N※N

EVs in Twin Cities: Life-Cycle Study Shows Coal-Powered Grid Cuts Green Edge

70

  //automotive-transportation.news-articles.net/co .. udy-shows-coal-powered-grid-cuts-green-edge.html
  Published in Automotive and Transportation on Tuesday, December 2nd 2025 at 6:22 GMT by TwinCities.com

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-12-02 242 x 208 / 11716 Bytes

2025-12-02 247 x 204 / 13535 Bytes

2025-12-02 179 x 224 / 10868 Bytes

2025-12-02 221 x 224 / 7496 Bytes

Are EVs Really Better for the Environment?
A Deep‑Dive into a New Life‑Cycle Study on Coal, Battery Production, and Driving Range

In a climate‑conscious era where electric vehicles (EVs) are hailed as the next frontier of sustainable transportation, a fresh study published this week challenges some of the conventional wisdom. The Twin Cities Times, drawing on research from the University of Minnesota’s Center for Energy Research, has broken down the environmental impact of EVs in the region, taking into account the heavy coal‑dependency of the local power grid, the carbon cost of battery production, and the often‑overlooked role of vehicle range.

1. The Study’s Premise

The research, titled “Carbon Footprint of Electric Vehicles in the Twin Cities: A Life‑Cycle Analysis” (link to the full PDF), seeks to answer a straightforward question: When you factor in the entire lifecycle—from mining lithium and cobalt to manufacturing batteries, charging vehicles, and disposing of components—are EVs still the greener option?

To answer this, the team employed a cradle‑to‑gravel model, examining emissions from:

1. Raw material extraction (lithium, cobalt, nickel, graphite).
2. Battery manufacturing (including the energy needed for electrolyzer and cathode production).
3. Vehicle production (steel, aluminum, composites).
4. Operation (electricity use during charging, compared to gasoline combustion).
5. End‑of‑life (recycling or landfill disposal).

The model was calibrated for the Twin Cities, where the grid’s energy mix—predominantly coal, with increasing contributions from wind and solar—has a unique profile that can skew the EV advantage.

2. Key Findings

a. Coal‑Powered Electricity Drains the EV Edge

On paper, EVs are often cited as emitting 50–70% less CO₂ per kilometer than conventional cars. However, when the Twin Cities’ electricity is calculated with its current coal‑rich mix, the reduction dips to 35–45%. In some scenarios, especially during peak coal output, the gap shrinks to only 20%.

“If you’re charging a vehicle during peak hours when the grid is coal‑heavy, you’re essentially offsetting the emissions that the EV itself would otherwise avoid,” notes Dr. Maria Hsu, lead author of the study.

The authors stress that this is a moving target. Minnesota has pledged to reduce coal usage by 30% by 2030, which would naturally improve the EV advantage. However, until that transition is complete, EVs may not deliver the full environmental benefit that many policymakers anticipate.

b. Battery Production Remains a Significant Carbon Culprit

Even in a coal‑free world, the manufacturing process of lithium‑ion batteries contributes roughly 15–20% of the vehicle’s total emissions. This figure includes the energy-intensive steps of mining and refining raw materials and the assembly of battery cells. The study suggests that if battery production can shift to renewable electricity and adopt more efficient manufacturing techniques, the EV advantage could widen by an additional 10–15%.

c. Driving Range Matters

The researchers introduced a novel parameter: “range‑to‑emission ratio.” They found that vehicles with longer ranges (e.g., 300+ miles per charge) can distribute the manufacturing emissions across more kilometers of operation, thereby lowering the per‑kilometer carbon footprint. Conversely, shorter‑range EVs (around 100–150 miles) may not fully amortize their battery emissions, especially in coal‑heavy regions.

“In practical terms, a 300‑mile EV on a partially renewable grid can emit as little as 12 g CO₂/km, whereas a 150‑mile EV may still be at 18 g CO₂/km,” says Dr. Hsu.

3. Broader Context and Local Implications

The article links to several related resources that flesh out the local picture:

• A Minnesota Department of Energy brief on the state’s current grid mix and future decarbonization plans (https://www.mnde.energy.gov/grid‑mix).
• A Twin Cities news feature that highlights recent increases in wind and solar capacity in the region (https://www.twincities.com/2025/08/30/mn-solar‑growth).
• A piece by the Environmental Defense Fund that discusses battery recycling technology and its potential to cut emissions (https://www.edf.org/innovation/battery-recycling).

These links underscore that EV environmental performance is not static; it is deeply intertwined with regional policy, grid upgrades, and advances in battery tech.

4. Takeaway for Residents and Policymakers

1. Coal Still Matters: Until the grid’s coal share is substantially reduced, the environmental benefits of EVs will be muted. Residents who can time their charging for off‑peak renewable hours will see the biggest gains.
2. Battery Innovation is Key: Support for research into greener battery chemistries (e.g., sodium‑ion, solid‑state) and more efficient manufacturing processes can further lower emissions.
3. Range‑Efficient Models Win: If you’re deciding between a short‑range commuter EV and a longer‑range model, the latter could be the smarter environmental choice, especially in a coal‑heavy area.
4. Policy Synergy: Local incentives that combine EV adoption with grid decarbonization—like rebates for home solar panels paired with EV chargers—could yield compound benefits.

5. Conclusion

The Twin Cities study offers a nuanced, data‑driven perspective that tempers the rosy narrative often painted around EVs. While they remain a step forward compared to internal‑combustion vehicles, the full environmental promise of electric cars hinges on cleaner electricity and more sustainable battery manufacturing. As Minnesota moves toward its 2030 targets, the “green” advantage of EVs is likely to grow, but the path to that future will require coordinated effort from utilities, manufacturers, and consumers alike.