Originally published on Forbes.com on April 16, 2024

This article provides a rationale to compare EVs versus conventional gasoline vehicles, including life-cycle numbers for their GHG emissions.

Here are three things that can influence your opinion on electric vehicles (EVs). The first is that a lot of oil and gas components are used in construction of an EV. Second, as sales of EVs increase, they displace internal combustion engines (ICEs), and they displace oil which is the source of gasoline and diesel. Third, tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) from EVs are zero, which is a lot less than emissions from ICEs—but what about the life-cycle emissions from EVs which includes battery manufacture and electricity used to charge up the batteries for driving. Let’s look at each of these to see how important they are.

Oil And Gas Components Used In EVs.

New Mexico Oil and Gas Association (NMOGA) is expected to tout the benefits of oil and gas in a state that is ranked number 2 in oil production after Texas.  NM produces about 1.6 million barrels per day (bopd), which provides about 35% of the state’s revenue. In a newsletter on April 11, 2024, entitled Driving Innovation: How Oil & Gas Fuels the EV Industry, NMOGA listed the oil and gas components used in construction of an EV. The following list is excerpted from the newsletter:

• The production, installation, and maintenance of EV charging stations depend on materials and energy derived from oil and gas.
• The heart of an electric vehicle, lithium-ion batteries, relies on electrolytes derived from petrochemicals.
• The electrodes in lithium-ion batteries contain graphite and other materials derived from oil and gas.
• Plastics and polymers derived from oil and gas are integral to interior and exterior panels in an EV.
• The rubber used in tires is synthesized from petrochemicals.
• Cooling systems and lubricants in electric motors and powertrains use oils derived from petroleum.
• Hydraulic systems in EVs, such as power steering and braking, utilize fluids derived from petroleum.

EVs displace internal combustion engines and their gasoline/oil.

A prediction can be made about the future of oil production based on President Biden’s goal regarding new sales of EVs by 2030. A simple zero-sum equation provides insights into the potential decline of oil and gas production in the U.S. by 2030.

President Biden’s goal is that new sales of EVs will be 50% of all sales by 2030. Let’s say 25% of all cars will be EVs by 2030, and these cars are not running on gasoline. A 25% decline in gasoline cars from today implies a 17% decline in consumption of oil in the U.S. by 2030. If supply follows demand, then a 17% decline in U.S. crude oil production would be expected by 2030—almost a fifth of oil production declining by 2030. This would be a sizable hit to oil production in the U.S.

There is a caveat: the potential demand in the U.S. may drop 17%, but crude oil sales abroad to places such as Southeast Asia might replace the demand and keep the supply up in the U.S.

Postscript: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a new rule, as of March 2024, that lowers tailpipe emissions, and it means that new sales of EVs will be 67% of all sales by 2032. So this new rule anticipates the decline in crude oil production would be significantly more than 17% by 2032.

Life-Cycle Emissions From EVs And ICEs.

These are whole-of-life GHG emissions that include the production, usage, and disposal of a vehicle. The table compares emission amounts in tons of CO2 equivalent (tCO2e). Vehicle usage is assumed to be 16 years when traveling a distance of 150,000 miles. Numbers were taken from  Polestar and Rivian’s Pathway Report.

There are three main results. First, for the production phase, building of batteries and building cars, BEV vehicles emit more than ICEs (14 versus 10). This is attributed to the mining of lithium, cobalt, and nickel, the raw materials for building batteries. And manufacturing batteries is an energy-intensive process also.

Second, the next element of the table is the emissions associated with the making of “fuel” meaning electricity versus gasoline or diesel. Again, BEVs emit more (26 versus 13) meaning making electricity emits twice as much GHG as making gasoline or diesel. This is based evidently on conventional power as in coal- or oil-fired power plants. Replacing conventional power with solar or wind renewables should lower these BEV emissions significantly.

Third, tailpipe emissions dominate the results and are a reminder of the main purpose of switching to EVs (0) from ICE cars (32). The grand total emissions are 29% lower for BEVs (39) than for ICE cars (55). This discrepancy will increase as renewable electricity becomes widespread.

The second last line in the table refers to negative emissions due to recycling, but these numbers are very small.

This article provides a rationale to compare EVs versus conventional gasoline vehicles, including life-cycle numbers for their GHG emissions.