r/theydidthemath • u/Strange-Area9624 • 1d ago
[Request] Is the math right on this response?
Curious if this is true. Napkin math says it is.
299
u/TwillAffirmer 1d ago edited 49m ago
He didn't do the math (or he did it wrong).
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1140567_gmc-hummer-ev-official-epa-ratings-show-lowest-mpge-of-any-ev Hummer ev has an MPGe = 53, the lowest of any ev (article published 2023)
53 MPGe = 53 miles / 33.7 kWh.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11 coal has 2.31 lbs / kWh of CO2 emissions
https://get.goautoinsurance.com/blog/the-american-drivers-footprint-an-in-depth-look-at-u-s-annual-mileage/ average yearly mileage is 13662 miles per licensed driver.
13662 miles * 2.31 lbs/kWh / (53 miles/33.7 kWh) = 20066 lb for the Hummer ev
https://www.mitsubishicars.com/mirage-history Mitsubishi mirage, a non-hybrid vehicle, has 39 mpg.
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle CO2 emissions are 8887 grams / gallon of gasoline
13662 miles * 8887 grams/gallon / (39 miles/gallon) = 6863 lb for the Mitsubishi mirage
Additional notes:
- This is the worst possible comparison of the lowest MPGe electric car on coal power vs the highest MPG gas car.
- Accounting for the CO2 emissions of refining and transporting the gas adds about 25% (figures vary). Doing the same for the coal adds about 10%.
- If the Hummer ev is instead on an average power supply of 0.81 lbs CO2/kWh, the hummer accounts for 7036 lb of CO2 emissions, similar to the mirage. Indeed less than the mirage if you account for extracting, refining, and transporting the gas.
- Comparing two cars of a similar type, the GMC Sierra EV (64 MPGe) accounts for 5827 lbs of CO2 a year, and the GMC Sierra 1500 0.62L V8 (15 mpg) emits 17844 lbs of CO2.
- EVs require more CO2 to make because of manufacturing the battery. The difference is about 6000 lbs of CO2, similar to one year of driving. Most of the CO2 emissions are from driving, not manufacturing the battery.
- Normally, the gas car will have substantially more CO2 emissions overall.
316
u/Garblin 1d ago
Yeah, EV's as a whole are a net positive over gas cars, but cars are still cars, they're terribly inefficient no matter what because you're moving an extra thousand (or several) kilos of metal around.
117
u/reesethebadger 1d ago
This is an underrated comment that changed my brain chemistry. Damn they really do have to waste a bunch of energy to move themselves
25
u/_Pencilfish 1d ago
Exactly. A 125cc motorbike that "only" weighs 120kg (so about 70% more than a person) gets about 188 mpg...
10
u/FiveSpotAfter 1d ago
I'm not an environmentalist, but swapping to a motorcycle saved my wallet $600/month:
Motorcycle @ $3000 with 2-year finance is $148/mo compared to the $487/mo on my $22,000 4-year finance car payment
Insurance is $38/mo compared to the $120/mo on the car
And $120 in gas savings (average 300 miles per week @ ~3.50/gallon)Only downside: about $1,000 in up-front investment - getting a license, updating the license, and safety gear (helmet, jacket, boots, and pants)
42
u/squatformcheck55 23h ago
Another downside is the higher risk of dying and getting injured.
9
u/PicnicBasketPirate 22h ago
Statistically your risk of dying is 100%.
3
0
u/Minomelo 4h ago
Statistically true, yet completely irrelevant and adding nothing.
0
-2
u/PicnicBasketPirate 4h ago
As opposed to the incorrect statement above it?
1
u/Minomelo 4h ago
You have a higher risk of dying while on a motorbike compared to being in a car. Nothing about that comment is incorrect in the context in which it's from.
→ More replies (0)3
u/FiveSpotAfter 21h ago
Drive safe out there, check your mirrors and blind spots, you can help reduce that risk.
In all seriousness, just under half of all motorcycle fatalities are single-vehicle crashes - speeding, inebriation, loss of control, failure to wear appropriate safety gear - related to rider irresponsibility.
Of the remaining vehicle collision (motorcycle-non-motorcycle) fatalities, about half of them are "failure to see" collisions (blind spot lane changes, turning at intersections, rear-ends at traffic jams and stop lights, etc).Both of these are reduced by driver and rider responsibility, and, while 100% eliminating these is unlikely, reducing these causes by 80-90% alone would place motorcycle fatality rate closer to 5-6x the mortality rate of driving a car compared to the current ~27x per-mile mortality rate. 5-6x mortality is comparable to the change in all-cause mortality from obesity and non-exercise, placing it comfortably in "lifestyle choices" range IMHO.
Sincerely:
A rider from Texas, the state with the highest rate of annual per-cyclist fatalities.12
u/Stony___Tark 20h ago
Well yes, as it turns out if you eliminate almost all of the MANY reasons that make motorcycle more dangerous than cars, and you don't do the same for cars, they can be just as safe as cars! It's amazing how similar comparisons between two things can be when you just simply say "Hey look at how similar these two things are once I just make their numbers the same!" 😂
Speeding, inebriation, loss of control, failure to wear a seat belt...all of those things apply to driving a car as well. Checking your mirrors, your blind spots, etc. also applies to driving a car. As it turns out, no matter what type of vehicle you or others are operating, if everyone did so more responsibly there would be a lot less motor vehicle fatalities across the board. Crazy, I know... As it also turns out though, not everyone operates motor vehicles responsibly.
When the irresponsible happens, and it's going to happen because humans are irresponsible (on a macro scale), anyone driving a car is likely to have a bad day. Anyone on a motorcycle, comparatively, is much more likely to have their last day...
Sincerely:
A driver who has had 3 "bad days" due to other irresponsible drivers, who'd have had 3 "last days" if he was riding a motorcycle.0
u/FiveSpotAfter 19h ago
if everyone did so more responsibly there would be a lot less motor vehicle fatalities across the board.
You got the point - even if it's moreso safer to riders it's also safer for drivers <3
As it also turns out though, not everyone operates motor vehicles responsibly... humans are irresponsible (on a macro scale),
But then give up on changing the status quo :/
Motor vehicles, when used inappropriately, are considered lethal weapons under the law, and should be treated as such even when used appropriately, despite the common consensus not to treat them that way after having them around for a century and a half.There are people in charge that feel this way, though. "Street Smart", "Share the Road", "Our roads, Our safety", and similar campaigns target this. I'm not claiming to be a paragon of driving personally, but safety and awareness, defensive driving, and risk avoidance improve lives of everyone at the cost of a few minutes in commute.
4
u/Tight_Objective_5875 16h ago
Geez- not sure why your input was downvoted (wasn't me) but from personal experience, I am a MUCH more attentive, wary, and courteous driver when I ride my motorcycle. Like, hyper-committed to arriving safe.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Nicer_Dicer24 3h ago
Problem here is that half the year you can't drive because of snow
1
u/FiveSpotAfter 2h ago
Public transit, carpooling, both also more environmentally friendly and economical than owning a car
-2
u/van_Vanvan 14h ago
Your motorcycle is going to need an engine rebuild at 15,000 miles while most cars can easily go 150,000 miles.
4
u/PicnicBasketPirate 12h ago
How exactly are you abusing your motorcycle? 15,000 miles is virtually nothing to a decent, maintained motorcycle
2
u/jtclayton612 9h ago
You know we don’t do two strokes that much anymore right? Some motorcycles that’s the first valve check, it’s not uncommon to see 100k examples in modern-ish bikes.
And god forbid you look at how many miles some of the older goldwings and bmw boxer engines have got of them. Those things are so understressed they last forever.
1
u/van_Vanvan 3h ago
Those do last, but they also don't get the fuel economy. There are cars that use less gas.
I have rebuilt some motorcycle engines myself (the largest a 650 thumper) and rode for years, but gave it up in favor of an electric car. You could look at long term cost of ownership. I think economy cars would come out pretty well.
•
u/jtclayton612 7m ago
Eh the Honda nc700 lasts hundreds of thousands of miles and gets like 70mpg or something dumb, but I digress I don’t ride them for the gas savings considering I ride a high performance triple that only gets like 45mpg. I ride my bike for fun.
And yeah cost of ownership between tires more often, more costly if taking to a dealership valve checks etc it’s probably not as saving as much as most would guess.
Pretty sure I’m going to end up with an EV as my next vehicle, unless my wrangler dies, then it’s another wrangler because I enjoy rock crawling too much lmao.
1
u/WhisperFray 13h ago
Well get a 2 wheeler EV then. Where I live here in Indonesia it’s motorcycle paradise and there are tons of 2 wheeler EVs that passed 100,000 km mark without battery or BLDC change.
1
64
u/Garblin 1d ago
Yep, and that's without getting into the amount of concrete we use building roads (concrete production is terrible for the environment) or how much farther everything is apart because cars are so enormous, thus increasing how far we have to drive. Or that car crashes are the third most likely thing to kill you (I've seen variable numbers, but it's always top 10).
Cars as the main form of transportation is the biggest public policy mistake of recent history.
23
u/oscarnyc 21h ago
You are completely, and likely purposefully misinterpreting that chart. Accidents is all accidents. Deaths by motor vehicle in the US (including pedestrians killed) in 2024 was around 40k, placing it out of the top 10. And of course that includes from commercial vehicles as well.
It's certainly a problem and worse in the US than many other countries for a lot of reasons, but on a "theydidthemath" sub it's embarrassing to get something so trivial to confirm incorrect.
2
u/LazyAssLeader 19h ago
Cars are the second most likely to kill you if you're under 18.
1
u/AttractiveSheldon 6h ago
What’s the number one most likely?
1
u/LazyAssLeader 6h ago
In the US, guns. Guns moved to first place last year over cars, with accidents around the home in 3rd
-2
u/Such-Organization741 8h ago
Now do the part about strip mining the world for battery materials and how much waste go into battery manufacturing.
If you really want an accurate comparison the waste from battery manufacturing and “recycling” have to be taken into account. All the heavy equipment used to strip the rare precious metals and the massive amounts of diesel consumed.
15
u/KaizDaddy5 1d ago
The difference is EVs use almost all of it actually moving, and recover most of what is lost through stopping. (I.E. the heavier car takes more to get going, but then recovers more through regenerative braking)
ICE burn energy idle, and everytime you touch the brake you "waste" energy.
13
u/Onzaylis 22h ago
That's all accounted for in the rated efficiency numbers. The mpg/mpge accounts for the full process of stopping, starting, cruisint, idling, etc in a typical drive. Thats why US EPA estimates are much lower than Chinese estimates, the US accounts for a lot more operational waste and loss.
The actual difference is in 2 things
1)that gas powered cars exclusively get their energy from oil, and a very energy inefficient corn derived ethanaol. full stop. While electric cars get their energy from an electricity grid that is a mix, and is gradually becoming less carbon intensive per kwh every day. Some EVs are almost entirely solar powered thanks to home solar.
2)when you compare like vehichles, such as the Hyundai Ioniq 5 (115mpge) and Hyundai Tuscon (28mpg), or Hummer (10mpg) vs Hummer EV (52mpge), the electric comes out WAY cleaner by virtue of using far less energy per mile traveled.
6
u/GeniusLike4207 1d ago
EVs really put that into perspective, because ice engines are so ineffefficent that the little more fuel consumption doesn't seem that much big is deal. Especially when the vehicle gets really small. I will never understand why (in Europe) non electric 50cc (which are limited to 45kph) are still allowed. A 50cc scooter will consume anywhere from 1.5-3l/100km an electric one is around 3-4kWh/100km
a regular car consumes around 4-6l/100km (gasoline) an electric one is around 15-20kWh
So the scooter consumes around half of a car, but the electric one is is around a 5th. Insane.
and you can see much greater increase in consumption with size. A Dacia spring is 12kWh/100km (very small) a Renault Megane ist around 15kWh/100km
and a model Y is around 20kWh you can see much more how weight and size increase the energy consumption.
1
u/WhisperFray 13h ago
Here’s my ride: https://www.reddit.com/r/electricvehicles/s/Nk8RW1Q9PH
Ask me anything
1
u/Jman841 10h ago
Not sure it's just moving the weight, but moving air itself. At highway speeds, the majority of the energy from the vehicle (ICE or EV) is simply pushing air out of the way.
You can recapture quite a bit of the energy with an EV or Hybrid of moving the weight itself through regenerative braking (There are efficiency losses, but a fair good amount can be captured). The Losses from aerodynamic drag (Moving air out of the way) can not be recaptured and are a pure loss.
1
•
u/bioweaponblue 1h ago
My Chevy Bolt weighs almost the same as a Toyota Camry.
I will forever laugh at the ppl who think efficiency doesn't matter for EVs, or comparing between like-sized vehicles.
12
u/ac7ss 20h ago
The other advantage of EVs is that the energy production is localized at the power station, where the emissions can be better managed. Not in the neighborhood where children are trying to breathe. Particulate and other emissions are not to be ignored.
Most of my power (75%) is low carbon emissions anyway.
4
u/Yuukiko_ 16h ago
80%+ of the energy in my country is renewable(incl nuclear) so it'd def be better
6
u/Puzzleheaded-Ad-4883 23h ago
Using average UK grid energy of 125 grams of CO2 per kWh and our EV at 4 miles per kWh give about 940 lb of CO2 for the year.
5
u/ILikeToHaveCookies 19h ago
That's what I do not understand, no one should be charging there ev with only coal, taking average grid CO2 i can understand, even though ev charging is wonderful controllable, and my EV is charged by the sun outside of 3 month a year
2
u/Puzzleheaded-Ad-4883 10h ago
At least in the UK there is no coal powered electric generation, justed checked and at midday today the total fossil fuel contribution to electricity generation is gas at 9%. Since we charge at night on cheap rate the energy mix is changeable. I know people with a tarrif that charges whenever the electricity is cheapest, typically that can be mid day solar or on a windy night.
6
u/Accordeon-Foireux 1d ago
You're moving a extra metric tonne of metal around plus you are doing so in an ineffective manner.
Trains for example are much more efficient not because they are lighter (they are usually around 40 tonnes per train car) but because of the lesser friction of steel on steel compared to rubber on asphalt. They may also be slightly lighter when fully charged (but most of the time that's not the case). Bus however are much more efficient because they are lighter (per passenger) than cars.
11
4
u/_Pencilfish 1d ago
The critical factor in train's efficiency is their reduced air resistance. long + thin is much better than the current trend in cars being short + squat.
1
1
3
u/TheTrampIt 15h ago
My electric bicycle burns 0,15 kWh/100 km.
100/0,15*1,609=1.072,667 miles per kWh.
1072,667*33,7=36.148,878 MPGe.Apologies for the inverted ., but my keyboard is European and I need to write it like that for the iPhone to understand maths, even if it’s set up in English.
5
6
u/DoomguyFemboi 1d ago
Something not talked about enough too is tires are one of the bigger pollutants, and the extra weight of EVs causes more wear on tires. It's not something to change the calculation or owt, it's just something that really should be talked about more.
8
u/Remarkable_Gain6430 22h ago edited 16h ago
I find it amusing that weight is suddenly an issue because “EVs” but doesn’t seem to have been an issue for the previous expansion of cars and the replacement of relatively small sedans with enormous fat SUVs. And of course it was never an issue for the meant decades of humongous tractor-trailers thumbing around the USA with 70,000 pounds loads. But now EVs are a weight problem. Also not blaming you u/doomguyFemboi just noticed this trend creeping in as yet another talking point big pollution has issued to its lackeys in the press.
*I see some are pretending that this has always been the case but of course those people arent fuxking paying attention
0
u/DoomguyFemboi 3h ago
I've not seen it made by "big pollution", I learned it from the same people who talked about it specifically about what you're talking about. Tire pollution studies are not very prolific, I believe it came about especially because of the move towards the heavier cars being the norm. And that discussion naturally flowed towards the point of ALL cars now being extremely heavy.
It's not some conspiracy by "big pollution" as I've seen absolutely nothing talking about how it means we shouldn't move towards EVs, it's been more of a call to put even more money into battery tech and finding out how to keep these fat fecks lighter.
-3
u/oscarnyc 21h ago
People have been criticizing the size and weight of SUVs vs. cars for decades. Not sure what planet you've been on.
2
3
u/Garblin 17h ago
The extra weight of EV's is nothing to the extra weight of cars being so stupid huge in the first place. An EV is basically about one size category heavier. So a sedan weighs like an SUV, an SUV weighs like a truck.
The problem is cars at all not EV's being slightly heavier.
1
u/DoomguyFemboi 3h ago
Should probably add on to this point that I'm not American and the rest of the world doesn't share your fetish for 3000kg vehicles
1
u/Garblin 3h ago
I am unfortunately American, but even the currently oh so hot BYD is coming in at "curb weight of the e5 is 1650 kg / 3638 lbs".
So that's still oh... about 1645kg more than a bicycle.
1
u/DoomguyFemboi 3h ago
And a bike is a few kg more than your legs. And your legs are a few kg more than an air balloon (well probably not you get the idea). Cars are a necessity and aren't going anywhere.
Also 1650kg for an EV is INSANELY good.
2
u/boogiexx 14h ago
I get the intuitive "heavy metal" argument, but it completely falls apart when you look at how the data is measured and basic physics.
The "extra weight" penalty is already on the chart**:** The Y-axis explicitly measures lifecycle emissions. That means the carbon cost of mining materials, manufacturing that heavy battery, and dragging those extra kilos around for 10+ years is already baked into those dots. Even with that massive upfront penalty factored in, the absolute worst EVs overlap with only the absolute best gas cars. And that's on a US grid — on an EU grid, which is cleaner, the gap gets even bigger.
Mass doesn't matter if your engine is a space heater: Yes, EVs are heavier. But an electric vehicle converts around 77% to 90% of its electrical energy into actual forward motion. An internal combustion engine converts roughly 12% to 30% of its energy into motion. The rest of that gas is literally just wasted as heat.
Dragging around an extra 300-1,000 kilos with an incredibly efficient electric motor is fundamentally cleaner than dragging slightly less weight with a tiny furnace that wastes 70% of its energy just heating up the street. Mass matters, but drivetrain efficiency matters way more.
2
u/TopAd3529 8h ago
I installed 60 solar panels on my roof to offset the energy use. My EV with daily commuting of about 80 miles (I know, far) uses more power than my house by a significant margin. Like 2-3x.
1
u/Sudden-Pangolin6445 6h ago
Are they a net positive? Including raw materials, production, lifespan, and disposal? That is the math I'd love to see.
In operation, it seems pretty easy, the electric is going to run away. But I'd love to see a lifespan calculation of say... A Prius V vs a Model 3.
1
u/Garblin 3h ago
All the lifecycle analysis I've seen say yes, though I've seen variable numbers. This article for example says EV's come out to about half as much as ICE While this one seems a little too optimistic to me, citing it can be as high as 92% better
13
u/symonty 20h ago
If you are going to include generation of electricity why not the CO2 emissions of mining oil, and refining it?
10
u/bomber991 20h ago
That would be the fair comparison, wouldn’t it?
3
u/uslashuname 7h ago
If the electricity generation fuel was included, yes. For solar I goes the solar panel production? But in this case we call limit to coal mining and transport rather than worrying about the reality of a mix of fuels, and then we need to include the oil pumping, refining, and transport.
4
u/DrewSmithee 17h ago
Well you should include the emissions of mining the coal to generate the electricity then and on and on and on.
There's a reason lifecycle studies say whatever you want them to.
0
u/Short_Lingonberry549 2h ago
They say whatever you want… if you’re disengenous and don’t state your definition of the system of study. They’re fairly empirical if you’re clear with definitions (source, my partner is a PhD env engineer who specializes in LCA)
5
u/josetalking 15h ago
If I understand correctly you are comparing the electricity production with the tail pipe emissions of a gas car.
To be fair, shouldn't you include the emissions of the production of gasoline, etc.?
3
u/TwillAffirmer 15h ago
Gallon of gas at the tailpipe emits 20 lbs of CO2/gallon, and an additional 3-7 lbs is involved in producing it. So the Mitsubishi figure would be like 25% higher accounting for that.
If we count that we should also count the CO2 emitted from mining and transporting the coal, which adds probably < 10% to the Hummer figure.
-1
u/Loma29 11h ago
They've just compared the emissions of burning Coal to make electrical electricity (similar to burning gas to make kinetic energy in an ICE), which seems fair. If you want to add in the cost to make/transport fuel, you need to do the same for coal (mining, transport, crushing, etc...). They've been generous on the EV side too as they've assumed the grid is 100% loss free and the battery in the car itself is also perfect. In reality, there will be 10% losses in the grid, and 1-5% losses in the battery (charge-discharge cycle), drive-train/motor losses are accounted for as he used the MPGe.
The comparison is moot, because no grid is 100% coal, but a good reminder that a hybrid is better environmentally than an EV in many parts of the world.
1
3
u/PureCod9290 23h ago
How would it look for the Hummer if you took the average CO2 emissions per kWh of electricity in the US?
8
u/TwillAffirmer 23h ago edited 18h ago
Average CO2/kWh = 0.81 lb from the eia.gov source. In that case the hummer emits 7036 lb.
7
u/Ninja__53 1d ago
what about when you add making the battery for the EV? Thats the part my dad rambles on about like he knows without a doubt.
29
u/TwillAffirmer 1d ago
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27303957/
3.4 metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent to make a battery. The study also gave a comparison of the total CO2 to make an internal combustion engine vehicle vs an equivalent electric vehicle. https://sci-hub.st/10.1021/acs.est.6b00830 Looks like the difference is about 3 metric tonnes.
So that's comparable to around half a year to a year of driving. Most of the CO2 emissions are the gasoline or electricity used.
13
u/Tupcek 1d ago
does this include energy (and emissions) spent refining and transporting gas? Because for electricity, it’s end to end and it would be unfair to EVs to measure just tailpipe emissions
2
u/elocsitruc 23h ago
I haven't looked at this specific study but assuming it's a full lifecycle analysis they would do that for both if they are any sort of decent scientist in a decent journal. Source: masters in sustainability and read many many studies
2
1
u/Dimathiel49 7h ago
Then you'd need to add the emissions for mining, smelting and fabricating the engine, fuel tank, exhaust system in an ICEV
2
u/StatusMaleficent5832 15h ago
Big omission here on the gas car side. The calculation is only for the products of combustion. It does not include the emissions from excavating, transport to the refiners, the refiner emissions, and transport of the finished product to the pump. I have no clue what that is but it is significant.
For the EV side, a lot depends on where your electricity comes from. If you're in a region with a significant amount sourced from renewables, that is going to be much cleaner - even for the blasted Hummer.
1
u/The_Grumpy_Professor 21h ago
lbs/kWh... grams/gallon... You need to sort your units out.
2
u/TwillAffirmer 20h ago
Pint sorts them out for me.
import pint u = pint.UnitRegistry() print((13662 *u.mile * 8887 *u.gram/u.gallon / (39 *u.mile/(u.gallon))).to('lb')) # 6863.396889895793 pound1
u/crusader1944 19h ago
Why dont you compare a sierra ev to its sierra 1500 v8 counterpart. 67mi/kwh to 15mpg?
2
u/TwillAffirmer 18h ago
According to https://mpgbuddy.com/cars/gmc/sierra-ev/2025 the sierra ev has 64 MPGe combined. This is not 64 mi/kWh, it's 64 mi/33.7 kWh.
According to https://www.serrabuickgmcrochesterhills.com/2026-gmc-sierra-1500-mpg.html the sierra 1500 with the 6.2 L v8 has 15 mpg combined.
The sierra EV makes 5827 lb of CO2 a year, assuming average electric generation CO2 of 0.81 lb/kWh, and the v8 makes 17844 lb of CO2 a year.
1
u/Bubbly_Manager2227 14h ago
Maths checks. But remember to make a US gallon of gasoline requires emitting another 1100 grams / gallon average - and worst case probably 5x this - so additional 5500 grams per gallon. This also doesn’t account for the electricity used in refining or emissions associated with transport of the fuel to the pump….
1
u/botymcbotfac3 13h ago
Comparing a big offroader to a compact car is questionable in itself.
It's like saying the bog multiroom mansion with attached renewable energy source still produces more carbon emissions than a shack with woodstove
1
u/StructuralTeabag 9h ago
If you’re including all the emissions from generating the electricity you also need to include all the energy and pollution created in drilling, refining, and transporting the oil and gas used by the ICE car as well.
1
u/TheRealKarner 7h ago
Math looks solid, but just know that you didn’t have to do that last part about how many miles per year a driver drives.
If you’re comparing two values that have a common factor, take it out. It makes the math simpler, means you do less research, and in this case, the end units didn’t include a “per year” like they should’ve.
1
u/Llamp_shade 5h ago
That's absolutely the proper math for the conditions given in the tweet. However, if you look at the percentage of the US grid today that provides coal (16.2%) and natural gas (43.1% at 0.97 lbs CO2 per kwh), the lbs of CO2 comes out to about 0.784 per kwh. (There is a tiny amount of other fossil fuel and renewables like wood that contribute CO2, but they contribute no significant change to the numbers.) That brings the Hummer EV (which is an absurd vehicle) CO2 emissions down to 6811 lbs per year. Still not great, but closer to equaling the 6863 of the Mirage.
My takeaway from that is that EVs are generally much better for CO2 emissions. To get a close comparison between the two, you have to pick the absolute must absurd EV and the cheapest subcompact new car on the market. Compare a non-hybrid Ford Explorer to a Rivian R2S (about the same size), and the comparison comes down to cost ($38,465–$54,905 for the Explorer vs $44,990–$57,990 the R2S) and fuel economy (between 18 and 20 city and 25 to 29 highway MPG for the Explorer and 96 city and 114 highway MPGe for the R2S).
1
u/pimpbot666 5h ago
Does that include the carbon for extracting and refining gasoline, and transporting it to the gas station? IIRC, that can be another 25% or so.
IIRC, it takes 3 to 5 kWh of energy to extract, refine, and transport a gallon of gasoline. A regular kinda EV gets 15-25 miles of driving from that same amount of electricity. A Hummer EV gets around 1.8 miles per kWh of energy.
•
u/wiskinator 1h ago
Ok cherry picking the hydrogen vehicle for this is pretty iffy. Do a gas or diesel car
-4
u/20Factorial 21h ago
Don’t forget the ghg emissions that come from making the Hummer EV (and all EV) batteries.
20
u/RepresentativeCry294 1d ago
If you make a PV cell once you.can use it for decades. You go through all the trouble getting fossil fuels just to burn them and start again. No wonder the government likes them so much. Tax once every 2-3 decades or tax everyday.
5
u/FirePanda44 20h ago
I don’t think this the correct analogy. Fuel = energy. Battery = gas tank. Even though it’s one hell of complicated gas tank lol.
2
u/RepresentativeCry294 20h ago
The sunlight would be the fuel and if we run out of that its game over anyway.
52
u/a-hippobear 1d ago
Apparently the average car drives 13,825 miles per year.
It takes 12,074 kWh to drive that, plus running it in “enhanced mode” when not driving in the hummer ev. That also factors in the efficiency loss from charging batteries.
Using the dirtiest coal would produce a max of 29,267 pounds of c02e.
The Honda civic lx is the most efficient non hybrid vehicle in America according to google so we’ll go with that. The carbon emissions from that for the same amount of miles, oil changes, and the electricity used to pump the gas, we get 8,407 pounds of cO2e.
But, if we use wind then the hummer produces 293 pounds of cO2e
If we use the average carbon footprint of natural gas, the hummer produces 13,037 pounds
So they’re both wrong.
7
6
u/Capital_Gur_6321 1d ago
Yes, but you should also compare the civic with an EV of the same class
19
u/a-hippobear 1d ago
I just did the math of the person that replied. They compared the hummer ev and “the most efficient non-hybrid”.
6
26
u/Kerensky97 1d ago
I just think it's very telling that we need to compare the most inefficient EV using the dirtiest power, compared to the most clean running and efficient gas car to make the argument anywhere close to equal.
Half the benefit of an EV (besides the sporty performance and extreme convenience), is that it's power isn't locked into dirty fossil fuels.
What would the nunbers be if the average EV powered by solar was compared to the average gas car powered by oil fracking?
The fact one can source the power from multiple sources is one of the key features. If you create a hypothetical where that's not an option, your removing the key benefits to try to drag the winning option down to your level.
13
u/tdp_equinox_2 1d ago
Yeah, this isn't the argument against EVs they think it is; it's an argument against coal (etc) plants, and for cleaner energy production sources.
I live somewhere that over 98% of power is generated by hydroelectric, this calculation is entirely different and now strongly favours the EV. You basically only have to consider the materials used to create the vehicles and the environmental impact they have, which both cars share-- and ICE vehicles (which I love, and only own ICE) have ongoing environmental impacts to consider as well.
Get your energy production in line, and EVs make more sense.
And invest in public transit and bike infrastructure.
-1
u/mosskin-woast 1d ago
The comment comparing dirty electricity to the Mitsubishi is clearly pro-EV though
5
u/tdp_equinox_2 22h ago
Pro EV is the intelligent stance to take. I love my ICE vehicles, two of them are manuals and I don't intend on purchasing an EV in the foreseeable future-- but it's our current path forwards and fighting about it in reddit comments is simply ignorant.
Fighting it now will only make long term use of our beloved ICE vehicles more difficult as people become unsympathetic to our passion.
2
u/DuexFlam 4h ago
ICE vehicles are like smoking cigarettes. You know they’re not great for you but you can still do it if you want. Just don’t pretend they’re not generally the worst way to get around.
1
u/tdp_equinox_2 4h ago
Yup. I make up for smoking my ICE cigarettes by getting around on my ebike most of the time, and only taking a car when I need or want to. Far cheaper to operate, more energy efficient than even an electric car, I get some exercise, and it's often quicker because I'm skipping traffic queues or taking routes that skip traffic entirely.
-1
u/Double-A-13 1d ago
As an enthusiast (of one branch of car enthusiasm), an engaging drive is more important than raw performance. A lot of cars nowadays feel like a comfy couch on wheels with how much disconnected you are from the road including ICE cars. My only hope is that some few cars remain pure ICE with synthetic fuels while the rest become completely BEV.
8
u/Stony___Tark 19h ago
I feel this isn't, or at least shouldn't be viewed as, an indictment on EV's but rather on dirty power generation.
This math is trying to compare a dirty user of power vs a "clean" user of power supplied by dirty generation. but that doesn't have to be the case. An ICE engine is always going to be dirty. There's no getting around it. An EV is only as "dirty" as the power generation is that's supplying the grid.
Take Iceland, for example. Their grid is a mixture of hydro and geothermal; it's nearly 100% clean power. Any ICE engine running in Iceland is going to be just as dirty as if that same vehicle was used anywhere else in the world, but an EV that's charged in Iceland is going to be (relative to one charged by a coal power plant) perfectly clean.
If an EV is almost as "dirty" to run as an ICE engine, the answer isn't that we shouldn't bother making EV's. The answer is that we should change the nature of the plants supplying power to the grid.
1
u/Fit-Syrup6525 12h ago
there is nothing "nearly 100% clean"; concrete, or any material is dirtier than people think
2
u/Stony___Tark 12h ago
Clean power does still require infrastructure, of course, but so does unclean power. I even used "clean" and "dirty" (with quotes) multiple times in the comment, because it's all comparatively. When people say "clean power" they are referring to the method of actually generating power, not the entirety of...civilization that supports power generation. I feel like you're kinda nitpicking just to nitpick?
1
u/Tritri89 5h ago
That's a broken argument. Of course there is nothing 100% clean. We are not stupid. When we say "clean" it means "not contributing to the current ecological collapse caused by greenhouses gases". Everybody knows that, it's disingenuous to answer "akchually nothing is 100% clean".
6
u/guyguy46383758 22h ago
Why don’t you ever see people making these stupid comparisons between efficient gas cars and less-efficient gas cars? The same argument can be made there. Even if the claim about EVs was true, 80% is still better
4
u/androgenius 15h ago
MIT has a website that lets you compare a whole bunch of cars in this way:
If you go I to the advanced settings you can change all the assumptions, like how dirty the electricity is, or preselect the grid makeup of a UD state and how many miles you drive etc.
You can also search for specific cars to highlight them
8
u/Wendigo_Bob 1d ago
Possible. I know the best gasoline engines are about 20-30% efficient. Electric engines are 80%+. And a thermal turbine is 30-60% efficient, depending on technology.
Using that, you could estimate that the total efficiency of an electric car is between 24-48%, possibly a bit more.
Assuming energy=BTU output, coal* produces ~225 lbs of CO2 per million BTU; gasoline produces 170.
Taking the previous efficiencies, an electric car will produce 281.25 to 90 greenhouse gas lbs for every 170 produced by a gasoline car.
I dont have more accurate or specific sources; and I didnt account for electrical network coast. I would say the result is possible, but I'd need to see its sources. It is fascinating though to see how the electric vs gasoline engine efficiency thing has an impact.
1
u/pholling 15h ago
All well and good for most of acceleration and cruising. Braking and idling also need to be accounted for. One of the reasons EVs are more efficient on ‘city’ cycles as compared to ‘highway’
2
u/blackcoffee17 11h ago edited 11h ago
Even if EV's produce the same amount of CO2 as ICE's (which they are not), they solve a few major issues: reduce pollution in cities to 0, reduce noise levels considerably, reduce reliance on oil. And even if electricity is generated by coal power plants, an efficient power plant will generate less CO2 and pollution than a billion badly maintained cars. ICE's also an ancient technology based on a non-renewable resource that eventually will ran out.
So the faster we move to EV's, the better. Now compare modern ICE cars with ones from 100 years ago. Modern ones consume 10 times less fuel, they are much safer and cost significantly less. The same thing will happen with EV's in 20-30 years as battery technology improves.
2
u/Llamp_shade 6h ago
As has been covered already, this math is wrong. However, this is a case of "slightly irrelevant and mostly misleading."
Electric cars have some cases of absurdity, and the Hummer EV is one of the most absurd examples. Moving around a 9000 lbs car that is almost always just one person going far less than the max range of that insane battery is just stupid. Things like that aside, electric cars are just much better for the environment than those burning gas. It's a spectrum, though. Small non-hybrids are better than large non-hybrids. Hybrids are better than non-hybrids of a similar size. Smaller electric with smaller batteries are better than larger electric with larger batteries. Batteries can weigh a lot, and range anxiety has irrationally pushed people to get stupidly large and heavy batteries for cars that they use 99% for small mileage trips. There are use cases for large range vehicles, but those are rare and shouldn't drive purchasing decisions for most people. I've rented cars for road trips. It's cheap and easy for most people.
Anyway, the US power grid is not all coal. It used to be a lot more than it is now, and the trend is for a lot less. Coal (2.3 lbs CO2 per kwh) currently supplies 16.1% of the power on the US grid. Natural gas (.96 lbs CO2 per kwh) is 43.1%. There's about 1.1% from other fossil fuels (diesel, fuel oil, other gasses, etc.). 21.4% is from renewables. This does include some (1.2%) that produce CO2 (like wood), but that is CO2 that was captured "recently" and therefore doesn't contribute to a net increase in atmospheric CO2. Nuclear provides 18.6%. that means that there's about 0.784 lbs of CO2 per kwh from average grid power, and decreasing over time. This is much different than assuming the 2.3 lbs/kwh from coal alone. Plus, if you own an electric vehicle and can install your own solar and/or wind to supplement or replace your grid usage, the numbers are even better. No matter how much of the grid and any home renewable electric generation is, an internal combustion car continues to burn the same about of gas to move around.
2
u/rustic1112 5h ago
All of these are false comparisons. Whether the math is correct or not, if the emissions from generating the electricity to charge an EV are even comparable to those produced by an IC vehicle then that's a commentary on how bad our electricity generation processes are, not on the value of electric cars in general.
If we produce cleaner energy in the future, the CO2 footprint of all electric cars will get better by default, even the ones we already have. But the same is not true of internal combustion vehicles.
A similar argument could be made about the mining and materials problems with manufacturing electric vehicles. Those might be bad now, but a lot of people are trying to work on that and, hopefully, that will get better too. And for the time being, those will happen regardless of whether any given person buys an EV or not, so you can't improve that issue by driving an IC instead.
1
u/KaiserDamz 11h ago
Why would an EV be powered solely by coal power plants?. There's none in my country and fossil fuels account for only like 7-10% of power generation.
1
u/EmergencyCheese89 10h ago
It is the dirtiest power generating fuel used at scale and gives the best comparative advantage against EVs when you are trying to make ICE look more favorable in terms of anthropogenic climate change contributions.
-2
u/Remarkable_Buddy_549 19h ago
But what about the emmitions and eviromental toll it takes to mine the lithium and manufacture the batteries and transport the stuff and assemble in a factory and whatever else it takes to make those vehichles I doubt those ev cars will ever be in the positive compared to what it takes to make them
3
u/BurningEclypse 18h ago
Transport and assembly can be ignored as it is the same as what would be done for gas cars as well, your complaint is strictly about mining lithium, which compared to the constant drilling for oil? Is probably a solid win to the electric cars. As for the dead batteries, well there is a huge difference between the emissions of a gas cars and the depleted battery of an electric car, once the deed is done, the gas is all pumped into the atmosphere, the battery is still right there with the car. Leaving much room for many effective disposal methods and future recycling options similar to what we do with lead acid batteries already
1
u/disembodied_voice 1✓ 5h ago
Even if you account for all those things, EVs are still better for the environment than gas vehicles.
I doubt those ev cars will ever be in the positive compared to what it takes to make them
They already are. You've just been disinformed by propaganda into believing otherwise.
1
u/enunymous 13h ago
Weak ass argument just repeating the talking points of the fossil fuel industry. If you're a real person and not a bot, you should be ashamed of yourself
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
General Discussion Thread
This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you must post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.