What's misleading about this is the fact that the lifecycle of an EV and an ICE are not the same amount of time. They even state what they are setting the life cycle limitations to which are actually LESS than what an ICE can do. I have 4 cars, all currently have more mileage than any EV can ever get to without needing both battery and motor replacements (essentially needing to buy a new EV), 1 of them has enough mileage to equate needing to buy 3 EVs, almost 4.

I am also curious how GREET deals with the end of life of an EV. End of Life implies total decommissioning of the vehicle (not recycle) which means that the "other manufacturing & end of life" portions should be larger than the battery portion given the fact that the "end of life" should include the decommissioning of the battery. Lithium batter decommissioning is 1) SUPER high on carbon footprint, and 2) insanely hazardous. It's also interesting that GREET has such a low value for the carbon footprint of the battery when every single independent study (including studies by EV manufacturers) account for the battery production to be the highest carbon footprint aspect of the vehicle.

Lastly, I wonder how they treat time in their study. Lithium batteries over time degrade. Their study caps the range at 173k miles. On average a driver would take about 10-20 years to drive that much. Now to favor the EVs lets take the 10 years. That's 3 battery replacements in that amount of time. that's technically 3 times that 18%.