First part of a special report on the main aspects related to electric cars.
We reproduce here the excellent summary on electric mobility produced by the popularization and awareness platform WattED, a synthesis originally designed as a dossier divided into seven distinct questions. Given its length, we preferred to split it in two.
Preconceptions die hard. An IPSOS poll conducted at the end of 2024 reveals that 71% of French people believe that, all things considered, the electric vehicle (EV) is not better for the climate than the internal combustion vehicle (ICV). But what is the reality?
An electric vehicle (EV) is more polluting than an internal combustion vehicle (ICV) at manufacturing, which seems obvious because of the impact of producing the battery that weighs a few hundred kilos. It is not only that: the impact of the bodywork is also greater for a vehicle that is generally larger and heavier for comparable performance. However, during its use phase, one also understands that electricity is normally a much less carbon-intensive energy carrier than oil.
To decide, you therefore need life cycle analysis studies, from the very beginning (the extraction of ores and their refining) to the end of the vehicle's life. And of course, the results will differ depending on the model (type of battery, type of motor, place of manufacture...), its use (urban or motorway, moderate or intensive, lifetime) and the country of use (cleaner or dirtier electricity).
What emerges unanimously from scientific reports is that unless in an extreme case (an EV that would be driven very little and used in a country where electricity is produced only from coal, like India...), over its complete life cycle the EV is systematically better than the ICV.
How much better depends on the assumptions and the available sources. The most recent ones, from scientific agencies, show that an EV emits around half the CO₂ globally (corresponding to moderately carbon-intensive electricity, like in Germany), or even 3 to 4 times less in countries with decarbonized electricity (like France or Switzerland).
What explains this difference, even in a country where electricity is not particularly clean? EFFICIENCY. Where an internal combustion vehicle wastes about 4/5 of the petroleum you put in the tank as heat losses, the electric vehicle only loses about 1/5. Even though the EV is generally heavier for an equivalent model, you can consider that you consume overall about 3 times less energy.
A small trick to realize this? An EV typically consumes between 15 and 20 kWh/100 km. The energy content of one liter of petroleum is around 10 kWh, so that's equivalent to a consumption of 1.5 to 2 L/100 km — you can clearly see the factor 3-4 in terms of consumption... and moreover, it is not petroleum being burned.
To the question “isn't it better to keep driving my current internal combustion vehicle to the end?”, the answer at the climate level, in a country like Switzerland or France (with decarbonized electricity), would be: “only if you will drive it less than 40,000 km more and it will be your last vehicle; otherwise it is better to stop burning petroleum as soon as possible.”
Scientifically, on the climate aspect, the matter is settled, and that is why in all transition scenarios (from the IPCC to the IEA and including all national scenarios like the Swiss Federal Office of Energy), electrification of mobility is an essential axis (and probably one of the simplest levers to implement).
Sustainability is far from being limited to the climate, and some hostile narratives about the electric vehicle (EV) on other aspects (lack of materials, rare earths, child labor...) have become viral on social networks. Is there smoke without fire? Let’s dig into these other aspects!
While studies on the climate aspect are numerous, few address the other issues. The most comprehensive we found comes from the JRC (the EU's research center), which considers the seven impacts deemed major on this subject: the climate impact but also human toxicity, energy demand, ozone formation, particulate emissions, consumption of metals and minerals, and water consumption.
Result: the EV is judged better than the internal combustion vehicle (ICV) in 6 out of 7 impact categories. Which category resists? Given that an EV generally weighs about 25% more than an ICV, unsurprisingly it is the consumption of metals and minerals.
A very interesting sentence about this impact category deserves our attention: “the higher impact of EVs is mainly due to electronic components and the use of copper in batteries. Cobalt, nickel and lithium make up only a very small portion of the total mass and do not contribute significantly to this category's impact, despite the supply challenges of these materials to meet the demand for Li-ion batteries.”
And yes, contrary to the extreme focus on obscure metal names used as scarecrows, it is actually the good old copper and aluminum that give an EV a larger mining impact than an ICV! To give an order of magnitude, the mass of lithium or cobalt in an EV will be around 5 kg for a vehicle weighing 1.5 tonnes.
Although the IEA (International Energy Agency) closely monitors stocks and flows of extraction and consumption of nickel, graphite, lithium, cobalt..., this is not because their impact would be comparable in any way to the devastation caused by fossil fuels. It is also not because there would not be enough on the planet (the IEA speaks of a flow problem, not stock scarcity).
As mentioned by both the JRC and the IEA, the issue is primarily geostrategic linked to supply security in a world where China is omnipresent both in extraction and refining of these materials (this also applies to PV solar, wind, grids...). That is why they are called “critical metals” because of their importance for the energy transition.
Let us also recall, given the persistence of this urban legend, that car batteries do not contain rare earths. Depending on the technology chosen by the manufacturer, they can however be found in the magnets of an EV's motor (neodymium, dysprosium), but know that every internal combustion vehicle contains them in its catalytic converter (cerium). This “anti-EV” argument is therefore not valid.
There remains the question of sources of metal supply and more specifically their extraction. Photos showing children working in cobalt mines are naturally shocking and cause immediate rejection. Currently 66% comes from the DRC, an extremely poor country in which cobalt — a potential source of wealth — can lead to the worst horrors.
The great majority of the country's cobalt is however extracted in official mines operated by Western companies where human rights are normally respected and working conditions are much better; the majority of profits therefore go to large commodity traders as well as local politicians. For the major recognized car companies, the risk of scandal is far too great and sourcing is entrusted to the most reliable partners possible (either directly with official mines like Tesla, or even in other countries like Renault with Morocco).
Conclusion: anti-EV arguments under the cover of ecology or ethics most often appear biased and are promoted by proponents of “business as usual,” thereby prolonging the reign of oil-based mobility. Of course, moving 1.5 tonnes of metal to transport 1–2 people is not “clean,” but scientific studies consistently show that the EV is overall better than the ICV on almost all aspects (air, water, health...).
If a 500 kg metal battery (already recycled today) raises so many questions, we seem to forget the dramatic impact of the 12 tonnes of oil an ICV will consume over its lifetime (burned and never recycled)!
The only shadow on the picture: an increased immobilization of metals, which highlights the importance of other levers for the transition (recycling, slimming down vehicles, carpooling, car-sharing, modal shift...).
One of the disadvantages of electromobility compared with thermal mobility is its limited range and its companion in misfortune: longer charging time.
Although electric vehicles (EVs) improve year after year, highway range in winter (the worst case but frequently relevant) is generally between 200 km (city cars) and 350 km (sedans, SUVs), far from the range we have been used to for decades with ICVs. Charging usually requires at least 25 minutes at a fast charger (and even hours with slow chargers), so there is clearly a legitimate fear of losing a lot of time for those who regularly travel long distances, if you have to charge twice as often and for 3–20 times longer.
This potentially significant change in terms of user comfort leads many people to immediately rule out electromobility and instead imagine easing the future with two other types of powertrains: hybrids and hydrogen.
Let us start with hybrid vehicles, currently divided into two categories:
With the PHEV, one might think that you get the best of both worlds and avoid an oversized battery with the associated material consumption. Moreover, data reported by manufacturers would suggest that the result is almost at the environmental level of EVs, while offering the “security” of petrol refueling!
The reality is unfortunately far less rosy: according to usage surveys, these vehicles are much more often used in “petrol” mode than in “electric” mode, their users tending to forget to recharge systematically.
In Switzerland, the founder of Impact Living, Marc Muller, released a small-scale study that made waves. It demonstrated that in real conditions the environmental impact of PHEVs was poor, which sounded the death knell for Valais subsidies. A few months later, major scientific agencies reached the same conclusion: the European Commission's study on 600,000 vehicles showed that actual emissions of PHEVs were 3.5 times higher than advertised!
Now let's talk about the hydrogen vehicle.
For years it has been a fantasy, promising clean mobility and generally no change in user habits. Indeed, as we have seen, such a fuel cell vehicle (FCEV) using “green” hydrogen would overall have an environmental impact almost as good as an EV.
Aside from the fact that H2 is an extremely difficult gas to handle (explosive, flammable, prone to leakage and with indirect greenhouse effects) for both users and the distribution network, that is not the main problem. What is problematic is that in the whole cycle of such a vehicle, you start with electricity (which must come from non-fossil sources), then convert it to hydrogen (by electrolysis of water), then you must store, transport, compress it (700 bar!), and use it in a fuel cell that will drive an electric motor...
All these phases therefore cause huge energy losses. Although it allows dispensing with a bulky battery, it is inconceivable that hydrogen mobility can compete financially with simply using the initial electricity to drive the motor directly.
As far as addressing environmental problems is concerned, yes, the EV is the future of light mobility, but it is clear that, barring technological breakthroughs (solid-state batteries), it represents a major change in habits for those used to ICVs. The carefree ability to refuel anywhere in no time is over, which can cause stress during unforeseen events, poor coordination, or if one is unprepared (unknown country, shared company vehicles...).
That said, rapid charging has developed a lot in recent years both in vehicles and in the deployment of high-power chargers near motorways; there is no longer any problem to charge quickly in Switzerland, France or most of Europe (it is more unequal in Italy).
However, fast-charging prices can be very high depending on the country, the operator and the speed, which partly explains Tesla's success: it allows its customers to charge at high speed at a bargain price on its own Supercharger network.
The electric car (EV), too expensive to be profitable? This criticism often returns in discussions, rightly so since historically EVs have always been more expensive to buy than their internal combustion equivalents (ICVs), mainly due to the cost of the battery. That said, the gap is gradually closing with technological improvements in EVs while we have recently observed a rise in the cost of ICVs.
In Europe, the gap is generally around +20% on the price of a new vehicle (before subsidies), with large differences depending on countries and vehicle segments (city car, sedan, SUV...).
Note that in some countries, subsidies were so generous that the EV ultimately cost less to buy (Norway, where 98% of new cars are now EVs), whereas in China, even without subsidies, EVs are sometimes cheaper than ICVs.
That said, the gap tends to narrow these days with rising ICV prices alongside fierce competition and advancing industrialization on the EV side.
But behind the sticker price at the dealer, there are a whole series of other factors to consider. Whether maintenance costs (service, parts...), tyres or other ancillary expenses such as taxes, insurance, installation of charging stations, they are on average 2x lower for EVs.
The big difference is mainly in the price of the energy consumed: petrol, diesel or electricity.
Naturally, consumption level depends on various factors (vehicle size, powertrain type, terrain, driving style, weather...). And there are many other factors that can vary prices such as where you charge.
With current public charging tariffs in Switzerland, the savings are often too small to offset a purchase price difference if the EV is significantly more expensive than its ICV equivalent. However, if you have a home charger (or your workplace offers favorable charging policies), the savings are substantial, on the order of CHF 1,000/year for an average driver. Knowing that a battery is guaranteed for 8 years (and in practice lasts longer), you can do the math accordingly. And the benefit naturally increases with annual mileage.
Although there are many scenarios and important factors (subsidies, annual mileage, etc.) and everyone should do their own calculations or get advice to sort it out, it emerges that the energy cost is always lower with an EV.
And if the owner can charge the vehicle at home, the gain is even more interesting. Be careful though, this “if” is far from trivial in a country where:
These three points today contribute to preventing a faster deployment of 100% electric mobility in Switzerland.
Added to this is the unknown about the depreciation of your EV. It is indeed all well and good to talk about a scenario based on the entire life of a vehicle but since the used car market represents 75% of vehicle purchases in Switzerland, it is worth mentioning two other points.
The first thing to check is what is still under warranty (generally 3 years for the vehicle and 8 years / 160,000 km for the battery). Compared with an internal combustion vehicle that contains many more parts and therefore many more risk factors, here the condition of the battery is THE essential parameter. For two reasons: it represents a third of the car's price and its wear will limit the range, risking no longer meeting your needs if this model only just met that criterion.
If you pay attention to this, there are very good deals to be found in the used EV market, notably because the fear of battery wear makes buyers reluctant and pushes sellers to lower the price compared to the “theoretical” value.
Apart from the caution of a market of buyers who are not very knowledgeable about EVs and still reluctant to “take the risk”, a second reason for strong depreciation comes from the constant improvement of EVs with ever more performant models for a given price.
Today, you must therefore expect stronger depreciation in view of a possible resale even if this trend could reverse in the medium term. The International Energy Agency also notes that with increased battery performance and growing public confidence, it now assumes in its models an equivalent depreciation between EVs and ICVs.
International Energy Agency (2024): Global EV Outlook 2024
IPCC (2022): Climate Change 2022, Mitigation of Climate Change. Summary for Policymakers (ipcc.ch)
RTE (2020): electromobilitee syntheese.pdf (rte-france.com)
JRC (2020): Determining the environmental impacts of conventional and alternatively fuelled vehicles through LCA
International Energy Agency (2024): Global Critical Minerals Outlook 2024 – Analysis - IEA
ADEME (2022): Emissions of Road Vehicles - Non-exhaust Particles
À contresens (2020): Documentary by Marc Müller and Jonas Schneiter, available for free on Play Suisse (1h34)
International Energy Agency (2024): Comparative impact of different forms of propulsion
International Energy Agency (2024): Global Hydrogen Review 2024
Liebreich Associates (2023): Hydrogen Ladder Version 5.0
RTE (2020): Transition to low-carbon hydrogen
Swiss Federal Office of Energy (2023): Comprehensive analysis of passenger car total cost of ownership
International Energy Agency (2024): Trends in electric cars – Global EV Outlook 2024 – Analysis - IEA
IEA tools to parameterize everything, including used vehicle costs: Electric Vehicles: Total Cost of Ownership Tool – Data Tools - IEA
Nature Energy (2025): The closing longevity gap between battery electric vehicles and internal combustion vehicles in Great Britain
This article has been automatically translated using AI. If you notice any errors, please don't hesitate to contact us.
"If the Federal Council is now considering abolishing the program — or at least withdrawing the federal contribution — it is mainly because of the windfall effects it generates," explains Philippe Thalmann, professor of environmental economics at EPFL.
"Today, 70% of our results come from abroad, while 70% of our investments are made in our historic service territory in Switzerland," says Cédric Christmann, Chief Executive Officer of Primeo Energie.
Interview with Philip Mäder, head of media relations at BKW.
At this stage, the investigations reveal an overvoltage problem that led to the failure, but do not yet allow its root cause to be identified.