Why Electric Cars Are More Polluting than Gas Guzzlers — at Least in China

Electric cars are all the rage in China, but they may not be helping to clean up the environment or protect human health from pollution.

  • Share
  • Read Later
Mark Ralston / AFP / Getty Images

Cars travel on the second ring road as pollution reaches what the US Embassy monitoring station says are "Hazardous" levels in Beijing on December 5, 2011.

It’s unspoken, but every driver gliding around town behind the wheel of a Prius is thinking the same thing: “I’m saving the planet. What are you doing, you dirty-fossil-fuel burner?”

What’s implied is that hybrid or electric-car drivers are also saving human lives, since the fuel-burning internal combustion engines that power conventional vehicles emit carbon dioxide and fine particulate matter including acids, organic chemicals as well as dust and soil; this pollution has been linked to respiratory and heart problems and cancer.

But, according to a new study published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, it turns out that the use of electric vehicles may not be that clean after all, particularly in the world’s most populated country, China.

In the study, Christopher Cherry, an assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at University of Tennessee, and his colleagues found that in terms of air pollution, electric vehicles were more harmful to public health per kilometer traveled than gasoline-powered cars. That’s right — the electrically powered cars turned out to be dirtier than those with internal combustion engines.

VIDEO: Turning Old Gas Guzzlers Into Electric Vehicles

How could that be? Cherry says there’s been an implicit assumption that because electric cars don’t burn fossil fuels, they’re cleaner for the environment and safer for people, but that doesn’t take into account how the electricity they use is generated. In China, that would be from — you guessed it — fossil fuels. About 85% of the country’s electricity is powered by fossil fuels, of which 95% is coal.

“It’s tricky comparing electric vehicle emissions with emissions from internal combustion engines, because you can’t compare the emissions,” says Cherry. “With gasoline engines, a 1-1 change in emissions results in a 1-1 change in health outcomes because the emissions are released in the same place where people inhale them.”

That’s not the case with electric cars, whose dirty emissions are released at the electricity-generating power plant, while the vehicle is used elsewhere. It’s this disconnect that has given electric vehicles an apparently cleaner bill for health, but Cherry says that once you factor in how many people within the range of electricity generating power plants are affected by emissions, the story gets a little dirtier. In China’s case, pollution from electricity plants is spreading exposure to potentially harmful particulates in the air from urban populations to those in more remote rural regions.

VIDEO: China’s Knockoff Electric Carmakers

Kilometer per kilometer, electric cars in China beat out conventional vehicles as among the worst environmental polluters. On average, the fine particulate emissions per passenger-km are 3.6 times greater for electric cars than for gasoline cars. That’s better than for diesel cars but on par with diesel buses, which can spread their environmental impact across the number of passengers they carry. “If we compare gasoline car emissions to electric car emissions, the electric cars look very, very bad,” says Cherry. “So the point is that you have to consider the emissions exposure when the exposure source is far apart — the electrical power plant as opposed to the tailpipe of a car.”

MORE: 6 New Developments in the World of Electric Cars

The problem is that the Chinese government, in a well-intentioned effort to promote more eco-friendly power use, has been pushing electric cars, motorcycles and scooters in recent years. The effort has been so successful that electric bike ownership is surging at 86% annual growth. There are now 100 million electric bikes on China’s roads, and they outnumber gas-powered cars 2-to-1.

The good news is that while electric cars didn’t fare so well in reducing emissions, electric bikes and scooters — which typically use one-tenth the electricity of the cars — did a lot better. The researchers found that e-bike usage improved air quality and environmental health by displacing the use of larger, more polluting vehicles.

There’s also some hope in China’s changing energy policies; cities in the southwest have adopted cleaner electricity generating power sources, and generally release fewer emissions than those in the northeast. Cherry notes also that electricity generation in the U.S. is cleaner than it is in China, which means that the impact of electric car use in the two countries can’t be compared. But the results highlight an important lesson not just for China but for anyone eager to scale up alternative energy production as a way to benefit both man and the planet.

“China has a lot more room for improvement in its power sector, and the lowest hanging fruit would be to clean up its power sector first,” says Cherry, rather than focusing on lowering vehicle emissions. Once that happens, he says, “electric cars will have room to gain on conventional cars in the long run.”

Alice Park is a writer at TIME. Find her on Twitter at @aliceparkny. You can also continue the discussion on TIME’s Facebook page and on Twitter at @TIME.


Coal is still the #1 source of electricity in both the USA and in China. In the USA, we obtain about 70% of our electricity from fossil fuels and most of the rest from Uranium. As a result, electric cars in the USA are still mostly fueled by fossil fuel, and are far worse polluters than modern cars with internal combustion engines. This is due to all the efficiency losses associated with generating electricity from fossil fuels, power transmission and distribution losses, and battery charging losses. The MPGe rating on a battery electric vehicle should really be divided by at least a factor of FOUR to account for all these additional losses, and that's with a brand new battery and perfect climatic conditions.....so 88 MPGe is really 22 MPGe. 

For very cold or hot weather, the additional battery-electric vehicle (BEV) losses losses are huge. When temperatures are over 90 F or below 20 F, the aditional efficiency losses can be anywhere from 20% to 50%.

But wait, there is more. The battery degrades with use. If we assume average age of batteries to be 60,000 miles, the expected additional efficiency loss will be 15%, and that is being optimistic.

In the end, a Tesla will pollute more than a full size pick uu truck. Mr. Musk also arms most of the Teslas he produces with powerful radar that is always on, zapping anyone in front of Teslas with microwaves. Did I also mention the Scandinavian study that recommended that electric motors be positioned as far away from the BEV's occupants as possible? In a Tesla, the most powerful of all BEV electric motors are stuffed under the kids seats.

Have a nice day.


This feels like agenda driven journalism, or maybe even sponsored attempts at propaganda.  It is a clever trick to distract the public from the obvious creators of the problem by blaming the small and underfunded (often grassroots) efforts from individuals, progressive businesses, community cooperatives, etc that attempt to trail-blaze a solution.  Electric cars and other logical attempts of carbon reducing options that could be available that have a legitimate chance of changing norm are not to blame.....instead write about the corporate / government (wait, what's the difference again?) entities that sabotage any opportunity for cheap carbon reducing technologies to be cheaply distributed and promoted.  Consider this realistic scenario change in your "reporting" - China has a huge and popular increase in electric powered vehicles - in turn China gov't /  corporations pencil out a profit is possible and invest or better require by law that fossil fuel based power plants begin to convert to a required goal of 85%= power generation from alcohol based fuels or other biomass or renewable energy sources.  Now (ahh to dream) you have the electric car and the power supplying facility.  The only difference from your initial presentation of irresponsible writing is that the fuel source for supplying power to that mass of Chinese e vehicle drivers is an 85% reduction of the use of petroleum creating the energy for the vehicles to operate.  What do you think the environmental and health impacts that you state in your article would look like now?  Same e vehicle and and same power plant plant in a densely populated environment; the only thing that changes is the fuel source used by the plant generating the power used by those "culprit" drivers of electric powered vehicles - do you think there would be a serious and obvious difference?  Focus on the real scumbags and be a responsible source of information to the public - the problem is not the innovators brave enough to suffer the inconveniences and sometimes even persecution to get off the fossil fuel junkie systems - it's the corporate jerks and the political lackeys they buy off to support their profits.  Did you really spend all that money on a journalism degree (or maybe it was your parents) just to be a tool?  Grow a pair....


This article is an illogical mess. 

I'm not sure if confusing a loose correlation for a causal relationship was accidental or if this article is was written simply to garner clicks in an SEO scheme. 

Whatever the reason, it's clearly not worth taking seriously.


This article also does not consider that electric cars are more efficient in their use of available power.  An electric car converts 96% of its available energy into propulsion, whereas a gasoline or diesel vehicle converts 22% / 28% of their available energy into propulsion, the rest being converted to heat and EXHAUST.  Using this math alone, applied to the calculations in this article, an electric car produces only 25% of the pollution of a fossil-fuel burning car. Sure, more coal-fired electricity will be needed to power those cars, so the effect on pollution won't be lineal.  However, if it even reduced pollution in Bejing or Shanghai (or Los Angeles for that matter) by 50%, what a profound effect and great start that would be.


Hey! What happens when you put a solar panel on the car? You stop making logical fallacies. The correlation presented in this article is truly hilarious and pitiful. Please stop deteriorating the minds of Americans. 



I call BS. China has the most environmentally unregulated power infrastructure on the planet. They generate enough particulate pollution to cover major portions of the globe. Thanks to environmental regulation, the US power infrastructure generates a small fraction of the same pollutants. Look at photos of the smog in China's cities. Do you see that here in the US? NO!