Electric or Combustion Car: Where Does the Environmental Break-Even Point Really Lie?

The comparison begins with what happens when you press the accelerator. For a combustion vehicle, burning fuel produces a "fine lineup" of greenhouse gases. According to the video, petrol generates a large amount of carbon dioxide. Diesel emits less, but it is the "champion" of NOx, the nitrogen oxides that contribute to air pollution. The narrator points out that transport is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in France. That figure doesn't even include fuel production: extraction, refining and transport are all energy-hungry stages and sources of various kinds of pollution.

The problem with combustion cars isn't limited to burning fuel. As they drive, vehicles also release fine particles (PM10, PM2.5), including microscopic elements such as copper and zinc. Some come from the exhaust, but they come "mostly" from tyre and brake pad wear. These particles remain suspended in the air, and some are fine enough to enter the body. The video cites an estimate that exposure to fine particles can reduce life expectancy by 8 months.

This is where the first catch for electric cars appears. Having no exhaust pipe doesn't eliminate these emissions, since electric cars also have tyres and brakes.

The second, often overlooked factor is the production of the electricity that powers the motor. Its impact depends on the electricity mix, which varies enormously from one country to another. The video compares two situations.

In France, more than two-thirds of electricity comes from nuclear power. Almost all the rest comes from renewables, mainly wind, solar and hydro. Once behind the wheel, the immediate environmental impacts are therefore "actually very low." The narrator adds, jokingly, "until the next Chernobyl."

In Germany, renewables are growing rapidly and now account for 60% of the electricity mix, according to the video. The remaining 40% still relies on fossil fuels, a quarter of which comes from coal-fired power plants. Kilometres driven electrically across the Rhine therefore emit more greenhouse gases.

The third aspect concerns manufacturing. Every car draws on the planet's stock of abiotic resources, meaning non-living resources: metals, minerals, fossil fuels. Alloys form the skeleton of all vehicles, but electric cars are the most resource-hungry. According to the video, a combustion car contains an average of 22 kg of copper, compared with 80 kg for an electric car, nearly four times as much.

This surplus is mainly due to the powertrain and the battery. Manufacturing the battery itself generates significant impacts, notably linked to mining. The question of its recycling remains unresolved, which raises the issue of end-of-life pollution. In terms of climate change, manufacturing an electric vehicle would therefore, according to the video, have twice the impact of manufacturing a combustion car. Ventilo then considers getting their "good old Micheline" repaired and sticking with petrol.

The narrator stops them: there's a "little catch," the environmental break-even point. A combustion car pollutes more the more it is driven, because of the fuel burned with every kilometre. For an electric car, it's "almost the opposite": the more it is driven, the more the impacts of its manufacturing are offset.

At kilometre zero, the electric car therefore has a significantly greater impact than the combustion car. But beyond a certain mileage, the curves cross. This threshold depends on the parameters used: car model, electricity mix, type of use, and chosen indicator (abiotic resource depletion or climate change). It is said to lie between 30,000 and 100,000 km. Since the average lifespan of a vehicle is 200,000 km, the threshold is often crossed. The video draws this conclusion: an electric car's greenhouse gas emissions are 70% lower than those of a combustion car with the French mix, and 40% lower with the German mix.

Convinced, Ventilo's friend gets excited about a fictional SUV, the "Double Rainbow Nature Experience." The narrator tempers this: another factor weighs heavily on the break-even point, and increasingly so. According to the video, over the past ten years electric vehicles have become heavier by more than 2% per year on average, compared with a slight increase of 0.7% per year for combustion cars.

Yet a heavier vehicle requires more raw materials, and therefore a more impactful manufacturing process. It also takes more energy to move. The environmental break-even point recedes accordingly. The lesson is put simply: if you're thinking electric, you also need to think light.

Ventilo raises a practical objection. They make long journeys for work, and charging stations aren't found on every corner of every main road. A hybrid, slightly cheaper and suited to long distances, seems like the compromise. The stated principle is to combine the advantages of combustion and electric: less fuel for the same amount of travel. But according to the narrator, in reality you mostly combine the disadvantages. The video distinguishes two types.

Non-plug-in hybrids have a very small battery, powered by kinetic energy during braking or deceleration. This system could avoid up to 20% of CO2 emissions over the vehicle's lifetime. But the electric range rarely exceeds 5 km, and the car switches back to combustion from 40 or 50 km/h. They are therefore only relevant for short urban journeys.

Plug-in hybrids also use kinetic energy, but are mainly plugged into a charging station or at home. Their electric range is considerably greater, between 60 and 80 km on average. On the other hand, they are heavier, because they carry a combustion engine, an electric motor, a battery and the entire power system. According to the video, hybrids are on average overweight compared with equivalent petrol, diesel or fully electric models. This extra weight means more energy is needed to move, and therefore more pollution both in manufacturing and in use. The verdict: "hybrids aren't miraculous."

For the video, the choice of a vehicle depends above all on how it is used. An electric car would be optimal for journeys of a few dozen or even a few hundred kilometres, provided it stays light. But with more than a billion vehicles on the road worldwide, a switch to all-electric won't be enough to solve every problem. This is all the more true if the world's electricity continues to be produced mainly from coal.

Ventilo asks whether there's a car with neither a battery nor petrol. The answer is the bicycle, in all its forms: tricycle carriers, cargo bikes, and many more.

The narrator proposes a "meditation" by repeating the word "mobility." That is what needs rethinking, and the French figures she cites serve to demonstrate it.

• The average vehicle occupancy rate is 1.43 passengers. This amounts to setting 1.8 tonnes of metals and materials in motion to transport 110 kg of humans, which is far from energy-efficient.
• A car travels around 12,000 km per year, but 62% of these journeys are under 10 km, or half an hour by bike depending on one's fitness.
• Half of all one-kilometre journeys are made by car, even though one kilometre represents 15 minutes on foot or 3 minutes by bike.

The video then broadens the perspective. For nearly a century, the car has organised cities and shaped landscapes with its main roads and motorways, at the expense of biodiversity and at the cost of land artificialisation. Yet another scenario is possible. French researchers at the Forum Vies Mobiles have modelled an alternative system that reuses all existing infrastructure, allowing a rapid and "painless" transition. This system relies on a network of trains, buses and coaches covering towns and countryside, with more reliable and more regular timetables. It also leaves as much room as possible for cycling and walking.

According to the video, this model results in a 70 to 90% reduction in CO2 emissions from passenger travel. Its annual cost would be seven times lower than the "considerable" cost of the car system. The narrator adds benefits for everyday life: planning refocused on people, a calmer pace, fewer nuisances and less sedentary living.

The video acknowledges that this change will require "a few of us, or even many of us, to get involved," while asserting that it "can be a wonderful journey." The final scene shows the gap between this scenario and current reality. Ventilo and their friends miss the bus, and the next one comes… the following day. Starving, they settle for a fast-food restaurant, since the nearest vegetarian restaurant is a two-hour walk away. Ventilo's eco-anxiety starts up all over again, and the question of concrete alternatives to the car remains open.