information to consumers.

Can not have a discussion about emission and operating costs without talking about tires.

As EVs continue to be much heavier than an ICE variant on the same platform, as well the available torque, the EV owner is producing higher amounts of microplastic tire dust and spending more for tires, more often than the internal combustion counterpart.

I am not suggesting these as reason to discourage EV ownership. Only citing, if the purchase is from an environmental and/or operating cost perspective that tires be factored and considered.

And yes, it’s true. If all the operator is purchasing is tires, even spendy EV tires, it is fewer dollars spent than tires and gasoline combined, and certainly is lower overall emissions.

Lithium makes me nervous these days, too many fires. I know it is a small percentage but if it happened to you, would you care it was rare? I am hoping this new sodium stuff will take over.

I thought the concern about the emissions for evs included how the materials to create them are harvested.

Am I reading correctly that they are not accounting for longevity? That is the amount of years a vehicle is used and for how many miles it is driven?

Whenever someone said EVs were bad for the environment, I just assumed they’d fallen for oilfield propaganda.

I don’t see a mention of tire particle pollution which is significantly worse in EVs.

Here in the NYC metro area, the mild hybrid cars are significantly cheaper unless you have solar. My bill is $0.38/kWh, which is more expensive than gas, especially if you add in the $0.45-0.65/kWh that fast charging usually costs. And electric cars are still more expensive to buy. You can see all of this on the interactive chart that the authors provided. A Lexus NX would be the same TCO over 10 years as a Kia EV6.

That said, the lifecycle emissions are much lower, and as prices continue to come down for EVs and reliability goes up, EVs may become a good financial decision for us as well as environmental.

Did they evaluate battery degradation overtime – specifically a concern that I have is around the modularity of the vehicle and the longevity of the most critical component. As someone who puts less than 3,000 miles a year on one of my vehicles – does a 20 year old EV with 60,000 miles retain its value as well as an ICE vehicle with the same numbers.

This isnt new, MIT has had this information for years now. [https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/are-electric-vehicles-definitely-better-climate-gas-powered-cars](https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/are-electric-vehicles-definitely-better-climate-gas-powered-cars)
released october 2022.