Absolutely, and they must be measured by where the individual lives.
If you want the data, I highly recommend the paper at
Global Warming Emissions and Fuel-Cost Savings of Electric Cars (2012) | Union of Concerned Scientists
This is based on the 2009 grid, which has gotten cleaner since then.
But in 2009, 45% of the population in 2009 lived in an area where the typical EV would generate less green house gases (GHG) than a gas car that gets 51+ mpg. Heck, in upstate NY the EV would get the equivalent of a 110mpg car.
Even on pure coal generated electricity, the typical EV would generate the same GHGs as a 30mpg car. The fleet average is less than that (26mpg as I recall).
Ok, got some time to get back to some of these points, but first:
To the some other posters to this thread, yes, I (and a few others) find the subject very interesting. I don't go into other thread topics that don't interest me (and there are plenty of them) and tell those people to 'get a life' and make snide comments about 'ignore lists'. Back to the thread...
Yes, I saw a bit of the link you referenced. I'll try to check it out in more detail, but it does seem a lot more favorable than the one I had been referencing from Scientific American (edit/add:
link ). I didn't get the impression that the SA article had an 'ax to grind' (it's pretty easy to find those if that is what one is looking for), and I don't know if the UoCC might have any tendency to bias to the positive or not. It's complicated and might just be legitimate differences in methodology.
Either way, while EVs may be positive for the environment, in many cases it's going to be pretty marginal. So even using their numbers, from the below quote, we could also say that for over half the country (55%; 38% plus 17%) a high mpg hybrid vehicle would be as good or better for GHG (and at a lower purchase price, and no 'range anxiety'). And in 17% of the country,
the EV would produce more GHG than a high-mpg hybrid.
Nearly half of Americans (45%) live in the “best” regions where EVs produce lower global warming emissions than even the most fuel-efficient gasoline hybrids on the market today (greater than 50 mpg).
Another third (38%) live in “better” areas where EVs produce emissions comparable to the best gasoline hybrid vehicles (41 – 50 mpg).
A minority (17%) reside in “good” regions where emissions from EVs are comparable to the most fuel-efficient non-hybrid gasoline vehicles (31 – 40 mpg).
And what about sulfur, mercury, particulates, etc from coal? GHG isn't the only concern. It seems that would weigh it towards ICE/hybrids. And I would think the ecological impact of coal mining is worse than oil drilling.
Re-reading that quote, I have to say that my 'bias detector' is twitching a bit. Forty-five % is 'less than half' - period. Calling it 'almost half' looks like subtle attempt to plant a positive in the reader's mind. And look how they change the comparison mid-stream from 'the most', to 'the best' hybrids to 'non-hybrids'. As the grid gets dirtier, they keep lowering the bar for comparison.
But even if an EV is better overall, the average delta nation-wide doesn't look to be that huge, even with these GHG numbers. Couple that with the reality that EVs are expensive, and that range anxiety is very real for very many people, and that means we really can't expect EVs to make up any significant % of vehicle miles. So the benefit to the environment per vehicle is going to be a fairly small percent times a small % of vehicles. So why all the hoopla over EVs?
RE 'range anxiety': I've thought about that
' I'll just use me second car ' approach before, but I've had too many times when I had to expectantly switch from my one car to my another, so I need both cars to handle range. I'm not keen on paying a premium for a car that can't fill all my needs. Getting a rental or making other arrangements at the last minute would have been a real pain. Personal choice.
I also object to the 'Zero Pollution' title that the govt has assigned to EVs. A lot of people will take that at face value, and I think that has increased public support for EVs, and it is not legitimate. You and I know that really means 'zero tailpipe emissions', but even that would be interpreted incorrectly by many.
RE Subsidies: I'm going to skip the political issues, and for this conversation let's just hypothetically assume that most everyone thinks the govt should be supporting the adoption of EVs. Even given that, I would say that purchase subsidies are the absolute worst use of that money.
I can't imagine that the subsidy was a make/break deal for even a handful of people who bought a Tesla. C'mon, a specialty vehicle at +$100K that screams 'green' to many people? They bought it because it was an EV, and/or for the performance, and/or for 'green' bragging rights. That's fine, but they would have bought it w/o a $7,500 incentive. You have to be a person of some means to even be thinking about a +$100K sports car.
And even if some of those sales were due to the subsidy, what does that accomplish? A few incremental sales will not significantly move the cost curve for production. That money was thrown away. It would have been far better to use it to fund research on batteries (though I think there is already plenty of research and motivation to produce better batteries).
And if the subsidies are supposed to be helping to improve the environment, why not limit them to those areas with the cleanest power grid?
This is already too long, so I'll leave the solar panel and EV discussion for later.
Just to end on a positive, I must admit I'm a bit jealous of your ability to buy a Tesla. All other points aside, it must be a real kick to push the accelerator on that thing and feel the torque going to work. Or cruise along in near silence knowing you
can punch it if you want! It's an impressive vehicle for sure.
-ERD50