Same EV, Different Country: Why the Grid Changes Emissions by Up to 93%

Understanding how energy infrastructure transforms electric vehicle climate impact

When people debate the environmental benefits of electric vehicles, they often focus solely on the car itself, the battery size, the range, or the manufacturing emissions.

But there’s a hidden variable that can swing the results massively: where you charge matters just as much as what you drive.

The same electric vehicle can be an environmental champion in one country and merely “good” in another, with differences so dramatic they challenge our assumptions about clean transportation.

The Heavy-Duty Reality Check

Let’s examine a striking example from the commercial trucking sector that illustrates this grid dependency perfectly.

Daimler’s lifecycle analysis comparing their Mercedes diesel truck against the eActros 600 electric truck reveals the profound impact of charging location.

Identical parameters across all scenarios:

• Timeframe: 10 years of operation

• Distance: 120,000 km annually (1.2 million km total)

• Vehicle: Same eActros 600 electric truck

Yet the climate impact varies dramatically based on one factor: the local electricity grid.

The Numbers Tell the Story

A baseline diesel truck produces 944 tCO₂e over its operational lifetime. Here’s how the eActros 600 compares:

• Germany: 699 tCO₂e (26% reduction vs. diesel)

• Italy: 614 tCO₂e (35% reduction)

• UK: 557 tCO₂e (41% reduction)

• Hungary: 501 tCO₂e (47% reduction)

• Spain: 340 tCO₂e (64% reduction)

• Sweden: 132 tCO₂e (86% reduction)

• Norway: 38 tCO₂e (96% reduction)

The difference between Norway and Germany is staggering, a 93% variance in climate impact for the identical electric truck.

Why Such Dramatic Differences?

The answer lies in each country’s energy mix:

• Norway: Almost entirely renewable, with 89% hydroelectric generation. Charging an EV here means powering it mostly with flowing water.

• Germany: Despite significant renewable investments, still ~46% fossil fuel dependency. Coal and natural gas power plants add substantial carbon intensity to every kWh.

This creates a cascade effect: the manufacturing “carbon debt” of producing the EV and its battery is paid off much faster when operational emissions are near zero (Norway) versus when they’re just lower than diesel (Germany).

Infrastructure as a Product Feature

This analysis reveals a fundamental truth: infrastructure is part of the product.

An EV’s environmental performance isn’t determined solely by its engineering, it’s co-determined by the grid it connects to.

This isn’t a flaw in EV technology. It’s proof that the cleaner the grid, the faster an EV’s manufacturing carbon investment pays off.

Implications:

• Policy: Investing in renewable energy improves every EV’s performance within that region.

• Consumers: The environmental trade-offs of going electric vary greatly by location.

• Automakers: Regional grid composition should shape marketing claims and sustainability targets.

The Path Forward

The grid reality doesn’t diminish the importance of EVs, it underscores the critical role of clean energy infrastructure.

Every solar panel installed, every wind turbine erected, and every coal plant retired makes every EV in that grid more effective at cutting emissions.

The transition to EVs and the transition to renewable energy are two sides of the same coin. The vehicle is only half the equation, the other half is the grid that powers it.

📚 Sources & References

• IEA

• Daimler eActros600