The Real Cost of Going Electric: Part 1 – The Manufacturing Problem
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, and Repair, these are the 4 R's of sustainability. The idea behind the 4 R’s is that we produce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to manufacture something new, so the best thing we can do for the environment is to keep using what we already have for as long as possible.
With that in mind, how do we justify replacing over a billion perfectly functional cars with brand-new electric vehicles? In certain scenarios, the switch to Electric vehicles (EVs) can make sense, but trying to replace all 1.3 billion Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles globally in a matter of years, or even decades, could end up doing more environmental harm than good.
At Woodland BIO, we are passionate about decarbonizing transportation to combat climate change. While electric vehicles (EVs) are often presented as the sole solution, Woodland BIO supports a hybrid approach to decarbonizing transportation: one that involves using all the tools at our disposal, including renewable fuels, to achieve this all-important mission.
In this series “The Real Cost of Going Electric” we review different aspects of the transition to EVs and talk about the hurdles that stand in the way of a 100% EV narrative. In “Part 1 - The Manufacturing Problem” we will look at the impact of manufacturing EVs at scale, and the issues that presents.
Our primary reference for this part is a comprehensive life cycle assessment conducted by Polestar, a Swedish EV automotive brand owned by Volvo. The life cycle assessment was conducted as part of their commitment to sustainability and transparency in carbon footprint reporting.
Polestar 2 is the EV featured in the study
The key finding of the study was that GHG emissions from the manufacturing of EVs were roughly 63% higher than comparable ICE versions of the same vehicle. This is significant because it means that manufacturing EVs will increase emissions in the short term. This higher carbon footprint primarily results from the complex and resource-intensive nature of manufacturing electric engines and batteries. In comparison, ICE are simpler to manufacture and are primarily made from widely available materials like steel and aluminum.
The study does go on to explain that the electric vehicle will offset these increased emissions after driving about 50,000km (approx. 31,000 miles) IF they are using 100% renewable electricity. However, very few people have access to 100% renewable electricity currently, so they go on to compare against the global average and EU average of renewable vs non-renewable electricity: this just about doubled the number of miles needed to offset the EVs GHG emissions from manufacturing to 89,000-110,00km (approx. 55,000-69,000miles) depending on the model.
It is important to note here that in this study they compared the electric options against an ICE vehicle that was burning fossil fuels. This is significant because current estimates put the carbon footprint of renewable fuels, like Woodland BIO gasoline, at around 1/3 the impact of fossil fuels (approx. +30 Carbon Index Score) depending on specific production methods. This means the EV would need three times as many miles to offset its increased manufacturing emissions in comparison. However, the study assumed that all vehicles would be disposed of after 200,000km* (approx. 125,000 miles). Since 89,000km X 3 > 200,000km we can see that under these parameters, if the ICE vehicle is burning renewable fuel, such as Woodland BIO gasoline, then the EV would NEVER offset the increased emissions from manufacturing.
*We want to note here that Woodland BIO is not condoning disposing of cars after 125,000 miles, we are just quoting the parameters of the Polestar study.
This is comparing current electricity makeup against current technology and methods for producing renewable fuels. The argument could be made that if we reach 100% renewable electricity then the electric option could still offset emissions before reaching the end of its life. Then what? Well, the counterargument needs to be made that the technology and methods for producing renewable fuels will also become more sustainable as they are further developed. Woodland BIO’s objective, for example, is to become carbon-neutral certified with future iterations of the system, and there is a clear path of improvements that can be made to achieve this objective. With Woodland BIO’s process, there is even the possibility of becoming carbon-negative one day if enough improvements are made to operations and practices in later iterations of the system. So, the argument would still stand that if we can develop renewable fuel production then there is no reason to undertake the more environmentally costly approach of manufacturing EVs en masse.
Ultimately we believe that the best path forward will be a hybrid strategy: Yes, EVs can play a role in reducing GHG emissions in certain scenarios. However, we shouldn't overlook the potential of renewable fuels to decarbonize existing vehicles, which could prove a more immediate and less resource-intensive option.
It all comes back to the 4 R’s: we need to Reduce manufacturing by Reusing the vehicles we already have by Repairing them for as long as possible and powering them by Recycling our low-grade forest materials into sustainable fuels. Woodland BIO is determined to create solutions to climate change that adhere to these core tenants of sustainability, not only because it is what makes sense for the environment, but also because it is what makes business sense: drop-in solutions that work with existing infrastructure have long been favored in the world of tech because they provide immediate benefit with minimal barriers and are therefore less risky. Let’s bring that same approach to energy and transportation by investing in solutions that don’t require radical shifts in what we manufacture and how we distribute energy, but instead, slip seamlessly into our current mode of operating while bringing immediate benefits to the environment and communities.
Future articles in this series will delve deeper into other challenges in the transition to EVs, including the issues around lithium supply for batteries, the weight conundrum, charging station standards, and the energy production needed for EVs. Stay tuned as we continue to explore these complex issues in our shared journey toward sustainable transportation.
Want to learn more?