Electric Vehicles: A Strong and Still Understated Performance
Electric vehicles (EVs) are better for the climate – even in worst-case scenarios. Across its life cycle, a typical European electric car produces less greenhouse gas (GHG) and air pollutants or noise than its petrol or diesel equivalent. Emissions are usually higher in the production phase, but these are more than offset over time by lower emissions in the use phase. According to the European Environment Agency’s report on electric vehicles, life cycle GHG emissions of EVs are about 17-30% lower than those of petrol and diesel cars.
More specifically, the manufacture of EVs results in higher carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions than in the case of classical internal combustion engine (ICE) cars. This is due mainly to the extraction and refining of the metals–often with high-temperature heat–that enter the composition of batteries: “Building the 80 kilowatt-hour (kWh) lithium-ion battery found in a Tesla Model 3 creates between 2.5 and 16 metric tons of CO2–exactly how much depends greatly on what energy source is used to do the heating”, according to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, summarizing a range of different studies.
Then, EVs enable CO2 emission savings by not burning petroleum products and using only grid electricity for propulsion. Hence, the actual CO2 savings depend on the carbon content of that electricity. In Norway, where the electricity comes almost 100% from hydropower, EVs have a very low carbon footprint over their life cycle. In countries where the electricity comes almost exclusively from coal plants, the climate advantage of electric cars is indeed small. But one must make rather unrealistic assumptions of a very short distance traveled by a car over its technical life to show greater emissions from an EV compared to its “thermal” counterpart.
While some think tanks do so to defend the oil business, all serious analyses acknowledge at least some better climate performance of EVs over ICE vehicles. According to the Agency for Energy Transition (ADEME), an electric car has a carbon footprint two to three times lower than a similar thermal car, provided it is equipped with a “reasonably sized battery providing up to 450 kilometers range (WLTP)
- The manufacturing of electric vehicles (EVs) entails greater greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) than manufacturing conventional cars. GHG emissions from use, while dependent on the carbon content of the grid electricity, are significantly lower for EVs than for conventional cars. As a result, total GHG emissions are always lower for EVs.
- Many studies underestimate the ongoing decarbonization of electric grids in most countries. Taking it in account would further reduce the estimated GHG footprint of EVs. Moreover, EVs will facilitate the integration of renewable energy sources into the energy systems. Smart charging, based on the lower electricity costs of renewable energy, will allow EV owners to charge their batteries with low carbon electricity.
- Concerns have been raised that increased mining and metal refining efforts would entail growing energy needs and thus undermine EVs’ climate performance. The reality is the opposite: technical improvements have allowed mining lower grade deposits with constant energy expenditures and expanded available reserves and resources.
Also available in:
Regions and themes
Share
Download the full analysis
This page contains only a summary of our work. If you would like to have access to all the information from our research on the subject, you can download the full version in PDF format.
Electric Vehicles: A Strong and Still Understated Performance
Related centers and programs
Discover our other research centers and programsFind out more
Discover all our analysesThe Troubled Reorganization of Critical Raw Materials Value Chains: An Assessment of European De-risking Policies
With the demand for critical raw materials set to, at a minimum, double by 2030 in the context of the current energy transition policies, the concentration of critical raw materials (CRM) supplies and, even more, of refining capacities in a handful of countries has become one of the paramount issues in international, bilateral and national discussions. China’s dominant position and successive export controls on critical raw materials (lately, germanium, gallium, rare earths processing technology, graphite, antimony) point to a trend of weaponizing critical dependencies.
The Aluminum Value Chain: A Key Component of Europe’s Strategic Autonomy and Carbon Neutrality
The United States of America (US), Canada and the European Union (EU) all now consider aluminum as strategic. This metal is indeed increasingly used, especially for the energy transition, be it for electric vehicles (EVs), electricity grids, wind turbines or solar panels.
The EU Green Deal External Impacts: Views from China, India, South Africa, Türkiye and the United States
Ahead of June 2024 European elections and against the backdrop of growing geopolitical and geoeconomic frictions, if not tensions, between the EU and some of its largest trade partners, not least based on the external impacts of the European Green Deal (EGD), Ifri chose to collect views and analyses from leading experts from China, India, South Africa, Türkiye and the United States of America (US) on how they assess bilateral relations in the field of energy and climate, and what issues and opportunities they envisage going forward.
Critical Raw Materials: What Chinese Dependencies, What European Strengths?
In adapting to growing geopolitical competition over digital technology, the EU and the UK are striving for economic security and technological sovereignty. European policies focus on reducing critical over-dependencies on China. This de-risking is a necessary process of adaptation to the new geopolitical realities.