Volvo XC40 Forum banner
1 - 2 of 2 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
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
 
1 - 2 of 2 Posts
Top