Volvo Carbon Footprint report
Discussion
Anyone else seen the Volvo Carbon Footprint report comparing petrol and electric XC40 cars - so a direct comparison between otherwise identical cars from the same company:
https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/applica...
not sure when it was released, (poss. Autumn 2021) but haven't seen anything on PH about it...
some interesting stats on the manufacturing difference (electric far bigger impact than petrol) and therefore the number of miles needed before the EV breaks even in terms of impact:
The top figure is indicative of our market - the second is EU based where there is far higher nuclear power generation - the last is if you manage to run it completely on energy produced by wind (not likely!)
There are assumptions in the report (lifetime use of 200,000km / 125,000 miles) and it doesn't seem to touch on replacement of EV batteries...
A Which report showed that 1/8th of SUV EVs had to have a battery replacement (but very small % of smaller cars) however, the development cycles of batteries suggests that this will become less of an issue to the point at which it can be factored out - increased ability to recycle batteries will also help.
It also doesn't look at the developments in fuel used for an ICE - carbon neutral synthetic fuels are being tested now - they work by being industrially created and in fact consume CO2 in their creation... they are being tested now in race cars etc.:
https://www.carscoops.com/2022/03/subaru-brz-conce...
I think we are at an interesting point in development - in my mind there is no clarity that says that EVs are better for the environment - clearly the volvo report shows that they are not at the point of manufacture (c. 70% worse) - equally clearly they give better impact at point of use and that is undeniable - however, there are a number of interesting developments ahead which suggest that we might not all be going EV, waiting hours to recharge and running out of power in the middle of Dartmoor
It isn't often that you get so direct a comparison as the volvo report and it does isolate the differences between two methods of propulsion if the rest of the car is otherwise the same.
https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/applica...
not sure when it was released, (poss. Autumn 2021) but haven't seen anything on PH about it...
some interesting stats on the manufacturing difference (electric far bigger impact than petrol) and therefore the number of miles needed before the EV breaks even in terms of impact:
The top figure is indicative of our market - the second is EU based where there is far higher nuclear power generation - the last is if you manage to run it completely on energy produced by wind (not likely!)
There are assumptions in the report (lifetime use of 200,000km / 125,000 miles) and it doesn't seem to touch on replacement of EV batteries...
A Which report showed that 1/8th of SUV EVs had to have a battery replacement (but very small % of smaller cars) however, the development cycles of batteries suggests that this will become less of an issue to the point at which it can be factored out - increased ability to recycle batteries will also help.
It also doesn't look at the developments in fuel used for an ICE - carbon neutral synthetic fuels are being tested now - they work by being industrially created and in fact consume CO2 in their creation... they are being tested now in race cars etc.:
https://www.carscoops.com/2022/03/subaru-brz-conce...
I think we are at an interesting point in development - in my mind there is no clarity that says that EVs are better for the environment - clearly the volvo report shows that they are not at the point of manufacture (c. 70% worse) - equally clearly they give better impact at point of use and that is undeniable - however, there are a number of interesting developments ahead which suggest that we might not all be going EV, waiting hours to recharge and running out of power in the middle of Dartmoor
It isn't often that you get so direct a comparison as the volvo report and it does isolate the differences between two methods of propulsion if the rest of the car is otherwise the same.akirk said:
It also doesn't look at the developments in fuel used for an ICE - carbon neutral synthetic fuels are being tested now - they work by being industrially created and in fact consume CO2 in their creation... they are being tested now in race cars etc.:
https://www.carscoops.com/2022/03/subaru-brz-conce...
I think we are at an interesting point in development - in my mind there is no clarity that says that EVs are better for the environment - clearly the volvo report shows that they are not at the point of manufacture (c. 70% worse) - equally clearly they give better impact at point of use and that is undeniable - however, there are a number of interesting developments ahead which suggest that we might not all be going EV, waiting hours to recharge and running out of power in the middle of Dartmoor It isn't often that you get so direct a comparison as the volvo report and it does isolate the differences between two methods of propulsion if the rest of the car is otherwise the same.
I'm at work so I can't see the pictures you posted but I did watch an interesting video not long ago on the synthetic fuels being developed mainly by Porsche as I'm lead to believe. It basically comes down to the fact that synthetic fuels won't be able to be produced in a useful capacity. If memory serves, Porsche expected to be able to start producing something like 2.8 billion tonnes of fuel per year but the UK alone consumes something like 56 billion tonnes per year. I think the video was posted by Car Throttle so to be taken with a pinch of salt but it seemed to be factual. It said that the synthetic fuels Porsche were interested in were basically to keep old Porsches going.https://www.carscoops.com/2022/03/subaru-brz-conce...
I think we are at an interesting point in development - in my mind there is no clarity that says that EVs are better for the environment - clearly the volvo report shows that they are not at the point of manufacture (c. 70% worse) - equally clearly they give better impact at point of use and that is undeniable - however, there are a number of interesting developments ahead which suggest that we might not all be going EV, waiting hours to recharge and running out of power in the middle of Dartmoor
It isn't often that you get so direct a comparison as the volvo report and it does isolate the differences between two methods of propulsion if the rest of the car is otherwise the same.RazerSauber said:
I'm at work so I can't see the pictures you posted but I did watch an interesting video not long ago on the synthetic fuels being developed mainly by Porsche as I'm lead to believe. It basically comes down to the fact that synthetic fuels won't be able to be produced in a useful capacity. If memory serves, Porsche expected to be able to start producing something like 2.8 billion tonnes of fuel per year but the UK alone consumes something like 56 billion tonnes per year. I think the video was posted by Car Throttle so to be taken with a pinch of salt but it seemed to be factual. It said that the synthetic fuels Porsche were interested in were basically to keep old Porsches going.
That is fair I think - I suspect though that our future is likely to be a mixture of technologies, if you see a future where it is 100% EV then that will naturally change the landscape in terms of type of vehicles, whereas keeping a mixture of alternatives in the pot would give more flexibility - want to run your 250GTO, or buy a new Ferrari - use synthetic fuels, want to have a city run-around, buy EVThere is nothing intrinsically wrong with having an EV - they are just not the universal panacea people claim, and while increasingly people are finding an ability to use them, for those whose life patterns make it difficult, then it is good to have alternatives...
Also, let us not forget that the underlying commentary from the Volvo report is that you don't need to increase mpg by much / reduce emissions by much to push ICE back past EV in terms of lifetime impact - the diagrams above / the report shows clearly that you need a lifetime of 146,000km to break even in the UK - that is 91,250 miles - my classic RR has only done 109,000 in 28 years - with a battery life expectancy of 12 years, there would have been 2 changes of batteries in an EV making it far harder for the EV to match the lifetime impact.
For me the takeaway message is that EV is not the complete answer, and we are likely to end up with a mixture of options - it certainly confirms my decision to not go EV yet (and therefore the recent purchase of an f-type!)
I did a post on it, but cant find it.
My take away was its only better for the environment if you keep the ev for multiple years.
If you lease an electric XC40 for say 3 years, you have to do over 40,000 miles before you even start to pay off the carbon debt.
If you had a petrol car and kept it for 10 years its much cleaner than leasing an EV every 3 years.
The industry and politicians are too focused on tailpipe emissions and not looking at the bigger picture. Lets make our air cleaner and instead farm our filth out to the 3rd world where we cant see it, makes us feel good and thats all that matters
My take away was its only better for the environment if you keep the ev for multiple years.
If you lease an electric XC40 for say 3 years, you have to do over 40,000 miles before you even start to pay off the carbon debt.
If you had a petrol car and kept it for 10 years its much cleaner than leasing an EV every 3 years.
The industry and politicians are too focused on tailpipe emissions and not looking at the bigger picture. Lets make our air cleaner and instead farm our filth out to the 3rd world where we cant see it, makes us feel good and thats all that matters
Edited by TheOctaneAddict on Tuesday 29th March 10:03
Most EV owners will have special EV only tariffs which are 100% renewable energy as they are cheaper (and only available to them). So 29k miles (and I expect Volvos numbers to be really conservative) is a lot better than an ICE. It’s pretty damning for ICE.
Did they include the carbon cost of the fuel production as well?
Also those carbon neutral fuels are bull. Never going to be commercially viable. Eventually they will keep a few very expensive toys on the road and possibly keep some motorsports going. We’ll all be in EVs eventually whether we like it or not.
Did they include the carbon cost of the fuel production as well?
Also those carbon neutral fuels are bull. Never going to be commercially viable. Eventually they will keep a few very expensive toys on the road and possibly keep some motorsports going. We’ll all be in EVs eventually whether we like it or not.
Edited by delta0 on Tuesday 29th March 10:27
TheOctaneAddict said:
If you lease an electric XC40 for say 3 years, you have to do over 40,000 miles before you even start to pay off the carbon debt.
If you had a petrol car and kept it for 10 years its much cleaner than leasing an EV every 3 years.
Im genuinely not sure if you are being serious with the above, Do you immediately crush your cars after you are done with them?If you had a petrol car and kept it for 10 years its much cleaner than leasing an EV every 3 years.
akirk said:
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with having an EV - they are just not the universal panacea people claim, and while increasingly people are finding an ability to use them, for those whose life patterns make it difficult, then it is good to have alternatives...
This, 1000%. Pretending that one solution fits all is the biggest mistake many do. For some uses an EV is perfect, for others it isn't, the same goes for petrol and diesel (how many blocked DPF due to short journeys have we seen?).
We now have the chance to have one more alternative to pick. This can't be bad, unless someone wants that one alternative becoming the only option.
TheOctaneAddict said:
I did a post on it, but cant find it.
If you had a petrol car and kept it for 10 years its much cleaner than leasing an EV every 3 years.
I agree with what you're saying, however I feel that the person that leases an EV every 3 years will be the one that changes an ICE vehicle also so often. If you had a petrol car and kept it for 10 years its much cleaner than leasing an EV every 3 years.
If we'd all keep our vehicles for longer, we would do the environment a favour... more than bickering if EV is better or not than ICE.
It's been pretty widely discussed in the EV sub-forum.
Firstly, the first number is the global average - that's not the UK, we have a much higher amount of renewable energy than the global average so the EU wide number is more applicable.
Secondly there is more to pollution than CO2 - exhaust emissions are full of all sorts of stuff that in a couple of generations time people will be amazed was ever permitted, much like how we view smog now.
Finally you have to remember that, just like any other car, a BEV doesn't somehow vanish off the face of the earth once it's initial owner changes it. Over time it continues to be lower emission than alternatives so although front-loaded in terms of CO2 emissions at the point of delivery, over the life of the vehicle the emissions are lower. How much lower should improve with time as we move further towards low CO2 energy production.
So by all means do take this factor into account if you're looking at the green credentials - but as other posters have said you have to look at the full picture.
It's moot really, as adoption is being driven by the "this is a no-brainer" levels of tax currently available on BEVs on salary sacrifice schemes.
Firstly, the first number is the global average - that's not the UK, we have a much higher amount of renewable energy than the global average so the EU wide number is more applicable.
Secondly there is more to pollution than CO2 - exhaust emissions are full of all sorts of stuff that in a couple of generations time people will be amazed was ever permitted, much like how we view smog now.
Finally you have to remember that, just like any other car, a BEV doesn't somehow vanish off the face of the earth once it's initial owner changes it. Over time it continues to be lower emission than alternatives so although front-loaded in terms of CO2 emissions at the point of delivery, over the life of the vehicle the emissions are lower. How much lower should improve with time as we move further towards low CO2 energy production.
So by all means do take this factor into account if you're looking at the green credentials - but as other posters have said you have to look at the full picture.
It's moot really, as adoption is being driven by the "this is a no-brainer" levels of tax currently available on BEVs on salary sacrifice schemes.
JD said:
Im genuinely not sure if you are being serious with the above, Do you immediately crush your cars after you are done with them?
Yes, its great fun.Of course not, im talking about from a personal stand point and measuring your own carbon footprint, which is what politicians want us to do.
People think that them leasing a new ev every 3 years is helping clean up the planet, when in reality its probably the 2/3rd owner that gets to really benefit.
Some info in here - https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/analys...
"Polestar’s calculations, based on the average global energy mix, show it would take 70,000 miles before the 2 had a CO2 advantage over the petrol XC40."
TheOctaneAddict said:
I did a post on it, but cant find it.
My take away was its only better for the environment if you keep the ev for multiple years.
If you lease an electric XC40 for say 3 years, you have to do over 40,000 miles before you even start to pay off the carbon debt.
If you had a petrol car and kept it for 10 years its much cleaner than leasing an EV every 3 years.
The industry and politicians are too focused on tailpipe emissions and not looking at the bigger picture. Lets make our air cleaner and instead farm our filth out to the 3rd world where we cant see it, makes us feel good and thats all that matters
All this is typical of the midset of the average gullible left-wing climate activist (they all seem to flock to it) as they have a very short vision and so long as they feel it's sorted in the then and now then all good (hence why the true demented zealots like Hallam preach everyone basically turns back the clock to the middle ages). They literally have no long term vision and see 3 feet in front of them.My take away was its only better for the environment if you keep the ev for multiple years.
If you lease an electric XC40 for say 3 years, you have to do over 40,000 miles before you even start to pay off the carbon debt.
If you had a petrol car and kept it for 10 years its much cleaner than leasing an EV every 3 years.
The industry and politicians are too focused on tailpipe emissions and not looking at the bigger picture. Lets make our air cleaner and instead farm our filth out to the 3rd world where we cant see it, makes us feel good and thats all that matters
Edited by TheOctaneAddict on Tuesday 29th March 10:03
TheOctaneAddict said:
People think that them leasing a new ev every 3 years is helping clean up the planet, when in reality its probably the 2/3rd owner that gets to really benefit.
So isn't that then exactly what they are doing by leasing a new car that the 2nd owner couldn't afford new?TheOctaneAddict said:
I did a post on it, but cant find it.
My take away was its only better for the environment if you keep the ev for multiple years.
If you lease an electric XC40 for say 3 years, you have to do over 40,000 miles before you even start to pay off the carbon debt.
If you had a petrol car and kept it for 10 years its much cleaner than leasing an EV every 3 years.
The industry and politicians are too focused on tailpipe emissions and not looking at the bigger picture. Lets make our air cleaner and instead farm our filth out to the 3rd world where we cant see it, makes us feel good and thats all that matters
29k miles. Plus someone else will own the car after. Also the batteries are usually reused as wall batteries etc. as they do have 500k miles life (1m in the not distant future). My take away was its only better for the environment if you keep the ev for multiple years.
If you lease an electric XC40 for say 3 years, you have to do over 40,000 miles before you even start to pay off the carbon debt.
If you had a petrol car and kept it for 10 years its much cleaner than leasing an EV every 3 years.
The industry and politicians are too focused on tailpipe emissions and not looking at the bigger picture. Lets make our air cleaner and instead farm our filth out to the 3rd world where we cant see it, makes us feel good and thats all that matters
Edited by TheOctaneAddict on Tuesday 29th March 10:03
125k miles life; sure I read recently that average for scrapped cars is 111k, assume that will include damaged vehicles but doesn’t say much for people looking after stuff. My company cars were changed at 3yrs or 120k whichever comes first, always thought it should be 120k full stop; I always hit mileage first but know of plenty that don’t hit 40k when changed.
No mention of transport/delivery system effects on environment given where most of these ev’s are manufactured.
No mention of transport/delivery system effects on environment given where most of these ev’s are manufactured.
Ardennes92 said:
My company cars were changed at 3yrs or 120k whichever comes first, always thought it should be 120k full stop; I always hit mileage first but know of plenty that don’t hit 40k when changed.
Agree: I was due to change mine later this year after three years as before the pandemic that would have equated to 120.000 Km, but in reality I have only 70.000 Km on the clock, so I suggested to keep it for another year, which company actually was happy to do. JD said:
So isn't that then exactly what they are doing by leasing a new car that the 2nd owner couldn't afford new?
Its a fair point, its how you judge it I guess.Yes you are bringing an EV into the 2nd hand market, but you're also creating a load more carbon to build another.
It such a complex topic really, I don't understand it all, just trying to add my thoughts.
These payback soundbites are meaningless without looking at the bigger picture.
First things first, what is today's carbon footprint for fossil-fueled cars in the UK.
Annually it's about 60 million tons for the fuel being burned by 32 million cars, and about 10 million tons for the production of new ICE cars, say 1.6 million cars, or about 5% of the total number of cars on the road. Call it 70 million tons.
Let's assume the most extreme case, an overnight switch to all new cars being EV. Due to the higher production footprint, the overall footprint might be 5-10 million tons higher, so we move from 70 million tons something between 75-80 million tons. Basically, we don't buy enough new cars each year to make much of an immediate impact to the overall footprint, whatever we do.
Looking longer term, within 10 years the fleet of EVs should get to about the same size as ICEs, say 16 million cars each.
In that timeframe we should also see a higher degree of renewables used in both production and use of EVs, so the important question is what does the footprint look like a decade down the track.
For the remaining ICEs on the road, we've reduced the overall footprint for those cars to 30 million tons.
For the EVs on the road the in-use carbon footprint might be somewhere between 5-10 million tons, and the production footprint is likely to have improved somewhat, let's say it's now around 10-15 million tons.
Call it 20 million tons for the EVs in use and being produced.
So 10 years out we have an overall footprint of 50 million tons vs 70 million today.
Basically, we are going to have to accept a small increase in footprint in the short term to achieve a much better longer term outlook.
Ironic that we are accusing the 'zealots' of short-term vision.
First things first, what is today's carbon footprint for fossil-fueled cars in the UK.
Annually it's about 60 million tons for the fuel being burned by 32 million cars, and about 10 million tons for the production of new ICE cars, say 1.6 million cars, or about 5% of the total number of cars on the road. Call it 70 million tons.
Let's assume the most extreme case, an overnight switch to all new cars being EV. Due to the higher production footprint, the overall footprint might be 5-10 million tons higher, so we move from 70 million tons something between 75-80 million tons. Basically, we don't buy enough new cars each year to make much of an immediate impact to the overall footprint, whatever we do.
Looking longer term, within 10 years the fleet of EVs should get to about the same size as ICEs, say 16 million cars each.
In that timeframe we should also see a higher degree of renewables used in both production and use of EVs, so the important question is what does the footprint look like a decade down the track.
For the remaining ICEs on the road, we've reduced the overall footprint for those cars to 30 million tons.
For the EVs on the road the in-use carbon footprint might be somewhere between 5-10 million tons, and the production footprint is likely to have improved somewhat, let's say it's now around 10-15 million tons.
Call it 20 million tons for the EVs in use and being produced.
So 10 years out we have an overall footprint of 50 million tons vs 70 million today.
Basically, we are going to have to accept a small increase in footprint in the short term to achieve a much better longer term outlook.
Ironic that we are accusing the 'zealots' of short-term vision.
delta0 said:
Most EV owners will have special EV only tariffs which are 100% renewable energy as they are cheaper (and only available to them). So 29k miles (and I expect Volvos numbers to be really conservative) is a lot better than an ICE. It’s pretty damning for ICE.
Probably more damning for your understanding of how the grid works sadly. Despite the claims of the power companies, there is no way that your house can be powered by 100% Renewable energy unless you have your own generation onsite. Otherwise you get it from the grid at exactly the same generation mix as everyone else - so probably about 60% from Gas today, with some coal thrown in for good measure. Unless you have some sort of funky smart meter that can filter electrons based on their source as they come into your house what you claim isn't really technically possible. What you'll find is the power companies probably offset the carbon emissions by planting some trees somewhere.
I think the question of how long a car remains in use is a good one. It has always intrigued me that the UK is so very focused on new cars whereas a country like France seems to have a very different philosophy (generalisation I know, but there are some elements of truth in it).
When you look at the diagram above, the impact of manufacturing is still very significant - and with EVs being 70% dirtier from the factory (Volvo's figures), perhaps a bigger focus should be placed on length of ownership. There is an argument that the car tax rules help persuade, but there could be for example an incentive to keep a car longer by tapering the tax more etc. It would also be interesting to see the carbon impact of repairing cars factored in - an EV has fewer moving parts and therefore ostensibly a cheaper maintenance programme, but understanding real life figures would be helpful - reports like this start that process, but don't give us everything...
When you look at the diagram above, the impact of manufacturing is still very significant - and with EVs being 70% dirtier from the factory (Volvo's figures), perhaps a bigger focus should be placed on length of ownership. There is an argument that the car tax rules help persuade, but there could be for example an incentive to keep a car longer by tapering the tax more etc. It would also be interesting to see the carbon impact of repairing cars factored in - an EV has fewer moving parts and therefore ostensibly a cheaper maintenance programme, but understanding real life figures would be helpful - reports like this start that process, but don't give us everything...
bodhi said:
Otherwise you get it from the grid at exactly the same generation mix as everyone else - so probably about 60% from Gas today, with some coal thrown in for good measure.
Is it 60% average throughout the year, or does the single point snapshot trump the numbers that actually matter when it comes to defending our sacred ICEs. 
The bit I don't get is the "all my energy comes from renewable" comments. It may be my naivety but surely the shortfall in energy production is still coming from fossil fuels. By that I mean, if we all used less I doubt they would turn off the wind farms, they would lower the fossil fuel generation.
If I'm on a fossil fuel only tarriff and the bloke next door is on a green only one... How does that work. It's just quota stuff isn't it.
If these green only suppliers (most middle men anyway) f
ked off then surely the company I'm with (hypothetically) would then use some of that green energy?
If I'm on a fossil fuel only tarriff and the bloke next door is on a green only one... How does that work. It's just quota stuff isn't it.
If these green only suppliers (most middle men anyway) f
ked off then surely the company I'm with (hypothetically) would then use some of that green energy?Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff