Lifecycle analysis of gas, hybrid and electric cars
Treehugger has a post about a life cycle analysis of carbon emissions for various drive-train types that includes manufacturing and use of the vehicles. The study was originally done by researchers from Seikei University in Tokyo, Japan in 2001. They did a detailed analysis of the energy consumption to manufacture the different types of vehicles, based on the CO2 emissions for each. The battery-powered cars are much more energy intensive to build than gas or hybrid cars, based mostly on the cost of producing the batteries themselves. For the use phase of the analysis, they also did three different examples for the electric car, based on the energy source for the electricity. When using electricity from coal, the total CO2 emissions for the electric car was almost as much as the gasoline car and almost twice as much as the hybrid. Electricity from natural gas was much better but still not as as good as the hybrid and the cleanest by far was the EV with hydro-electric power.
However, one thing that seems to be missing from this analysis is the post life phase. How much energy is used (and subsequent CO2 emissions) will also vary for these different types of vehicles. The iron and aluminum that comprise most of the content of an internal combustion engine are fairly easy to recycle by simply melting down and re-casting. Disposing of batteries is substantially more complicated.
[Source: Institute for Lifecycle Environmental Assessment via TreeHugger]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Ken 7:54AM (12/27/2006)
What factor did they use for the measurement of the life of the car. If they only assumed say 100K miles since that's the approximate life of the batteries then a gasoline car that's capable of 200K miles will actually only emit half as much CO2 during production since it theoretically last twice as long. I really wish more numbers were available since I'm skeptical on some of their measurements, namely that a hybrid would be so similar in CO2 manufacturing impact to a standard internal combustion engine when it would reason that it would be somewhat closer to the pure electrics, or possibly more than them since it involves the manufacturing techniques needed for both an interal combustion engine and an electric vehicle.
Reply
LaughingTooHard 9:46AM (12/27/2006)
At first I was surprised at the conclusion of the graphed data, but then I saw that this "data" was collected in a Tokyo university. Ah good old Japanese xenophobic nepotism. Funny how Toyota and Honda are making lots of Hybrids and they are the "best" option by a large margin.
At least if you leave out the "Post Life" phase. Add that the shocking conclusion that a hybrid which uses new technologies and extensive aluminum, complex dual mode transmissions, batteries, electric motor(s), and high voltage controllers is fractionally more energy to create than the perfected efficient process of stamping steel and casting iron and well here is a perfect example of, "If you are dumb enough to trust the source, then the source is not at fault for lying!"
Please tell me everyone is outraged at this drivel? Please? Anyone? What a bunch of brainwashed sheep...
TreeHugger.com should be ashamed for being part of this marketing ploy.
Reply
greenie 11:38AM (12/27/2006)
Why are you posting data from 2001?
Nano batteries built today are environmentally friendly unlike those found in a Prius. there is solar panel tape available at 1/10 the cost of normal PV Panels to recharge cars at home. There is wind technology. Damnit man its 2007.
Reply
kballs 12:14PM (12/28/2006)
I don't buy their numbers. Electric cars are twice as efficient as ICE cars (assuming similar vehicle mass) just because with EV you don't "idle" the motor, you have regen braking, and energy usage equals needed energy output more closely. Based on that, even with coal power and transmission losses (which can have emissions more easily controlled because it's centralized) the CO2 emissions should be closer to 50-60% the ICE car rather than 80%.
Also the manufacturing emissions shown are much higher for EV than HEV, which doesn't make much sense. For one, they are basing it on $ cost and not actual kWh. Also though an EV has more batteries than a HEV, it is devoid of an ICE, transmission, radiator (aluminum which takes lots of energy to make), drivelines, differential, etc. It should be very similar to the HEV. Also the HEV should be higher than the ICE.
I'm also skeptical of the % of lifetime emissions that's taken up by manufacturing. I've seen studies like this before (I recall the one showing a Hummer was less over a lifetime than a HEV)... every month I hear about car manufacturer X lowering their emissions. It's hard to believe that I can burn thousands of gallons of gas and just equal the emissions it took to build the thing... do they use ICE robots on the assembly line? What if the car is made locally and not hauled across the earth by a 1ft/gallon bunker-oil-burning ship?
Reply
kballs 7:28PM (12/27/2006)
Also if EVs have that much emissions then hydrogen fuel cell vehicles would be 3x more (and would look pretty crappy even compared to an ICE SUV).
Reply
rgeister 8:41AM (12/29/2006)
typical japanese propoganda whats the difference between the batteries in a hybrid and a ev not much just how many as for grn hse gases what about wind power solar power and even shock horror atomic power.i belive with contiued work we will bury the combustion engine and that scares the crap out of auto makers beacause evs are acctually easier to build and there in love with the petol engine also they are laging behind in batt devlopment also in an ev most of the powerplant is battery so they will have to source tec from outside. bout time they took it up the a$$. they have been doing it to us for long enough!
Reply