by Justin Housman | Jun 21, 2022 | Overlandia | 24 comments

The country likely hit peak sales of gas-burning cars in 2017. The next two years saw car sales decline, then plummet after Covid. Except EVs. They’re the only growth market in the automobile sales world. Lots of reports suggest EVs will overtake gas car sales entirely by the 2030s, and that by the 2040s, the vast majority of cars on the road will be EVs.

And, for us avid outdoor recreationists, EVs have entered the picture as viable alternatives for adventure vehicles with the release of Rivians, the new Ford Lightning F-150, the new VW ID.Buzz, the Hummer, and lots more. But EV trucks are unfathomably heavy vehicles and making them consumes more energy than it does a gas-burning truck.

The folks at The Drive put together a pretty well-researched article looking into how EV trucks match up against their gas-burning truck cousins. How long would you have to drive a Rivian, for example, as compared to a Ram 1500 say, before the zero-emission Rivian overtakes the Ram in terms of overall carbon output?

Now, lots of carbon emissions data will depend heavily on where you live and the energy matrix that makes up your grid. For example, California’s energy grid is far cleaner than, say, a state that burns lots of fossil fuel for power. Another thing that’s crucial to point out here is this isn’t a comparison between super efficient EV cars and gas cars, but EV trucks and gas trucks.

The lesson you’re left with after reading the piece is if you wanna run out an buy a Rivian to save some carbon emissions today, you might do just as well finding a gas-burning Toyota Corolla wagon or something, and making that your adventure rig—for now. Technology will of course make batteries more efficient, scale will mean it will be easier and more efficient to make EVs, and we’re in that phase where we see the future, we just have to iron out the kinks to get there. Zero emissions cars are clearly the future, and had they been the past too, we’d all be a lot better off.

Read the whole thing, right here.

Dirtbag, here. Not necessarily by choice. Not sure how much it cost to build my 2003 Mazda Protege HB, but 1) it’s about 1/5 the size of any so called mid sized truck or SUV 2), it gets abt 35 mpg on the highway, 25 in town 3) I bought it 6 years ago as a ‘second car’ for our family (more like a 3rd) and, thanks to a second roof and bike rack, has become my daily driver to the mountains (not that it’s a long drive). It’s actually only got 125,000 miles on it and I intend on keeping it for awhile yet. Now, about the Arc’teryx Atom I found at a thrift store for $35 and the ‘new to me’ sailboard for $200… I think people have lost their minds over how much they spend on pretty much everything, but I don’t see any of ’em living in a van down by the river, neither.

Living in a van down by the river now costs $100k just for the rig. (RIP Chris Farley)

I’ve yet to see a comparison with buying used. For instance, I bought my Tacoma with 165k miles on it. Couldn’t I rightly say the carbon deficit of buying a new vehicle was totally negated by buying used? That’s like starting 30-50k kg CO2 in the green. Since I got it, I put on 35k miles over three years getting about 18 MPG. At that rate, I figure I can drive it another 12-15 years (i.e. into the ground and then some) before I come anywhere near the Rivian line. I’m all for getting as green as possible but the old yankee saw still rings true: “Use it up, wear it, out, make it do, or do without”.

It’s also interesting to consider a new Tacoma might do 400,000 miles, and a Rivian 100,000 miles. Which has the smallest foot print?

Gotta get more cars to become 30 year cars, be they electric or gas

You could only say that if it plays a necessary role in preventing a new vehicle from being made.

I like these comments!!! We have 2 Honda Pilots with 160K and 130K miles respectively. We purchased them new, but they’re now 15 years old and still provide reliable everyday transportation. Added a stripped Ford F-150 5 years ago and anticipate keeping it for another 10; by then I’m pretty sure the battery tech and charging infrastructure will make going electric a no-brainer.

Electric is stop gap politically driven dog and pony show. Not the future, it is a disaster. Lower local pollution levels, but destroy the globe. Coal fired plants make up 40% of electricity generated. In 2040 may drop to 22%. Burn coal not oil???

Personally, being on the Freedom 85 retirement plan necessitated by my mountain bike addiction, living in the Okanagan valley, and underpaid government position, I hope to buy a Tacoma hybrid when they’re available. They’re far more practical than EVs for towing, highway fuel economy is good, and they’re more realistic for going to remote places. I’m not convinced the power grids in the most populated provinces and states can even sustain a massive influx of EVs. My Tacoma could probably easily do another 300,000 kms but I like the idea of a hybrid to reduce my use of fossil fuels. Toyota is more focused on hybrid technology because they build vehicles with the idea of being usable all over the world.

That’ll likely be my next vehicle, too. Hope they keep the bed dimensions the same so my sleeping/storage system and rack can be reused!

My hybrid Toyota Highlander gets better fuel economy in town than on adventures.

Only vehicle we own, does it all very well for us. Big enough to carry gear and family of 4 for a week of adventure, small enough that the ‘bad’ MPG when loaded (bikes, cargo pod) is 25-26MPG.

As much as I would like a Lightning, an e-bike for about town and better long range public transport (more passenger trains in this country!) are my wish list for when I turn 60.

What you perhaps haven’t mentioned is that, for many American in particular, the play truck is their second or third vehicle (as seen in the comments above), often used to get to their second house in the mountains.

Surely the best thing would be to own one vehicle that gets used for everything? It seems odd to compare the ‘greenness’ of going out and buying a second or third vehicle, as no amount of ‘keeping it forever’ or whether it’s hybrid/electric/gas is going to offset its manufacture in the first place.

Here is one article that takes a look at potential impacts to power grids: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/01/how-many-electric-cars-can-the-grid-take-depends-on-your-neighborhood/

Much longer range is certainly going to be needed to accommodate those areas that will take years to have a reasonable charging grid in place. Maybe Infrastructure Bill #2 or #3 in the future.

Kind of like people who build a new “green” certified house. You do know that the most environmentally friendly house to buy is one that is already built? The bantering back and forth about how green a car is versus another, etc etc is all talk for people on the fringes. Like anything, companies will produce a ton of EVs and hybrids when they are as profitable as an ICE vehicle and consumers will but them in droves when they are affordable to the masses.

Not necessarily true, depending on the materials

Might be true in vehicles. Although EVs aren’t the environmentally sound option we once thought they were due to mining, extraction of raw materials, battery disposal, etc versus in the long run they obviously pollute mush less than an ICE over their lifetime so there is an argument. A house, other than the discussion of natural gas and maybe a few other small matters, a house does not really contribute to much pollution in and of itself. So I’d be hard pressed to believe building a new home, no matter how green the materials used or the process, will be more friendly on the environment than a house that is already sitting there ready for use. That’s a tough sale.

I dream of a world where my EV has a skin of solar panels that charge it up completely while I do something fun in the outdoors. If I have to stay out for a day or two longer to get charged up, so be it.

Don’t forget to take into account fossil fuel power plant efficiency vs combustion engine efficiency.

Also, don’t lose sight of the bigger picture. Which might be, working towards a healthier planet? In that case, carbon measure is a small part of the picture even when it just comes to emitted gases. Don’t forget about all the other gas emmisons involved with either of these options. With all gases taken into account, the story may be a little different.

Does anyone here know about what role the other gases play?

As in methane emissions from natural gas drilling and pipelines? https://unece.org/challenge#:~:text=Methane%20is%20a%20powerful%20greenhouses,grows%20to%2084%2D86%20times. Or are you referring to other gases?

This is insanity. We build 8000-lb, $80K trucks with huge initial carbon cost to “solve” the climate crisis, rather than invest in high-quality active and public transportation infrastructure. I swear we seem to worship inefficiency.

We can’t all endlessly haul ourselves around at 70mph in small metal boxes and expect a reduction in energy use and associated impacts because of battery power. Energy has to come from somewhere, and externalities will increase as electricity use replaces fossil fuels. Those externalities may be good and bad – cleaner air without tailpipe emissions, but more concentrated environmental impacts in the form of mining for rare metals, other point source pollution, waste at the end of renewable energy equipment life cycles, and much more.

Drive less and prioritize public transit or non-vehicle travel. Human’s have chased efficiency as a solution to externalities for a long time, but some things just require a lot of energy. You don’t get something for nothing, no matter the source.

Completely agree. The true environmental cost of cars is never fully factored in. In addition to the obvious burning of gas, there is also noise, rubber particles from tires, safety, and endless pavement and strip malls everywhere. Cars are great, but they should be a luxury item taxed to an extreme level to pay for all these costs at least in dense urban areas, and to fill in gaps in when feet, bikes and public transit aren’t practical. Free shipping is similarly a problem. It should be extremely expensive to have a truck personally deliver a toothbrush to your doorstep within hours of buying it online. Yet it’s sometimes cheaper to do so than buying from a local store that you can walk to.

Everyone in my suburban neighborhood who loves to mention “walkability” when selling their house drives, in a huge SUV, to the grocery store that is less than a half mile from our houses, to school which is a mile away, and to the town restaurants and bars that are a mile a way all year long. Then at the end of they day they go home to work out on their Peletons or walk around the neighborhood to get their “steps” in while complaining about the cost of gas. It just doesn’t make any sense.

The problem with gas is it’s dumping way to much hydrocarbons, benzene and a raft of other crap in the air and we have been breathing this crap for everyday of our lives. It has to be stoped for the generation to come and I know it takes coal and other crap to make energy. But it is one hell of a lot easer go treat the air and cleans it up at power plants than every car and truck going down the road.

What you guys probably need to mention in the first place is that greening efforts should line up with true sustainability goals (whats the point otherwise?).

As far as carbon is concerned, global warming will stop increasing if emission per capita all reach 2.5 tCO2 per person per year. That’s the individual effort required to keep the world below +1.5c by 2050 (per UN IPCC climate science).

With this number, You ll probably get to understand this way that the car footprint issue goes beyond just the energy it uses while driving (the upstream/production footprint is even much higher than the consumption/downstream footprint). Goes beyond the car itself. 🙂

The 2.5t per capita Target eventually and more importantly means dividing your footprint (car included) by 5-7 in the US (by 4 in France).

That gives you the right order of magnitude.

And that’s what the true greening numbers are, target wise – and by the world physics.

Rest is just … talks and strategies to keep doing the same sh… more or less blindly.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *