Are electric vehicles really green?

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:Useful as a concise problematization of EV LCA and grid/supply-chain assumptions for transition research.

🏢実務担当者:Battery and automaker sustainability teams can mine it for lifecycle and mineral supply-chain talking points.

🏛政策担当者:Highlights subsidy design flaws and the need for grid decarbonization and battery recycling standards.

Promoting the use of electric vehicles (EVs) is one of the key governmental initiatives for reducing harmful pollutants and combating climate change. But is this the best or most effective way to save the planet? EVs are touted for their eco-friendliness but are they really green? I discuss five reasons to question the ability of EVs to live up to the hype. The questionable green linkage includes electric sourcing (some of which is non-green); batteries (manufacturing, replacement, and disposal); reliance on subsidies (which may be directed at the wrong market segment); charging stations (including availability and costs); and whether alternatives would be a better choice for reducing the harmful effects on the environment. Electric vehicles do exceptionally well at reducing harmful toxins, but they have their drawbacks such as limited driving range and availability of charging options, especially for renters, who are not usually considered when evaluating the costs and benefits of electric vehicles. Electricity for powering electric cars and trucks comes from a variety of sources, not all of which are green. Key sources for electricity generation in the USA include coal, natural gas, nuclear energy, wind energy, hydropower, and solar energy (EIA, 2022a). Although coal is clearly not green, the other sources may also have non-green components, which will be discussed. Coal was the second-largest electricity-generating source at 21.86 per cent of the US marketplace in 2021. Natural gas, the leading electricity generating source, claims 38.44 per cent of the generating market. Coal, typically considered the dirtiest source, varies greatly by state and by electric company. Coal generation by states in 2021 ranged from a maximum of 90.63 per cent in West Virginia to a minimum of 0 per cent in Massachusetts, with a state average of 24.38 per cent. An example of an electric company mix is from Michigan's Detroit Electric (DTE) with a current fuel mix of wind 8.1 per cent, nuclear 18.7 per cent, natural gas 8.7 per cent, oil 0.2 per cent, and coal 64.3 per cent (see Table 1 and Table 2). Even with forecast changes through 2040, less than half of the total energy produced will be renewable (Riles, 2021). Renewable electric sources are not exempt from green drawbacks. The minerals needed for solar panels, wind turbines, and nuclear power have their own environmental issues. The extraction of the key materials used in renewables infrastructure (such as copper, lithium, nickel, manganese, cobalt, graphite, chromium, molybdenum, zinc, silicon, indium, boron, uranium, arsenic, aluminum, gallium, and titanium) can and do damage the environment. The mining operations for these materials have polluted the air, land, and water surrounding the mines. Without major modifications to mining operations (which do not seem to be a high priority within the mining firms), the environment will continue to be impacted negatively. Furthermore, it is nearly impossible to produce energy in a carbon-neutral fashion because even renewable energy has a carbon footprint as a result of the production and installation process. To determine a product or source's carbon footprint, a Life Cycle Assessment is carried out. This assessment takes into consideration the upstream and downstream greenhouse gas emissions. Upstream emissions are those that are released during the steps of production, such as mining and processing minerals, production, transportation, and construction. Downstream emissions are those released during the use of the resource and afterwards, such as maintenance, disposal, and decommissioning (Riles, 2021). In a scenario that meets the Paris Agreement goals, clean energy technologies' share of total demand rises significantly over the next two decades to over 40% for copper and rare earth elements, 60–70% for nickel and cobalt, and almost 90% for lithium. EVs and battery storage have already displaced consumer electronics to become the largest consumer of lithium and are set to take over from stainless steel as the largest end-user of nickel by 2040. ( IEA, 2022, p. 5) The many challenges confronting this transition in energy materials focus on two key areas: environmental and social. Environmental concerns revolve around five categories. First, climate change relates to the impact of key metals within the green revolution on greenhouse gas emissions. Second is land use and the environmental impacts of the mining of these key metals and minerals. Third is water management. Like mining, a large amount of water associated with the extraction and processing of these metals and minerals can have a huge environmental impact through wastewater and accelerating water stress in the areas where the mining and extraction processes are undertaken. The fourth concern is the hazardous waste generated and to properly dispose of it. Finally, the fifth concern revolved around social governance, that is, the sharing or lack of sharing of the rewards of mining and processing with the inhabitants of the countries in which the extractions take place. From the social aspect, two key areas of concern focus on health and safety and human rights. Health and safety deals with the plight of the workers and the hazards they face. Attention to human rights revolves around the exploitation of children and women associated with the mining and extraction industry (IEA, 2022, p. 40). The environmental concerns associated with EV batteries relate primarily to mining for the key minerals used in the batteries and with what happens to old batteries and the associated recycling hazards. The advanced batteries in EVs are designed for extended life, but will wear out eventually. Several manufacturers of EVs are offering eight-year/100,000-mile battery warranties. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory suggests that today's batteries may last 12 to 15 years in moderate climates (8 to 12 years in extreme climates) (Recurrent, 2021). But all-electric car batteries will inevitably degrade over time. Several factors that influence the rate of degradation include driving conditions, range of driving, recharging (from a high-charging versus a low-charging battery; avoid both extremely high and low battery levels), recharging source (AV versus DC), and slow charge (good) versus fast charge (bad). The entire battery replacement process is discussed by Najman (2022), who deals mostly with replacing batteries in the Nissan Leaf since it was the first electric car on the market and thus the only model that needs replacements outside warranties. One of the major concerns, other than cost, is the lack of mechanics who are properly trained to carry out replacements. Another concern is that the replacement batteries are mostly from salvaged cars, not new ones. Most cars need to have batteries from the same model cycle since the connections, shape, and size differ from one model cycle to another. Najman states that these factors have resulted in a waiting list for replacements. She also mentions that the cost breakdown is approximately 95 per cent for materials and only 5 per cent for the labour. What happens when the EV battery dies? Technically, the battery does not have to die; it just cannot recharge to provide an adequate range for the car to travel. Battery recycling focuses on one key economically recyclable material: cobalt. But there are others (such as lithium, manganese, and nickel) that are not as economically recyclable. How are batteries recycled? The two key methods are by extreme heat or acid, both potentially damaging to the environment. The first method, pyrometallurgy, uses heat to break down the material. This processing involves placing shredded EV batteries (called the black mass) into a furnace and using the organic burn-off as heat. The lithium that remains in the slag is expensive and difficult to remove. Cobalt and nickel are easier and cheaper to remove. The second process, called hydrometallurgy, also involves shredding the battery and placing the black mass in an acid bath to get rid of the non-metal components. Hydrometallurgy is less environmentally destructive. Both methods would become cheaper and more environmentally efficient if the production of EV batteries involved more standardisation, like lead batteries for gas-powered vehicles (Leber, 2022). Electric car sales are reliant on government subsidies. These subsidies are skewed towards the upper middle classes; they are of little value to people on more moderate incomes. The US federal Qualified Plug-In Electric-Drive Motor Vehicle Tax Credit is available for EV purchases from manufacturers that have not yet met certain thresholds of vehicle sales. It provides a tax credit of $2,500–$7,500 for new purchases, with the amount determined by the size of the vehicle and the capacity of its battery.1 Three key federal incentives are (a) the Electric Vehicle (EV) and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle (FCEV) Tax Credit; (b) the Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Tax Credit; and (c) the Pre-Owned Electric Vehicle (EV) and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle (FCEV) Tax Credit (for more details see Table 4). Nine states offer some sort of additional incentives – Arizona, California, Colorado, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin – as does the District of Columbia. Metz et al. (2021) advocate changing the incentive policies to encourage the superusers of gasoline-powered vehicles to switch to electric vehicles, since the top 10 per cent of drivers in terms of gasoline consumption burn 32 per cent of gasoline, which is more than the bottom 60 per cent of drivers combined. The superuser classification applies to drivers that consume more than 1,000 gallons of gasoline per year. This category of drivers typically drives three times more miles than the average driver, is more likely to drive pickups or sports utility vehicles (SUVs), lives in rural areas, and spends 8 per cent of their income on

• openalex https://doi.org/10.1111/ecaf.12582first seen 2026-08-02 18:27:50