Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: MotoTribologist
1. "And although it currently takes more energy to manufacture an electric vehicle and its battery than to build a gasoline automobile, as you can see in the above graph, the emissions from combusting gasoline vastly outweigh those from vehicle manufacturing."
- Addresses energy use with the statement, that it is included in energy used to manufacture the battery. Not about pollution created, nor about the extraction of the materials used for the battery, which creates pollution and burns fossil fuels. It also omits the finite lifespan of the battery module and its replacement at some point, though that may hinge on what they feel is the lifespan for both vehicles.
Originally Posted By: MotoTribologist
2. "With 100% renewable energy, EVs only result in an average of 21 g/mile of GHGs, coming solely from vehicle and battery manufacturing."
This statement hinges on EVs being built with power coming exclusively from Wind/Solar, though it is clearer than the previous one on GHG's. I would like to see the actual data to see what is factored into "battery manufacturing", are we talking simply about the battery assembly, being put together? are we talking about sourcing the cells and other components, then putting them together? or are we talking about mining the Lithium, the manufacture of the components used, the procurement of those components and then the transport and assembly of those components into the battery module? The final figure would vary massively depending on how that's defined.
Originally Posted By: MotoTribologist
3. "and many will result in only 3.4 tons of GHGs (from vehicle manufacturing)."
And this one speaks only to vehicle manufacture, so I think #2 is your best example.
Originally Posted By: MotoTribologist
There are three specific statements about the effect battery manufacturing has on the output.
Two specific statements that mention it, but no actual break-down of what they are defining as battery manufacturing unless you are able to find that information for us to discuss? There's a lot of ambiguity here and my concern is a bias toward painting the impact of EV's as more green than they are. The idea of using "green" energy to charge them is novel, but those "green" energy sources currently in vogue are also not overly green in their manufacture or installation. Nor is the fact that they continue to require being propped up by a traditional base-load source due to their unreliability and inability to be responsive.
Thank you for going to the effort of finding those statements though!
The 3.4 tons reference is to both vehicle and battery manufacturing and they are paraphrasing in that sentence. It mentions that number multiple times.
Here is a lifecycle analysis from the Argonne GREET model
Argonne GREET Battery Lifecycle Analysis. It goes into the exact details you are claiming they did not account for. I am not sure that this specific model is what was used for this data, but I doubt they would have used a less comprehensive one.
So after reading it for yourself, and commenting on the quotes I pulled from it that 100% disprove your statement of them not addressing battery manufacturing's effect, you are going to dig your heels in and continue to say that they do not factor in the manufacturing of batteries into their calculation? If that is the way this is going to be then I'll just stop now and move on.