Weidner 1

Alex Weidner

Professor Sandy-Smith

ENG 1101

21 November 2021

Current Viability of Electric Vehicles

Arguably the biggest challenge facing our future as a society is the rising impact that

humans have on the planet which can be seen clearly through climate change caused mainly by

the overuse of fossil fuels. With the increasing pace at which our environment is failing, greener

solutions to basic societal functions need to be put into place, one of which is the electric vehicle

(EV). A fair definition of “green” is something that is useful with negligible or no harm to the

environment. The rise of electric vehicles in the last decade brings with it many of their green

benefits, such as a lack of greenhouse gas emissions and advanced safety features among other

things. Yet, mounting evidence, such as the presence of highly toxic materials in EVs, an

underdeveloped system for recycling batteries, and non-green energy sources, seem to suggest

that even with full-scale implementation of EVs, that it will not reap the intended benefits.

Therefore, the conclusion can be made that as of now, the process for building, charging, and

disposing of an electric vehicle does not provide a meaningful enough benefit to the environment

that would make EVs a clear alternative to the already established fleet of gas-powered cars and

gas-infrastructure.

A big reason for the ironic environmentally unfriendly nature of EVs is the presence of

heavy metals in the batteries of the vehicle. The standard battery for an electric vehicle is a large-

scale lithium-ion battery (LIB). According to an article published by Lauren Neuhaus, an

 Weidner 2

environmental lawyer, when 4,000 tons of LIBs were disposed of “1,100 tons of heavy metals…

were generated” (Neuhaus). The apparent immediate relief provided to the atmosphere and air

quality is obvious when considering the nature of an EV. However, a hidden danger comes to the

environment around LIB disposal facilities such as the poisoning of water and soil from the toxic

heavy metals that are released, which effectively cancels out the potential benefits to nature.

Additionally, the problems of LIBs aren’t just present when they are disposed of. According to

Neuhaus, metals such as copper, nickel, and cobalt are all used in LIBs. However, in order to

refine these metals, they must be smelted which results in the production of “sulfur dioxide,

which is one of six criteria air pollutants with a national air ambient quality standard set by the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)” (Neuhaus). Adding on to the potent heavy metals

that are present in LIBs, Neuhaus now mentions that the refinement of crucial materials for LIBs

creates a toxic gas as well. The fact that the creation of the most important element of an EV is

potentially detrimental to the environment, is a big reason as to why the current viability of EVs

is under question.

While it doesn’t pertain to the environmental impacts of EVs, it is also important to look

at the effects that EVs may potentially have on humans. Neuhaus also addresses this in her

article, describing diseases such as “genetic toxicity, reproductive toxicity, and gastrointestinal

toxicity” that may lead to death or health complications later in life (Neuhaus). Additionally, the

article describes what workers may experience if they work in close proximity to lithium for

extended periods of time. For example, common symptoms of lithium overexposure are vomiting

and diarrhea among other gastrointestinal problems (Neuhaus). While many of these issues could

be negated with proper protocol and procedures, it’s important to note the toxicity of the
 Weidner 3

substances that are related to LIBs which further tip the scales away from the intended purpose

of being a green alternative.

Now, on to the biggest factor in analyzing whether or not a meaningful transition from

combustion-powered vehicles to EVs can be achieved. The major issue cited in most studies on

this topic is if the complete implementation of EVs would eliminate more CO2 emissions from

the conventional vehicles than would be added by the increased strain on the power grid. An

increase in power consumption would negate the benefits of EVs because most power production

in the world comes from fossil-fuel-based energy facilities (Pablo). Two studies can be used to

investigate this issue. One from in 2009 by Joseph Arar, a former environmental researcher, and

one in 2016 by Jesús Montoya Sánchez de Pablo, a data analyst for several environmental

research organizations. Arar’s study focuses on the effectiveness of a full switch from gas power

to EVs in the United States in which he cites a mere 23% reduction in CO2 emissions with a ten-

year transition (Arar). Pablo’s study focuses on the viability of EVs as well as hydrogen-powered

vehicles in the world setting, but more specifically in Spain. Pablo’s study concludes that even

when factoring in multiple ways in which energy could be generated, the resulting greenhouse

gas emissions (GHG) could range from slightly less than what was being produced to more

(Pablo).

The study by Joseph Arar was a brief but specific look into a full transition from

combustion power to EVs using data from 2006. While outdated, the conclusion still stands that

in 2009, Joseph Arar stated that looking at the current energy generation model in the U.S. that a

10-year transition to EVs could result in a “23% (21–28) reduction in ten-year cumulative

emissions” (Arar). These findings present insight into a promising future for the world. However,

interestingly enough, Arar cited that “71% of the electricity” in the United States comes from
 Weidner 4

fossil fuel sources (Arar). As well, Pablo’s much more recent study cites that his study was

conducted on the premise that Spain’s energy portfolio consisted of a “far cleaner” mix (around

39% fossil-fuel-based) than the “world mix” (around 70% fossil-fuel-based) which would result

in 39% reduction in emissions to produce the power needed to support nationwide EV usage

(Pablo).

The most important takeaway from these studies is that both resulted in the conclusion of

slightly less CO2 emissions. As well, Pablo’s study also found that if the energy portfolio

consisted of all sources of energy that could be completely exploited, that emission reduction

would fall to 0.41% (Pablo). Additionally, it is important to note that Pablo’s study took place in

a country where only 39% of electricity was produced by fossil fuels. The global mix according

to Pablo’s study was around 70% made up of fossil fuels (Pablo). This taken into account, if

transitions to EV took place on a global scale, which is a must in order to combat climate change,

then it is fair to assume that emission reduction would be much lower if at all. All this would

mean that with the current figure of 70% fossil fuel usage, that EV will provide only a minimal

improvement to the overall carbon emissions of the world.

It is important to note that not everybody feels this way. There are many people who

believe that a switch to EVs are an effective alternative to internal combustion engine

transportation. For example, a study published in 2020 by R. Indumathi goes over the effects that

combustion vehicles have on the environment compared to EVs. The benefits that are presented

include things such as zero emissions, noise reduction, and energy efficiency among other things

(Indumathi). All these benefits are legitimate points that benefit the environment in some way or

another.
 Weidner 5

However, many of the environmental benefits that are cited in studies such as that of

Indumathi’s fail to account for a couple of factors. One of which was previously stated, the fact

that the increased energy consumption that is caused by a switch to EVs would need to be made

up by the mainly fossil-fuel-based power plants resulting in a significant increase in CO2

emissions. While it is clear by studies like Pablo and Arar’s that a complete switch to an electric

vehicle switch may be able to provide benefits like those presented in Indumathi’s like lower

carbon emissions, they are not enough to be considered a viable, long-term solution to issues

such as climate change and the overall impact that humans have on the environment.

Considering all factors present, including the minimal CO2 emissions cited in Arar and

Pablo’s studies, the high content of heavy metals that are potentially released when an LIB is

decommissioned. As well, one must consider the hazardous materials that are generated as a

result of the refinement of crucial LIB building materials. When looking at all these factors, it

becomes clear, that with the current world infrastructure, such as international energy production

portfolios. Additionally, when seeing the lack of facilities that specialize in the recycling of

LIBs, it becomes clear that EVs are not a straightforward solution to the environmental impacts

that humans cause. The reduction in CO2 emissions simply is not enough to reasonably outweigh

the potentially catastrophic impact that heavy metals may have on ecosystems and the added

CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel-based power plants. Therefore, current world infrastructure and

energy policies as well as non-environmentally friendly materials, make EVs impractical as a

major solution to human environmental impacts but remain a steppingstone in the fight against

climate change with the hope of one day becoming more effective as global power production

takes on a greener shade. However, that is not to say that EVs cannot be viable as a solution in

the future. The main obstacle preventing EVs from being practical is the energy portfolio of the
 Weidner 6

world, and with proper funding and resource allocation, these portfolios can become much

greener, which would allow EVs to create a much greater positive impact on the environment.

So, you as a citizen must do your part in your community to enact change within the government

and energy industry that will allow these improvements to occur, such as voting for cleaner

energy policies and petitioning local and state governments.

 Weidner 7

Works Cited

Arar, Joseph I. “New Directions: The Electric Car and Carbon Emissions in the US.”

Atmospheric Environment, vol. 44, no. 5, 2010, pp. 733–734.,

doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.09.042.

Indumathi, R. “Electric Vehicles and Environmental Sustainability.” ANWESH: International

Journal of Management & Information Technology, vol. 5, no. 2, Sept. 2020, pp. 5–8.

Business Source Complete, content.ebscohost.com/ContentServer.asp?

T=P&P=AN&K=147919126&S=R&D=bth&EbscoContent=dGJyMNXb4kSeprE4zOX0

OLCmsEmepq5SsK24SLCWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMPGut02xrrVLuePfgeyx4

3zx.

McDonald, Brian C., et al. “High-Resolution Mapping of Motor Vehicle Carbon Dioxide

Emissions.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, vol. 119, no. 9, 2014, pp.

5283–5298., doi:10.1002/2013jd021219.

Neuhaus, Lauren. “The Electrifying Problem of Used Lithium-Ion Batteries: Recommendations

for Recycling and Disposal.” Environs: Environmental Law and Policy Journal, vol. 42,

no. 1, Dec. 2018, Accessed 5 Nov. 2021.

 Weidner 8

Pablo, Jesús Montoya Sánchez de, et al. How Green Are Electric or Hydrogen-Powered Cars?

Assessing GHG Emissions of Traffic in Spain. Springer International Publishing, 2016.

SpringerLink, link-springer-com.sinclair.ohionet.org/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-319-

32434-0.pdf.