Electric Vehicles May Be Worse for the Environment than Gasoline-Powered Ones

by Hans Bader

Electric vehicles require enormous damage to the environment just to produce their batteries — 250 tons of mining is required for a single battery, according to Real Clear Energy. Switching to electric cars would require a radical expansion of mining across the world, and the minerals for the car batteries will be refined mainly using the coal-powered electric grid of China, the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases.

Yet states are starting to mandate electric vehicles. Nine states, including California, have now decided to ban gasoline-powered cars by 2035, requiring that all cars sold be electric instead. In 2021, Virginia’s Democratic-controlled legislature passed a law adopting California standards for Virginia vehicles, so Virginia also will ban gasoline-powered cars in 2035, unless that law is repealed, as Republicans seek to do (the Republican-controlled Virginia House of Delegates voted to repeal the ban on gas-powered cars in 2023, but the Democratic-controlled Virginia state Senate kept the ban in place).

Real Clear Energy describes the challenges of switching to electric vehicles (EVs):

a typical EV battery weighs about 1,000 pounds….That half-ton battery is made from a wide range of minerals including copper, nickel, aluminum, graphite, cobalt, manganese, and of course, lithium. And to get the materials to fabricate that half-ton battery requires digging up and processing some 250 tons of the earth somewhere on the planet…80%–90% of relevant minerals are mined and refined outside the U.S. and E.U. and will be for a long time regardless of subsidies. And, since China refines 50%–90% of the world’s suite of energy minerals for EVs, it’s relevant that its grid is two-thirds coal-fired—and will be for a long time.

Moreover, compared to building and fueling a gasoline-powered car for a ten year period, an electric vehicle “entails a ten-fold greater extraction and handling of materials from the earth, and far, far more acreage of land disturbed and, unfortunately, often polluted….the mines operating and planned can’t supply even a small fraction of the 400% to 7000% increase in demand for minerals that will be needed within a decade to meet the [electric vehicle mandate]. What’s relevant is that the IEA [International Energy Agency] has told us we’ll need hundreds of new mega-mines, and that it takes 10 to 16 years to find, plan and open a new mine.”

Since most of these mines will not open before 2035, the minerals needed for electric car batteries will be in increasingly short supply as 2035 approaches, causing price spikes for car batteries, which typically cost up to $20,000 in 2022. That means the price of electric vehicles, which typically cost more than gasoline-powered cars, could skyrocket. Real Clear Energy‘s conclusions are echoed by The Guardian, which notes that a “transition to electric vehicles” in the U.S. “could require three times as much lithium as is currently produced for the entire global market, causing needless water shortages…and ecosystem destruction.”

It is sometimes claimed that electric vehicles result in less emissions of greenhouse gases than gasoline-powered cars. But this claim is based mostly on flawed studies that assume electric car batteries are smaller than they in fact are, radically understating their environmental footprint and the greenhouse gases emitted to produce them.

As Real Clear Energy explains, “nearly all studies making emissions claims are worse than guesses,” typically cherry-picking “low numbers” for battery size:

A meta-study of 50 different technical studies found the estimates of emissions varied by over 300%. And, worse, that analysis exposed the fact that most emissions claims were based on assuming use of a small 30 kWh battery. That’s one-third the size of batteries actually used in most EVs. Triple the battery size and you triple the upstream emissions – and you triple the demand and thus price-pressure for the minerals.

A “net increase in global emissions” could easily result from the transition to electric vehicles, it says. That is because the mining needed for car batteries would not only expand massively, but require mining low-grade ores that require enormous amounts of energy and greenhouse gas emissions to dig up and process:

Geologists have long documented that ore grades have been and will continue declining. That’s because global ore grades are declining – for the non-cognoscenti, that means for each new ton of mineral there’s a steady and unavoidable increase in the quantity of rock dug up and processed. A decrease of just 0.4% in copper ore grade will require seven times more energy to access the copper.

If a significant fraction of motorists switch to electric vehicles, that could strain the power grid. CNBC says that when “half of all new cars sold in the U.S.” are electric vehicles, that may “put a major strain on our nation’s electric grid, an aging system built for a world that runs on fossil fuels.”

In states like California and Virginia, all new cars sold in 2035 will be electric vehicles, posing an even greater risk of straining the electric grid. As Real Clear Energy points out, the infrastructure needed for “EV fueling stations is greater than it is for” gas stations. Because EV charging takes longer than filling a gas tank, “long refueling times will translate into long lines at EV fueling stations as well as the need for five to 10 times more charging ports than fuel pumps.” Moreover, EV fueling stations will have “staggering requirements for grid infrastructure upgrades. Today roadside fuel stations have the electric demand of a 7-Eleven; but convert those to EV fueling station and every one of them will have the electric demand of a steel mill – and highways will need thousands of them.”

Electric vehicles will also place a strain on transportation infrastructure. They are much heavier than gasoline-powered vehicles. As Axlewise explains, “The average EV battery weighs about 1,000 pounds. Some batteries weigh more than 2,000 pounds. The heaviest EV battery is the Hummer EV battery, which weighs around 2,923 pounds.” One study found that electric vehicles place more than twice as much stress on roads as gas-powered vehicles. That means more cracks in the pavement.

A convoy of electric trucks could cause a bridge to collapse, even if it could handle being packed with gas-powered trucks.  This May, the Telegraph reported that the “sheer weight of electric vehicles could sink” some bridges in England.

Hans Bader practices law in Washington, D.C. After studying economics and history at the University of Virginia and law at Harvard, he practiced civil-rights, international-trade, and constitutional law. He also once worked in the Education Department. Hans writes for CNSNews.com and has appeared on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal.” Contact him at hfb138@yahoo.com.

Republished with permission from Liberty Unyielding.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

39 responses to “Electric Vehicles May Be Worse for the Environment than Gasoline-Powered Ones”

  1. Who doesn’t support child mining? Except Nike of course as it depletes its labor force…

  2. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    https://www.amsa.gov.au/vessels-operators/domestic-commercial-vessels/dcv-safety-alert-022023-risks-associated-carriage

    Then there is that burning issue…fires! Linked above is recent Aussie government guidance to ferry operators about risks of transporting EVs on their boats.

  3. James Kiser Avatar
    James Kiser

    It could have been a hydrogen powered world but again the goal is for the general public to use a bus or walk, cars will be reserved for the elites. Personal freedom is a no no.

  4. William O'Keefe Avatar
    William O’Keefe

    The irony is that as EV mandates expand, demand for them by the driving public is dropping.
    The environmental impacts of mining to produce batteries, disposal issues, and constraints on mileage resulting from weather conditions are proving that once again government is making the problem worse.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      We’ve got much cleaner air quality across the US because of “government” that would have never happened had the govt not set emission standards.

      truth!

      1. William O'Keefe Avatar
        William O’Keefe

        We’ll never know the road not taken.
        No one has argued that the government should not set clean air standards.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          Yeah they did… they fought it tooth and nail and you ought to know it!

          the road not taken is the road we would have taken without the govt setting standards and
          we KNOW what it would be – it would be what 3rd world countries have done!

          It’s govt that has made the difference!

          1. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            That is an absurd conclusion. There is a big difference between objecting to excessive regulation and regulation per se. You need to be part of the real world where policy is set.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            We know the HISTORY BIll… you guys fought the regs tooth and nail and still do… The policies
            we have are NOT because you supported them. They’re because you failed to stop them!

          3. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            Where were you when all of this was taking place. As I have already said there is a big difference between fighting over where to draw the line and objecting to drawing a line.
            It seems to me that most of what you call knowledge comes from confirmation bias sources.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar

            Been around long enough to know how the anti-regs folks “work”. They NEVER support regs, they always oppose them and we get them done and we get tremendous benefit from them and the anti-reg
            types take credit!

            I’m trying to remember if there was ever a time when the anti-regs folks actually drew a line and
            said – we support this. I’m trying to remember which of the regs we do have now, the anti-reg types say, we supported that reg… this is not confirmation bias… it’s simple verifiable history.

          5. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            Well, you are just as wrong on this as you are on most things. For example, are you familiar with the Marine Spill Response Corporation? It was set up by the oil industry in collaboration with the feds. And, the warning label on gasoline pumps was an oil industry initiative working with EPA.
            I could cite more but it would be a waste of time with you because you are driven by identity politics.

          6. LarrytheG Avatar

            we have a difference of opinion and you are wrong more often that not in part because of your allegiance to the fossil fuel industry IMO. I’m familiar with many of these programs but they were not usually INITIATED by the industry but rather in response to the govt deciding to do something and then the
            industry decided they would rather try to influence it rather than be dictated by it.

            Again, these things are done primarily by govt, not industry.

            And what I asked was not the industry working with the Feds on regs, I asked you to show me
            some regulations that industry promoted and supported before the govt got involved.

            It does not happen IMO, but if you can show me some examples of where it has, I’ll do a mea culpa.

            The cleaner air we have today is not because the industry promoted and supported the emissions standards.

          7. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            Your statement shows your total lack of knowledge of the regulatory process and the Administrative Procedures Act. Regulations always start with an administrative agency; not with an industry.
            As for my alleged allegiance to the fossil fuel industry, I have not been part of it for 24 years. My allegiance is to objectivity and facts. What about you?

          8. LarrytheG Avatar

            Not me guy, YOU! And you’re deflecting and gaslighting! Your “alliance” seems to be to fossil fuels.

            I’ve provided you with several reference. I can do more but it won’t matter will it?

            The simple bottom line is that California Emissions are adopted as the standard for most all states if not all of them. That’s abundantly clear both procedurally and practically.

            My Taco is made in Mexico. Kias are made in Asia. Do you think when they make them, they configure them differently depending on which state they are going to and once they get to that state, they
            cannot be sold in another state because of differencing emissions standards? Your “24 years” ought
            to be telling you something on the simple practicalities if nothing else.

            ” Is Your Car Built to Federal or California Emissions Standards?
            A car can come from the factory with either a federal or California emissions package. The primary difference between the two configurations is the catalytic converter. Generally, a converter designed to meet California’s requirements contains more of the precious metals needed to reduce tailpipe emissions.

            And guess what? Your car doesn’t need to have been originally sold in the Golden State to have California emissions equipment. Because California is such a huge market, many automakers choose to make just one version (the California emissions version) of a particular model and sell it nationwide. Even if you buy a brand-new vehicle in Ohio, there’s a good chance it will come with California emissions equipment.”

            Isn’t this clear?

          9. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            A BIG NON SEQUITOR!

          10. LarrytheG Avatar

            I think you might be badly confused BIll.. and apparently also conflicted .. by your allegience to fossil fuels and anti-regulation folks.. simple facts like the auto makers choose to make all their cars California emissions despite all those “complicated regulations” apparently elude! They actually told Trump he was screwing up on the issue back when he tried to roll it back.

          11. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            For the last time, please read up on the 49 state car. Here is one example from California DMV, https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/uploads/2020/03/ffvr29-1.pdf.
            I am tired of wasting time trying to communicate with someone who doesn’t listen and doesn’t think.

          12. LarrytheG Avatar

            You keep saying this and then you come back!

            I’m wasting time on YOU Bill.

            It’s precisely because of the California rule that manufacturers have decide to produce one version, the California version. No matter the state, virtually all manufacturers produce the California version and
            it can be brought into California.

            This happened in spite of Trump and others who tried to corrupt the regulations such that California
            could not set it’s own standards. Even the car manufacturers disagreed and filed a suit to stop
            Trump’s reversal.

            The net result , which is easy to verify, is that most all manufacturers CHOOSE to make one version, the California one so they don’t have to mess with the different states lower standards or the problem
            with importing them into California.

            It’s pretty much a moot issue now.

            And my original point was/is that despite all the talk about the “caliofornization” or whatever it is, the simple truth is that because most manufacturers (including foreign ones) make one version – the California version – it is , in fact, what Virginia is using AND it is THE reason why most every urban area in the country has vastly improved air quality.

            The “market” does not want different state emission standards so they’ve picked the most strict to build most all their cars to.

            You apparently do not choose to read this. You just keep coming back citing the regs and law but ignore what’s actually happened in reality with the auto manufacturers.

          13. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            Larry, you are ignorant of economics. Why would a manufacturer make a more expensive California car when it could make a less expensive version complying with Federal standards that California deems to be in compliance with its standards?
            Don’t bother to answer because I am tired of waiting time on you.

          14. LarrytheG Avatar

            Why? And you ask WHO is ignorant of economics? That’s funny! It’s way more costly for them
            to make different versions, that’s why – and they say so:

            “California’s emissions standards are influential throughout the country. For one, 13 other states have adopted the standards, including New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

            “Take all of them into account, you’re up to close to half of the entire vehicle market,” said analyst Karl Brauer at iSeeCars.com. Brauer said

            automakers comply with California’s stricter standards for the ENTIRE American market.

            That’s because manufacturers want a consistent production process, which can help control costs.

            “It’s very expensive for automakers to have to deal with multiple ways to produce a car for different emissions settings,” Brauer said. Car companies have to design and engineer models years in advance.”

            https://www.marketplace.org/2021/04/22/for-automakers-california-emissions-standards-play-a-key-regulatory-role/

            Do you read BIll?

          15. LarrytheG Avatar

            Why? And you ask WHO is ignorant of economics? That’s funny! It’s way more costly for them
            to make different versions, that’s why – and they say so:

            “California’s emissions standards are influential throughout the country. For one, 13 other states have adopted the standards, including New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

            “Take all of them into account, you’re up to close to half of the entire vehicle market,” said analyst Karl Brauer at iSeeCars.com. Brauer said

            automakers comply with California’s stricter standards for the ENTIRE American market.

            That’s because manufacturers want a consistent production process, which can help control costs.

            “It’s very expensive for automakers to have to deal with multiple ways to produce a car for different emissions settings,” Brauer said. Car companies have to design and engineer models years in advance.”

            https://www.marketplace.org/2021/04/22/for-automakers-california-emissions-standards-play-a-key-regulatory-role/

            Do you read BIll?

  5. Teddy007 Avatar

    My understanding is that refining, at least the first step, needs to be done close to the mines due to the bulk of the ores. Why spend money hauling ores over large distances.

    Electric cars are eventually going to require more mineral mining and refining in the U.S. and over the entire world just like oil is harvested all over the world.

  6. Lefty665 Avatar

    It is hard to overestimate the changes that will be required to our power grid to support universal recharging. There is no practical way to get there by 2035.

  7. Turbocohen Avatar
    Turbocohen

    The “future” of EV’s for now is plug in hybrids. The next generation is fuel cell hybrids.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      and the future for ICE cars?

    2. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      Maybe that is true elsewhere in the world. None of that is acceptable to US liberals. US liberals want the future now, if you say the future is H2, then they want EV anyways. EV EV EV EV only for USA,. We can afford it so do it. They want winner to be EV and get all the gov’t money. Urgently, and mandates for all.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        just wanna say, NoVa is chock full of liberals and they love their ice cars…

        1. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          Well, hypocrisy is nothing new…

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            all around us! The thing is most cities / urban areas are liberal judging from “blue” voting and they DO love their cars but they are also the ones that will lead us to EVs… not the “red” regions/voters….who will
            oppose as usual.

  8. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    See my other tech comments above on the Californication post.

    To me, we need to look past eco-issues and realize US liberals have intense dislike (“H” word) for BigOil. So they urgently want EV to try to kill US oil industry, and if that is not possible, at least ensure liberals do not have to buy any oil products. Liberals want pit-bull focus and subsidies to EV’s until trillion$ spent on making that convenient (grid/chargers) for them.

    H2 and CCS are unethical to US libs as they want oil industry out of their life. Period.

  9. Tesla ad campaign for West Virginia discarded for being too honest: “coal-powered.”

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      given all the oil spills and mountaintop removal and other carnage we have experienced from extracting fossil fuels, it’s a joke to talk about the “harm” of lithium…

      1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
        energyNOW_Fan

        Thank you for voicing US liberal assumption that there is no greater destruction of the planet and life than fossil fuels. Anything no matter how bad is infinitely better.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          Nope. But admitting the damage that fossil fuels do is part of a more reasonable attitude IMO.

          We’re at the very beginning of EVs and lithium.. and I’ve never heard so much Luddite blather in all my life…

          EVs once, the price comes down, and it will like most technologies do, will make good sense for a lot of people in urban areas as well as people that have two cars… one will be an EV.

          And the benefits will be as substantial as the benefits we have gotten from stricter emission standards from ICE vehicles.

          Just purely from a technology and financial perspective (forget the environment/climate) , EVs will make good sense as they evolve…

          1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
            energyNOW_Fan

            Yes how can I forget Moore’s Law means that all liberal mandated super-expensive projects will cost pennies on the dollar after costs come down due to magic.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            that’s what they said about California emissions standards! or when they outlawed leaded gas, or put ethanol in gas, or the advent of LEDs or minimum SEER standards for HVACs, etc… right?

            do you know any that were done and then rolled back because they were too costly?

Leave a Reply