Like me, you've probably seen the Radio-Canada report that says electric vehicles aren't so good for the environment. The report refers to a CIRAIG study on the lifespan of different vehicles. First, the title is misleading because the article lists the conclusions from the table above: The electric vehicle, a logical choice in Quebec! So I went back and read the study in question to see if I came to the same conclusions as the author of the article.
"Hydro-Québec has commissioned the International Reference Centre for the Life Cycle of Products, Processes and Services (CIRAIG) to conduct a comparative life cycle analysis of the potential environmental impacts of electric vehicles and conventional vehicles in a Quebec context. Hydro-Québec's objective is to determine to what extent the use of an electric vehicle powered by Quebec electricity can be environmentally advantageous, compared to a conventional vehicle (i.e. with an internal combustion engine) over the life cycle of the vehicles studied.
The vehicle life cycle includes the stages of production of vehicle components and batteries, transportation from the production site to the user, use and end of life of the vehicle. The functional unit on which the study is based is:
“Traveling 150,000 km in Quebec with a vehicle put on the market in 2013” . 1
First, it's important to note that the vehicle we're referring to dates back to 2013. In technological terms, that takes us back to the age of the dinosaurs. Electric vehicles have come a long way since then. The Nissan Leaf, the vehicle we're using as an example, had a range of about 120 km at the time. The vehicle currently available for 2019 has a range of 240 km. Furthermore, the data we had at the time regarding battery degradation, as well as battery recycling, was still uncertain.
A very comprehensive study!
The five areas studied are human health, ecosystem quality, climate change, fossil resource depletion and mineral resource depletion.
- Human health : this category takes into account substances with toxic (carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic) and respiratory effects, climate change, producing ionizing radiation and contributing to the destruction of the ozone layer. In order to assess the damage factor, the severity of the disease potentially caused by these substances is expressed in DALY – Disabled Adjusted Life Years , a unit reflecting damage to human health;
- Quality of ecosystems : this category includes impacts related to aquatic ecotoxicity, terrestrial, oceanic and aquatic acidification, aquatic and marine eutrophication, the effects of ionizing radiation emissions on aquatic environments, climate change and land use. It is quantified as a fraction of potentially extinct species, for a given area and over a certain period of time (PDF*m²*year);
- Ecosystem resources and services : this category of damage is not operational at this stage of development of the method.
- Climate change (IPCC 2007): Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions absorb infrared radiation emitted by the Earth's surface, retaining thermal energy in the lower atmosphere. The increase in greenhouse gases over the last century has had the effect of increasing the average temperature of the atmosphere and oceans. The results for this impact category are typically those reported in various carbon footprint studies;
- Depletion of fossil resources : presents the consumption of fossil resources preventing their use by future generations;
- Depletion of mineral resources : presents the consumption of minerals preventing their use by future generations.
Potential impacts depending on the distance traveled by vehicles during their lifetime
You can see in the table, which was included in the study, that out of the 5 components, there is only one where the electric vehicle is more damaging than the gasoline vehicle. Even at 300,000 km, it does not manage to eliminate the consequences of the depletion of mineral resources. I am sure that my flat screen will not manage to work long enough for that either! So I finished the table to come to the conclusion that the electric vehicle will bring zero impact if it manages to travel 500,000 km.
So the aspect concerning the depletion of mineral resources is the only problem. Why is the journalist so concerned about this to the detriment of the other four? Maybe it cancels out all the other benefits of electric vehicles? So I looked into this aspect to better understand it. The study mentions that the mineral resources for manufacturing the battery are more problematic since the mechanical components of the vehicle are exactly the same as for a gasoline vehicle. Remember the 500,000 km mileage required to cancel out the negative effects of the depletion of mineral resources? It is unthinkable, except for a Tesla Model S made 100% with aluminum, to do this mileage but the battery itself should do a million km. We will come back to this later!
Not so rare lands!
The Radio-Canada article mentions the depletion of rare earths. However, the table above, which is included in the study, says the exact opposite. Look at the last column on the right, the only elements with problematic availability are lithium and cobalt, but before the global fleet is electrified, we will probably have changed technology! I predict more than 15 million vehicles by 2030.
As you can see in the table, earths are not that scarce, and it's not the electric vehicle that uses them the most. There are certainly more rare earths in civil and military airports than in all the electric cars on earth. The CIRAIG study also mentions that it did not take into account the second life of the battery, yet an important element in the life cycle of an electric car. The companies that use these batteries have already planned for their future use. For example, Tesla uses the batteries to make charging stations in various countries. The manufacturer Nissan is going down the same path, and other companies have announced that they will follow suit. So there is an important element to consider.
There remains the case of rare earths present in the motors of certain electric cars, mainly hybrids that must house an electric motor next to a combustion engine and where space is therefore more important. Neodymium, dysprosium, and samarium are the rare earths most commonly used to manufacture the permanent magnets that equip brushless synchronous motors. According to François Boucher, an electrical engineer, "They could very well do without them! All they have to do is assign the role of the magnets to an excitation coil. Models such as the Renault Zoé (the best-selling in Europe) or the Tesla (the best-selling in America) use this technology and their motors therefore do not contain rare earths. The important thing to understand is that electric cars can very well do without rare earths and that some, including the best-selling ones, contain almost none. With the possible exception of rare earths that could be found in micromotors such as those in window regulators, which are not specific to electric vehicles."
He adds this: "Second truth to reestablish: the batteries of electric vehicles currently on the market do not contain rare earths. On the other hand, oil refining and the catalytic converters of thermal cars, which cannot do without rare earths, are among the biggest consumers. As are many household, technological or industrial appliances which, strangely enough, and unlike electric vehicles, have never been singled out for this "defect". Twenty-six percent (26%) of rare earths used in the world are used as catalysts in the petroleum industry and in the catalytic converters of thermal engine cars. Rare earths, due to their electronic, magnetic, catalytic, optical, luminescent and mechanical properties, make them the vitamins of the technological industry and are used in a very large number of industrial applications. » The first hybrid vehicles, notably the Toyota Prius, were equipped with NiMH (Nickel Metal Hydride) batteries whose negative electrode (anode) was made of a lanthanum-pentanickel alloy (LaNi5). These batteries in the first generation hybrid vehicles contained around ten kilos of lanthanum, which is indeed a rare earth. But today this technology has been replaced by the family of lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries with much higher performance. They contain lithium, cobalt and nickel, but as mentioned above, these metals are not rare earths and do not pose the same problems.
Lithium-ion batteries primarily use aluminum, manganese, copper, and cobalt. Compared to the Congo, the birthplace of cobalt, several companies have decided to source raw materials elsewhere, now that the human conditions associated with manufacturing are well known.
In conclusion, even if the aspect of the depletion of mineral resources is more problematic than the others, it remains that this can be improved with time and innovative technology. If I had to choose, I believe it is better to favor a mode of transport that has less impact on health, ecosystems and climate change, but remember that a battery can travel a million km. The last aspect would therefore not be problematic if the study had taken into account the second life of the battery. Another study shows us the probable lifespan of different metals.
Good dinosaur juice!
Let's now look at the energy source of the two vehicles. As you can see in the table above, the oil that fuels the gas stations is so-called unconventional oil, oil that was obtained by highly polluting means. Tar sands pollute 5 liters of water for every liter of gasoline produced, and this water is practically impossible to recycle. We learned that only a portion is returned to the system. This is without taking into account the possibility of pipeline leaks. On the other hand, oil from the United States is a shale oil that is extracted by sending massive quantities of water inland to bring out the oil. Here again, the pollution of the water table can be catastrophic. Only a tiny portion of the oil used in Quebec is conventional oil.
What about the electricity produced in Quebec? We are the ecological champions when it comes to electricity production. Ninety-five percent of our electricity is produced by dams. Furthermore, we also pay the least for it. If we believe the economic balance table, we would benefit from using less oil from everywhere except here and increasing the use of hydroelectricity. Another important element is the average consumption of gasoline vehicles. The vehicle fleet has an average age of 7 years, and the number of light trucks on our roads, which includes SUVs and full-size trucks, has surpassed the car category. We can therefore believe that this consumption is very high.
Before recycling
Electric vehicle batteries are not recycled. No, they are reused first! Electric vehicle owners know that their batteries will not have a comparable range throughout the vehicle's use. An acceptable standard is a range of 70% compared to a new battery. Once this value is acquired, the owner can resell their vehicle to a company distributing local energy storage stations. This is where the battery will continue to make mileage...virtual of course! For how long? We know that what degrades a battery the most is to perform complete recharge cycles. We now also know, thanks to the work of Jeff Dahn pHd, that maintaining a charge at the maximum or minimum value of a battery degrades it prematurely. Therefore, a charge maintenance system as close as possible to 50% can contribute to the sustainable life of this battery. It is therefore likely that these batteries will be used for many years! What happens to a gasoline vehicle after 300,000 km? It goes straight to the final stage!
At the end of their life, the two vehicles are comparable. Most parts of both vehicles are recyclable. Electric vehicle batteries are 95% recyclable. Other parts are virtually the same. The CIRAIG study mentions several global studies that favor the electric vehicle in certain aspects or that have no clear favorite. These studies have a problem regarding lifespan: some have estimated a life cycle of 150,000 km while others have done so up to 230,000 km. They were also conducted in places where electricity production was much more polluting than in Quebec, but the two studies that considered climate change as a preferred impact category give the electric vehicle the favorite.
In the CIRAIG study, the conclusion is as follows: “ Conventional vehicle: overall, we note that…
- The use stage, and particularly the vehicle emissions during it, are the main contributor to the environmental profile for the categories Human health , Quality of ecosystems , Climate Change and Fossil Resource Depletion ;
- CO2 emissions during the use stage are the main contributor to the damage categories Human health And Quality of ecosystems : the influence of the impact category Climate change on the categories of damage Human health (modeled e.g. through flooding and disease proliferation) and Quality of ecosystems (e.g. via desertification) is therefore more important than that of the impact category toxicity (human health) or the category ecotoxicity (Quality of ecosystems) associated with the inhalation of vehicle emissions;
- The vehicle production stage also proves to be a significant contributor to all categories of environmental impacts, particularly for the category Depletion of mineral resources ;
Conclusion
At the end of the study, there is an appendix which is the reviewers' report. In all serious studies, this section is essential to ensure the veracity of the elements. Some corrections are proposed so that the study does not appear favorable to the client, which is Hydro-Québec, since this study is public. If I had to do the same thing with the Radio-Canada article, I would have these questions for the author:
-Why put so much emphasis on one aspect, which is negative in relation to electric vehicles, and little on the other four which are nevertheless very advantageous?
– These four components speak to a direct impact on human health, ecosystem health, climate change, and the depletion of fossil fuels. At a time when several studies demonstrate the urgency of acting on these four elements, why not emphasize the positive rather than the negative?
-Speaking of the negative side, who decided on the title?
STOP THE PRESS!!!!
Radio-Canada has just added another layer regarding a European study that is very unfavorable to electric vehicles. The article begins: "A European Union report, published Thursday, concludes that the life cycle of electric vehicles has a significant impact on the environment, sometimes even worse than gasoline-powered vehicles in countries that generate their electricity using fossil fuels. "
Yet, on the European Environment Agency's own website, the headline is: "EEA report confirms: Electric cars are better for the climate and air quality." The article begins: "Battery-electric cars emit fewer greenhouse gases and air pollutants over their life cycle than petrol and diesel cars, according to a report published today by the European Environment Agency (EEA). Promoting renewable energy and the circular economy—including shared use of vehicles and designing products for reuse and recycling—will maximize the benefits of switching to electric vehicles."
What should we understand?
https://mern.gouv.qc.ca/energie/statistiques/statistiques-import-export-petrole.jsp
