[EV NXT]

Volvo says that emissions from the production of electric cars are upto 70% higher than a petrol equivalent. The Swedish car maker said that over a car's lifetime the electric version will become greener overall, though this will only be achieved after covering between 30,000 and 68,400 miles - taking between four and nine years for the average UK motorist.

Volvo claims carbon-intensive production for battery and steel makes its C40 EV more polluting to manufacture than an XC40 with a petrol engine.

It says at current global electricity mix, it needs to be driven almost 70k miles - 9 years based on average UK mileage - to offset its higher production emissions. This can be reduced to less than 30k miles if EVs are charged with green energy.

It has called on world leaders to accelerate the clean energy investment. Swedish maker is publishing emissions transparency reports for all EVs released.

Source

[EV NXT]

Current lifespan of EV batteries are around 10-12 years and some around 7-10 years.

This would mean that the carbon footprint for the manufacture of these batteries will reset the emission clock as soon as the one related to manufacturing the EV is over.

[RahulNagaraj]

A new study by Volvo shows that manufacturing EVs generate 70 per cent more emissions compared to the production of conventional fossil-fueled cars.



For the study, the Swedish carmaker compared a conventional ICE-powered XC40 SUV with its electric counterpart, the C40 Recharge. The study painted a like-for-like picture, taking into account the models' entire carbon footprint. This includes the raw materials sourcing, production process, fuelling and driving a distance of 2 lakh km, before coming up with the results.



The results showed that although both cars are manufactured in the same factory, use the same platform and share multiple components, the C40 Recharge generated 70 per cent more emissions.

However, the study also stated that while the production process might generate more emissions, over the course of a car's lifespan, EVs do reach a breakeven point, after which their carbon footprint is lower than ICE vehicles.

Source: Volvo Cars

Link to Team-BHP news

[fuzzydealhunter]

Think the title is a bit of a click bait. The report takes into account the pollution caused by Li-ion battery production but does not do the same for the environmental impact of Petrol/Diesel production.

Here is a video of PluginIndia discussing the very same topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRNp...ectricVehicles

I dont think any ICE car rolling off the production line is running on air, thus ignoring the emissions from fossil fuel mining is a fatal flaw in this report.

Not taking any sides here but it looks like cherry picked data to me.

[peepo]

I would also like to add that the lithium, cobalt and other rare earth metal mines very commonly use child labor. Mostly in democratic republic of congo (DRC). Speaking of child labor, Musk's father's money come from apartheid.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/isabelt...h=6a6273cf3107

[VinNam]

https://www.greencarcongress.com/202...-volvolca.html

The above link should shed further light.

Most important point quoted below:

"The LCA report for the C40 Recharge shows that when charging it with electricity generated from clean sources, its lifecycle CO2 footprint comes down to approximately 27 tonnes of CO2, compared to 59 tonnes for an XC40 compact SUV powered by a combustion engine.

However, when drivers charge their C40 Recharge using an average global energy mix (which is generated for around 60% from fossil fuels), the car’s life cycle CO2 tonnage can increase to as much as 50 tonnes, significantly reducing the environmental gains versus a traditionally powered car."

[rascalangel]

Originally Posted by fuzzydealhunter

Think the title is a bit of a click bait.

Totally!
The 1st two key findings in the report:

1) The XC40 Recharge has a lower total Carbon Footprint than the XC40 ICE for all the analysed electricity mixes.

2) The Carbon Footprint of a XC40 ICE is 58 tonnes CO2e, while the footprint for the XC40 Recharge is 27–54 tonnes CO2e. The reason for the variation in the XC40 Recharge result is due to different electricity mixes with varying carbon intensity in the use phase.

Originally Posted by fuzzydealhunter

Not taking any sides here but it looks like cherry picked data to me.

This may be deliberate. If we look at the carbon footprint of 1L of petrol its 2.3Kg/L. (https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nr...tsheet_6_e.pdf)
For 2L Km @20kmpl economy, the total works out to be 23 Tonnes. At 10Kmpl, the carbon footprint of ICE is 46 Tonnes !!!! This is not included in the report.

However, if the electricity is from Fossil fuels, then the carbon footprint of 1unit of electricity is 0.91-0.95Kg/KWh. (https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/confer...n5/mmittal.pdf) Considering a 40KWh battery pack with 300Km range over 2L Km the carbon footprint of EV car is 24 Tonnes. So it kind of evens out. At current energy mix of India at 80% fossil fuel based plants, then the EV carbon footprint is 20 Tonnes. But they have already included this data in the total carbon footprint of EV in the report.

[SKC-auto]

One other major flaw with this report is the XC40 recharge is made in China, so all the materials and components have higher emissions due to electricity generated primarily from coal. The XC40 ICE compared here is made in Europe where the materials made have lesser emissions.

[Shresth_EV]

Originally Posted by VinNam

However, when drivers charge their C40 Recharge using an average global energy mix (which is generated for around 60% from fossil fuels), the car’s life cycle CO2 tonnage can increase to as much as 50 tonnes, significantly reducing the environmental gains versus a traditionally powered car.[/i]"

9 tons of CO2 is still a lot, almost like, 6x the mass of car itself? Sure it’s not as big as one would expect, but as the saying goes, “each drop makes the ocean”, and bottom line, it’s still better than an ICE car drive for same distance.

Think of the small reduction as an individual’s contribution. Now make that a million times. But more than that, it represents a scope. A scope to reduce emissions as time progresses and grid actually evolves to cleaner sources.

A vehicle burning fuel is not going to reduce its consumptions and emissions but charging EVs will becoming cleaner. (Even more that what they are today)

[fuzzydealhunter]

Glad other users are pointing out flaws in the report.

Is it just me or upon reading does it feel like the report was written by someone cherrypicking stats to prove EV's pollute more than ICE cars? Like Volvo is trying justify why they have to keep manufacturing ICE cars.

[Vitruvius]

Originally Posted by SKC-auto

One other major flaw with this report is the XC40 recharge is made in China, so all the materials and components have higher emissions due to electricity generated primarily from coal. The XC40 ICE compared here is made in Europe where the materials made have lesser emissions.

They have adjusted for that confounding factor, assuming that both cars were made at the same factory.
I do not disagree with the report. At least they have prompted discussion about electricity generation and it's significant role in greenhouse gas emissions.
The findings of the report will vary depending on where the car was made and where it will be driven.
Using just an EV is not going to make any country carbon neutral. Unless industry as a whole decides to adopt greener energy, we will not be seeing tangible benefits from using EVs alone.

It is cheaper recharging our batteries for now though!

[RaghuVis]

With respect to transformation from ICE to EV, Volvo is one of the most committed existing ICE manufacturers. They have not taken back their commitment on the same.

They have come up with an analysis. Some might agree and some might not. I am sure Volvo would have done basic checks on the authenticity/verifiability of the report to not make a fool out of themselves. To call them click bait or propogandist and to reduce Volvo as a ICE mafia or ICE lobby is a bit harsh IMHO.

[IshaanIan]

I think another environmentally degrading factor about EVs is the requirement to replace either the battery or the car itself after around 5 years of usage due to degradation of the battery's peak capacity. Granted technology like graphene batteries are being worked upon but I fear with the next generation of Tesla cars having a chassis integrated battery, that the EV space is modelling itself after the smartphone segment in terms of molding consumer's mindsets into replacing their car every 3-5 years out of necessity. This consumer appliance type of mindset towards cars is not at all environmentally friendly, where all that matters is battery health and how big the screen in your new EV is ICEs are beautiful things and we need to take a step back and marvel at what brought us all this way before throwing it all out of the window in favor of perceived environmental impact changes and some instant torque generation

[fuzzydealhunter]

Originally Posted by RaghuVis

With respect to transformation from ICE to EV, Volvo is one of the most committed existing ICE manufacturers. They have not taken back their commitment on the same.

They have come up with an analysis. Some might agree and some might not. I am sure Volvo would have done basic checks on the authenticity/verifiability of the report to not make a fool out of themselves. To call them click bait or propogandist and to reduce Volvo as a ICE mafia or ICE lobby is a bit cheap IMHO.

I dont think anyone dropped the ICE mafia or ICE lobby term in this thread until your post. No one is calling them that (other than the pluginindia team ).

I am just questioning the claims based on what I have read and the title. Do you honestly believe the statement they have made is true after all the discussion in this thread?

[SKC-auto]

Originally Posted by Vitruvius

They have adjusted for that confounding factor, assuming that both cars were made at the same factory.

Using just an EV is not going to make any country carbon neutral. Unless industry as a whole decides to adopt greener energy, we will not be seeing tangible benefits from using EVs alone.

It is cheaper recharging our batteries for now though!

From the report the electricity mix is not global mix. The report only shows lots of potential to reduce carbon footprint, for example Tesla says their Tesla model 3 is cleaner to run after the initial 5300 miles. Yes, except for walking everything has a carbon footprint, the world is making a collective move towards renewable and EVs. After seeing the current autonomous vehicle progress, I am sure we will have electric AVs in a decade, may be we start banning personal cars.

The electricity-mix used in the manufacturing
processes in the supply chain is based on the
locations of Volvo Cars production facilities. As a
basis for calculation it is assumed that a large part of
the materials in the vehicle are sourced on the same
continent where the production takes place.

Originally Posted by IshaanIan

I think another environmentally degrading factor about EVs is the requirement to replace either the battery or the car itself after around 5 years of usage due to degradation of the battery's peak capacity.

This is so wrong, with the current battery technology, people are hardly noticing any drop in battery capacity in 5 years. For example, Tesla says their cars lose just 10% battery after 3.2 lakh km. This is a non issue, future battery tech will enable that 1.6million kms car.