Greenwashed: Electric Pickup Trucks Are Dirtier Than You Think

OfTheCross

Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
43,338
Reputation
4,869
Daps
98,628
Reppin
Keeping my overhead low, and my understand high

The Efficiency Problem​

Why electric trucks aren't so green starts with a simple matter of physics: a 3,000-pound car needs a fraction of the energy to travel a mile that a 9,000-pound vehicle does. Throw in the preferred form factor of American pickups—big, heavy-duty, and squarer than the jaw of the person driving it—and an electric truck needs a much larger battery than an electric car to cover the same promised 300+ miles of range expected of today's EVs. (That baseline expectation alone is problematic for battery production emissions, but we'll leave that for another time.)


A bigger battery in turn adds weight, whose penalty must be offset with an even bigger battery, and so on until you end up with something like the GMC Hummer EV weighing 9,000 pounds. Its 2,900-pound, 212.7-kWh lithium-ion battery can propel it 329 miles. It's about a third as efficient as a shapely Lucid Air, which can travel over 500 miles using a battery half that size.
The problem is better illustrated by MPGe, or miles-per-gallon equivalent, the metric intended to calculate the distance an electric (or electrified) vehicle can travel by expending the same amount of energy in a gallon of gas. It's fairly useless in the real world, but it is good for comparing the overall efficiency of EVs. The GMC Hummer EV has an MPGe rating of 47. That's exceptionally poor for an electric—but even trucks like the 70-MPGe Rivian R1T are well behind things like the 97-MPGe Ford Mustang Mach-E or the 125 MPGe Tesla Model Y.
Lower efficiency means charging more often. Charging more often means more energy consumption. You can see where this is going.

Carbon Cost of Entry​

Transitioning from gas-guzzler to watt-waster doesn't exactly feel like progress, but at least it's a step in the right direction, right? Yes—except there's one not-so-small snag. In large part because of the batteries, manufacturing electric vehicles releases significantly more emissions than building ICE cars, big electric trucks even more so. Not only do electric trucks pay off their carbon debts slower than pretty much any other car, they have more CO2 to answer for in the first place.
How much more isn't something most automakers could—never mind would—tell you. Most car companies have not publicized life-cycle carbon assessments for their products that would clarify the environmental impact of their EVs' manufacture, disposal, and to a smaller degree, use. I contacted current and future electric truck producers Ford, General Motors, Ram, and Rivian for such assessments, and only received responses from GM and Rivian, neither of which had conducted such a study.
So far, the one exception to the rule is Polestar, the Sino-Swedish offshoot of Volvo focused on EVs. It has released a life-cycle carbon assessment of its first EV, the Polestar 2, which offers intriguing insights into the true impact of car manufacturing. For a variety of reasons, Polestar's study can't paint an accurate picture of the auto industry as a whole, but its numbers are the only ones available. What's more, they still let us make an educated guess as to the CO2 generated by producing trucks like the Hummer EV—and as a result, how long it takes one to break even with an equivalent ICE truck.

Applying the Data, or: You Can't Fight Physics​

Of course, a Hummer EV is supposed to mark an improvement over a similar fossil-fueled truck, such as the Ram TRX, with which it shares its overkill attitude and emphasis on acceleration and off-road performance. The Ram's horrible gas mileage (about 12 mpg combined) is a good match for the Hummer's resource-intensity and inefficiency, too. Using that Polestar-Volvo data, we can estimate a TRX's production to be associated with 26.5 metric tons of CO2, while FuelEconomy.gov rates it at 889 grams of CO2 (and upstream greenhouse gas emissions) per mile driven. Based on the U.S. energy production average 386 g CO2/kWh, the Hummer EV's 1.6 miles per kWh means it's responsible for 241 grams of CO2/mi, or just over a quarter of what the TRX emits.
It takes just under 37,200 miles to achieve parity with a TRX, at 59.6 metric tons of CO2 emitted over the total life cycle, and finally, it's all gravy for GM from there.
estimated-CO2-GHG-emissions-of-ram-trx-and-gmc-hummer-ev.jpg

Estimated CO2 emissions of the 2022 GMC Hummer EV and 2022 Ram TRX by miles driven | The Drive
The graphs above and below compare life-cycle CO2 and GHG emissions in kilograms on the y axis and miles driven on the x axis. Both trucks start well above zero, because manufacturing is energy-intensive and thus generates a significant environmental impact. Though the Hummer EV has a big head start on emissions, the Ram's steeper ascent as it burns gas means it catches up to the Hummer at 37,191 miles. Improving on a TRX's environmental impact isn't exactly something to brag about, though, and it's hard to call an accomplishment when the Rivian R1T breaks even with the TRX sooner, just before the 17,000-mile mark with 41.6 metric tons of CO2 on the board. Unwind this same math elsewhere and it shows the Ford F-150 Lightning doesn't turn the table on the hybrid F-150 Powerboost until around the 61,000-mile mark, at 46.5 metric tons of CO2. On one hand, it demonstrates electric trucks inevitably do become the greener option compared to ICE trucks over time. On the other, what happens to the calculation if the Lightning needs a new resource-intensive battery at 150,000 miles and the gas version keeps running just fine?
An electric truck is still a truck, and its shape makes it permanently less efficient than an electric car. But the graph below takes it one step further and throws in the lifecycle emissions for some gas-powered economy cars for good measure. And lo: those too pollute less than electric trucks.
estimated-CO2-GHG-emissions-of-various-vehicles.jpg

Estimated CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions of various vehicles by mileage | The Drive
Down there at the bottom are a selection of economy cars with differing drivetrains, including the regular Honda Civic, the hybrid Toyota Prius, and electric Nissan Leaf, with the hybrid Ford Maverick thrown in for the hell of it. Interestingly, while the Civic and Maverick track each other over the first couple hundred thousand miles (reaffirming my belief that the Maverick is a Corolla-killer in disguise), and hover around the Hummer's CO2-per-mile, their comparatively tiny size and manufacturing impacts mean their lines never converge. And it'd take over 140,000 miles for them to catch up to the tamer Rivian R1T and Ford F-150 Lightning.
 

Macallik86

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
Dec 4, 2016
Messages
6,496
Reputation
1,372
Daps
21,204
Interesting analysis. To me the question that remains is:
  1. Are the buying patterns like for like or nah? IE Was the EV Hummer owner also the kind of person to buy a low MPG gas car in the past? Or are we seeing people upgrading to souped up EV cars that are inefficient?
  2. For those that are current low MPG car owners, do we really anticipate them to switch to a more EV-efficient car or should the comparison be strictly like-for-like to see the beneficial impact? I'm not seeing too many Hummer owners looking into a Nissan Leaf regardless of it's efficiencies for example.
Not to say I'm not opposed to a subsidy program based on the CO2 emission, but if the same people driving Hummers are now driving EV Hummers, altho it's not the best-case scenario, it is still moving in the right direction and creating change over time.
 

el_oh_el

Bulls On Parade...
Supporter
Joined
Aug 23, 2012
Messages
10,315
Reputation
1,920
Daps
26,047
Reppin
H-Town
Why are Dems pushing electric vehicles then?:patrice:
Obviously the Hummer EV is an outlier and is an extreme case that will not represent a majority of the market.
Also, the lines converge after a few years of driving even in this worst case scenario (when comparing electric apples to gas apples)
 

nyknick

refuel w/ chocolate milk
Joined
Jul 7, 2012
Messages
18,714
Reputation
6,060
Daps
90,732
Terrible article. To use Hummer EV as a premise for the article as if a $150,000, 9000 pound truck will be the most widely adopted electric truck is extremely disingenuous. If you buy a Hummer EV you're an a$$hole just like you were an a$$hole for buying H2 :hubie:

And while anti-EV people love to parrot the fact that EV production produces more emissions than ICE cars, they never want to include offshore drilling, oil pipelines, oil tanker shipping, oil refining, local truck transporting into ICE car emission (like they do with lithium mining for EVs).
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,656
Daps
203,838
Reppin
the ether
Like I tell people over, and over, and over, we aren't going to tech our way out of this. We need to reduce consumption.


Outside of work trucks for the tiny % of owners who actually need them, huge pickup trucks are fukking horrible for the Earth no matter what they're running on.
 

ColdSlither

Extensive Enterprises
Supporter
Joined
Aug 29, 2018
Messages
7,343
Reputation
1,123
Daps
27,070
Reppin
Elizabeth, NJ by way of East Orange
Like I tell people over, and over, and over, we aren't going to tech our way out of this. We need to reduce consumption.


Outside of work trucks for the tiny % of owners who actually need them, huge pickup trucks are fukking horrible for the Earth no matter what they're running on.

We can't tech our way out of this, but I think that's the attempt because people aren't going to want to give up their large vehicles.
 

Raphaello

All Star
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
895
Reputation
-302
Daps
4,780
Reppin
New York/Toronto
Like I tell people over, and over, and over, we aren't going to tech our way out of this. We need to reduce consumption.


Outside of work trucks for the tiny % of owners who actually need them, huge pickup trucks are fukking horrible for the Earth no matter what they're running on.
I don't understand the reduce consumption narrative. Do y'all expect Africans and the billions of other people on the planet not to increase their consumption? How much will the west have to lower their standard of living to offset the rise in non-western countries.
 

Jay Kast

Hidden Royalty
Joined
Sep 17, 2015
Messages
1,373
Reputation
1,460
Daps
8,951
Reppin
Flint, MI
Not understanding why they chose to compare different cars against the EVs when there are like vehicles for most EVs available.

Ford 150 ICE vs Ford 150 Lightning
Hummer EV vs Hummer 2 or 3 ICE

Etc.
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,656
Daps
203,838
Reppin
the ether
I don't understand the reduce consumption narrative. Do y'all expect Africans and the billions of other people on the planet not to increase their consumption? How much will the west have to lower their standard of living to offset the rise in non-western countries.

That's the whole point dawg. The rise in consumption in other places makes the issue even more critical. When people around the world come into money they want to match the model of the most conspicuous consumers out there. They copy Americans. So what kind of example are we going to set?

Research I was reading on the subject ~10 years ago found that the average American uses 200x more resources than the average Ethiopian. If every person on Earth used as many resources as the average American did, we would need 4 Earths to sustain our current population. We'd be completely fukked.

If we want the rest of the world to come up to our level and still want the planet to survive, we're going to have to reduce our consumption by at least 50-75%, even with tech advances. And that's easily possible. The average new home today is nearly 3000 square feet, back in 1960 it was just 800-900 square feet. There are nearly 300 million cars on the road today, back in 1960 there were just 62 million cars on the road. The average American eats 225 pounds of meat a year, back in 1960 it was just 165 pounds and that was already too much.

We could easily own fewer and smaller cars. We could easily drive fewer miles. We could easily take fewer flights. We could easily live in smaller homes. We could easily eat less meat. We could easily change our phone less often, change our TV less often, buy new clothes less often, buy less of everything.

Look at any holiday and the consumer culture is fukking wild - it's all "BUY BUY BUY BUY BUY!". And it's destroying the planet. If we cut back, we would set the standard, because most of the world copies us. So what standard are we going to set?

Remember - it would take 4 Earths to supply the planet's population at modern USA consumption. One Earth doesn't have enough agricultural land to raise all the meat, doesn't have enough oceans to produce all the fish, doesn't have enough minerals to make all the cars and electronics and other goods, doesn't have enough trees to process the carbon and other pollution. Not even close. So what are we going to do?
 

Raphaello

All Star
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
895
Reputation
-302
Daps
4,780
Reppin
New York/Toronto
Okay assuming americans cut back where they now emit half of current emissions. So that's ~7tons of CO2 per Capita. A simple calculation shows that the rest of world reaching this level of CO2 (~50 billion tons of CO2) would surpass the current global total of ~35 billion tons of CO2. I just don't see us degrowthing our way to sustainability without outright preventing other countries from economic growth
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,656
Daps
203,838
Reppin
the ether
Okay assuming americans cut back where they now emit half of current emissions. So that's ~7tons of CO2 per Capita. A simple calculation shows that the rest of world reaching this level of CO2 (~50 billion tons of CO2) would surpass the current global total of ~35 billion tons of CO2. I just don't see us degrowthing our way to sustainability without outright preventing other countries from economic growth

Why is 7 the best you can shoot for? France is at 5 tons right now and even French people consume a lot more than they need to. They just aren't as blatantly overconsuming as the USA is. Sweden is at 4.5, Switzerland is at 4.7, UK is at 5.5. And that's with current tech and a LOT of things they could be doing better.

It should be closer to 2-3 tons. And that's possible with better tech, but ONLY if consumption is seriously cut back too. Both need to happen, but the consumption reduction is both easier and more important. tech alone will not even come close to getting us there.

I'm really confused as to what you're suggesting the alterative is. Give up?
 
Top