Is an EV actually better?
Most EV comparisons start with the answer and work backwards. This one doesn't.
Should you buy an EV? Let's actually look at the numbers.
We compare a Hyundai Ioniq 5 and a Ford Mustang Mach-E against a gas RAV4 and hybrid RAV4 — across emissions, fuel costs, and maintenance — using your city's live grid data and real service intervals. No spin in either direction.
EVs cost more to manufacture than gas cars. The battery is responsible for most of that gap, and we don't hide it — it shows up right at year zero on every chart. But lower running emissions and a fraction of the fuel cost mean that debt gets paid back. How quickly depends on where you live, how much you drive, and how clean your grid is.
Enter your city below to pull live grid carbon data, dial in your driving habits, and see the full picture — emissions and costs — over 10 years.
Solar charging is treated as 0 gCO₂e/kWh and $0/kWh — free electrons, clean electrons. This reduces both the EV's operational emissions and its fuel cost proportionally.
What this tool is actually measuring — and why it matters
Yes, EVs start with a carbon debt. Here's why.
Building a battery is energy-intensive work. Mining lithium, cobalt, and nickel; refining them; assembling cells; shipping everything from Korea or Georgia — it all adds up. The Ioniq 5's 77.4 kWh NMC pack alone is responsible for roughly 6,500 kg CO₂e before the car turns a wheel. Add the rest of the vehicle, and you're looking at about 14,500 kg CO₂e total, versus ~8,500 kg for a gas RAV4.
This is a feature of the analysis, not a bug. We show it prominently because it's real, and because the interesting question isn't "do EVs have a manufacturing penalty" (they do) — it's "how long does it take to pay it off." That answer depends on where you live.
Why Quebec and Alberta get very different answers
An EV's driving emissions are entirely a function of the electricity it consumes. In Quebec (grid intensity ~28 gCO₂e/kWh), an Ioniq 5 emits roughly 5 g CO₂e/km — that's in bicycle territory. In Alberta (~385 gCO₂e/kWh on a typical day), the same car emits around 68 g/km. Both are still comfortably below a gas RAV4's ~243 g/km, but the EV's advantage is a lot thinner when you're on a gas-heavy grid.
Alberta's grid has been improving quickly — coal was phased out in 2024 and wind and solar capacity is growing fast. Every year the grid gets cleaner, the breakeven point shortens. This tool fetches live data, so what you're looking at reflects today's grid mix, not a five-year-old average.
How to read the lifetime emissions chart
The gas RAV4 is pegged at 100% across all 10 years — it's the reference line, not a target. Every other vehicle is shown as a percentage of what the RAV4 would have emitted by that point in its life. EVs start above 100% (that's the manufacturing debt showing up at year zero) and slope downward as cleaner driving compounds. The moment a line crosses below 100%, that vehicle has, in total, emitted less CO₂ than a gas RAV4 driven the same distance.
On a dirty grid, that crossover may not happen within 10 years. The tool shows that honestly too. Hover any year for actual tonnage.
The hybrid sits in an interesting middle ground
Hybrids are tempting: they cost only slightly more to manufacture than a pure ICE vehicle (the small NiMH battery adds maybe 700 kg CO₂e vs. the Ioniq 5's 6,000 kg premium), so their manufacturing debt is low. But their fuel economy, while impressive, still involves burning petrol — so they can't match an EV's per-km emissions on a clean grid.
On a very dirty grid, though, the RAV4 Hybrid can actually be the lowest-emissions option. When the EV's per-km emissions get close to the hybrid's, the EV's manufacturing debt may never fully pay off within the vehicle's lifetime. We show that scenario rather than paper over it.
LFP vs NMC — not all batteries are created equal
The Ioniq 5 uses NMC811 chemistry (lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide) — energy-dense, long range, but expensive to produce in CO₂ terms because cobalt and nickel are resource-intensive to mine and refine. GREET 2023 puts NMC811 at roughly 84 kg CO₂e per kWh of capacity.
The Mach-E Standard Range uses LFP (lithium iron phosphate) cells from CATL. No cobalt, no nickel — the cathode is iron and phosphate, both cheap and abundant. GREET puts LFP at roughly 52 kg CO₂e/kWh. On a 72 kWh pack that's about 2,760 kg CO₂e less than the Ioniq 5's battery — enough to shorten the emissions breakeven by years in Alberta. The trade-off is lower energy density (and therefore shorter range per kWh), which is why LFP tends to show up in standard-range variants rather than long-range ones.
What we're not capturing — and why you should still care
Manufacturing emissions here are GREET 2023 averages. The actual number depends on which factory built the car, what energy mix that grid runs on, and which specific suppliers were used. The Ioniq 5 made at Hyundai's Georgia plant uses a different grid than the one made in Korea.
We also haven't modelled battery degradation, end-of-life recycling credits, upstream methane from gas extraction, or the difference between average and marginal grid emissions. These all matter for a PhD-level analysis — and they go in various directions. For a well-grounded real-world estimate, this tool is the right level of detail. For a definitive answer specific to your exact situation, you'd want a full lifecycle assessment.
Where the numbers come from
- CAA 2023 Driving Costs — maintenance estimates by vehicle type
- Consumer Reports Annual Auto Surveys — EV vs ICE reliability & service costs
- GREET 2023 — Argonne National Lab, vehicle cycle emissions & battery manufacturing
- GREET 2023 — NMC811: ~84 kg CO₂e/kWh · LFP: ~52 kg CO₂e/kWh
- EPA fuel economy ratings — Ioniq 5 AWD LR, Mach-E SR RWD LFP, RAV4, RAV4 Hybrid
- Natural Resources Canada — fuel consumption guide & CO₂ factors
- Electricity Maps — live grid carbon intensity by location
- OpenWeatherMap — city location lookup
- IPCC AR5 — lifecycle CO₂e emission factors for gasoline (2.31 kg/L)
- ICCT (2021) — Lifecycle emissions comparison, North America
- Transport & Environment (2021) — EV lifecycle analysis, Europe
We're not here to sell you an EV
CWM Energy does clean energy consulting. We think EVs are a meaningful part of decarbonizing transportation. We also think the case for them is strong enough that it doesn't need exaggerating — and that showing inconvenient truths (manufacturing debt, grid dependency, longer breakevens in Alberta) builds more trust than hiding them.
Every number in this tool is derived from a published source or manufacturer data. Where ranges exist in the literature, we've used conservative mid-point estimates and noted the uncertainty. If the grid gets cleaner, the numbers get better — and we'll update the tool when they do.
Spotted something wrong? Tell us.
Lifecycle analysis is genuinely tricky, battery manufacturing data improves every year, and new model specs come out constantly. If you think a number is off, a key variable is missing, or a comparison vehicle would serve this better — we want to hear it.
Send feedback →This tool is built for education and exploration, not to replace proper financial or engineering analysis. The numbers are well-sourced estimates — not guarantees.
- Averages, not actuals: Manufacturing emissions are industry-average figures from lifecycle models. Your specific vehicle, built in a specific factory on a specific day, will vary.
- Live data is a snapshot: Grid carbon intensity changes hour by hour. Today's number is a starting point — annual averages tell a more complete story.
- Not financial advice: Buying a car involves financing, resale value, insurance, and a dozen other things this tool doesn't model. Use it as one input, not the whole answer.
All purchasing decisions are yours. We just wanted to make sure the emissions and cost picture was a bit clearer before you made them.