With all the hoopla about recent election and some of the bizarre and disingenuous things that Joe Biden is rushing to do before his term expires, there has been a dearth of any propaganda on ‘climate change,’ and how the libs want to save us from some unspecified future thing. In perusing some of the things I have written in the past, I came across my blog from 11/15/22, titled “embodied emissions.”
The following is a reprint of that blog:
Prior to reading an article from “tech crunch.com” by Mark Mills, I had never heard of “embodied emissions.” After reading a few salient points from that Mills piece, it becomes clear why “embodied emissions” is a dirty word that is, by necessity, stricken from from the Go Green EV Bible.
(If you should desire to read this long but very informative article go to:
“https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/22/the-tough-calculus-of-emissions-and-the-future-of-evs/“)
Here are but a few of some important things you need to know about “embodied emissions” from that Mills article:
“A growing body of research points to the likelihood that widespread replacement of conventional cars with EVs would likely have a relatively small impact on global emissions. And it’s even possible that the outcome would increase emissions.
The issue is not primarily about the emissions resulting from producing electricity. Instead, it’s what we know and don’t know about what happens before an EV is delivered to a customer, namely, the “embodied” emissions arising from the labyrinthine supply chains to obtain and process all the materials needed to fabricate batteries.
All products entail embodied emissions that are “hidden” upstream in production processes, whether it’s a hamburger, a house, a smartphone or a battery. To see the implications at the macro level, credit France’s High Climate Council for a study issued last year. The analysis found that France’s claim of achieving a national decline in carbon dioxide emissions was illusory. Emissions had in fact increased and were some 70% higher than reported once the embodied emissions inherent in the country’s imports were counted.
One review of 50 academic studies found estimates for embodied emissions to fabricate a single EV battery ranged from a low of about eight tons to as high as 20 tons of CO2. Another recent technical analysis put the range at about four to 14 tons. The high end of those ranges is nearly as much CO2 as is produced by the lifetime of fuel burned by an efficient conventional car. Again, that’s before the EV is delivered to a customer and driven its first mile.
Embodied emissions can be devilishly difficult to accurately quantify, and nowhere are there more complexities and uncertainties than with EVs. While an EV self-evidently emits nothing while driving, about 80% of its total lifetime emissions arise from the combination of the embodied energy in fabricating the battery and then in “fabricating” electricity to power the vehicle. The remaining comes from manufacturing the non-fuel parts of the car. That ratio is inverted for a conventional car where about 80% of lifecycle emissions come I directly from fuel burned while driving, and the rest comes from the embodied energy to make the car and fabricate gasoline.”
To me, until there is some mention of the “embodied emissions” in the discussions of EVs, any conclusions about the CO2 benefits of EVs is like playing Three-card Monte, a classic “short con” in which the mark has no chance whatsoever of winning, at any point in the game.
11/15/22
After the upcoming Trump inauguration on 1/20/25, I doubt that there will be any pushing of EVs on the general public, who have little interest in them. Whatever happens with the EV craze, do not forget about embodied emissions.
1/1/25
