[improvius]

Interesting comparison to ICE XC40 and XC40 Recharge. Basically, the manufacturing process of the EVs has a significantly higher footprint because of the batteries. The break-even point is roughly around 65,000 miles, but that can vary widely depending on your local mix of renewable and fossil-based electricity.

https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/Market-Assets/INTL/Applications/DotCom/PDF/C40/Volvo-C40-Recharge-LCA-report.pdf

 

[brwtacoma]

The last part is especially important. In the analysis with the US average energy mix (where I live), 24 tones of CO2 are produced to power the C40, which is less than a 50% savings over traditional ICE. I’m guessing this assumes about a 50/50 split in fossil fuels vs renewable for energy production. But with 100% renewable, this comes down to essentially zero CO2 production to power the car. That’s a huge difference.

In Tacoma WA where I live, somewhere above 90% of our electricity is renewable (mostly hydro), so the CO2 production to power the car is very minimal, making the saving compared to ICE much more significant, and the break even point happens way sooner.

 

[A2_]

I’m guessing this assumes about a 50/50 split in fossil fuels vs renewable for energy production.

It takes some digging through the report, but they state that they use the EU-28 electricity mix from the 2017 GaBi database -- which looks like this: (Source: https://gabi.sphera.com/fileadmin/GaBi_Databases/Database_Upgrade_2017_Upgrades_and_improvements.pdf)

So eyeballing it -- the non-carbon emitting sources would be:
nuclear + hydro + wind + solar + others = ~30% + ~10% + ~5% + ~2.5% + ~2.5% = ~50%

 

[improvius]

I thought it was a pretty interesting study. Since battery production has such a massive environmental impact, it's making me think twice about the trend of shoving bigger and bigger batteries into EVs to get better range. Some of the current and upcoming XC40/C40 competitors have greater range but also significantly larger batteries. Food for thought.

 

[brwtacoma]

I thought it was a pretty interesting study. Since battery production has such a massive environmental impact, it's making me think twice about the trend of shoving bigger and bigger batteries into EVs to get better range. Some of the current and upcoming XC40/C40 competitors have greater range but also significantly larger batteries. Food for thought.

100% agree. I’m fine with the range on the C40. I had looked closely at the MachE a year ago, but now feel like the 25% larger battery is an unnecessary cost.

It would be nice to see slightly higher efficiency, but the battery itself is good for my use

 

[columbrian]

This thread prompted me to locate the energy generation breakdown of my local utility (which I can't find at the moment). While doing that I stumbled on this report on the cost of Solar. It says Solar will be the least expensive source of electricity nationwide by 2030. Most of the country is already there, or only a few years from reaching that goal.

Solar Will Be Cheapest Form of Electricity Across US by 2030, Plus Other PV Trends | GTM Squared

A look at the resource’s next decade, in charts.

www.greentechmedia.com

Of course, a grid sourced by renewables like solar requires a storage element to be useful. The sun doesn't always shine, especially at night. But EVs, conveniently, are storage devices; so the trick is charging them when all that low-cost solar power is available. Doing that may require rethinking when, and therefore, where we charge them. Charging at home overnight seems likely to become the least optimal option.