BEVs now rival petrol and diesel vehicles in lifespan and mileage, with modern models lasting 18.4 years and traveling 124,000 miles on average. A study highlights BEVs’ rapid reliability improvements and their sustainability benefits, urging policymakers to support their adoption.
Battery-powered electric vehicles (EVs) are now as reliable as traditional petrol and diesel vehicles, with lifespans that can match or exceed those of conventional cars and vans, according to a new study. This milestone represents a significant step forward in the transition to sustainable transportation.
The research analyzed nearly 300 million MOT test records from the UK’s Ministry of Transport, spanning the years 2005 to 2022. These records provided a detailed assessment of the “health” of every vehicle on UK roads, enabling researchers to estimate vehicle longevity and compare survival rates across various powertrains.
The international research team found that, although early Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) were less reliable than internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs), rapid advances in technology have enabled newer BEVs to achieve comparable lifespans, even under more intensive use.
Researchers found that BEVs demonstrated the most rapid improvement in reliability, with a 12% lower likelihood of failure (hazard rate) for each successive year of production, compared to 6.7% for petrol and 1.9% for diesel vehicles.
BEVs Surpass Petrol Cars in Mileage
Publishing their findings in Nature Energy, researchers from the University of Birmingham, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), University of California San Diego, and University of Bern, Switzerland, reveal that, on average, BEVs now have a lifespan of 18.4 years and can travel up to 124,000 miles, surpassing traditional petrol cars in mileage.
They also identify top-performing brands in terms of vehicle longevity. Tesla leads among BEVs. For petrol and diesel vehicles, Audi and Skoda are the best performers, respectively.
Co-author Dr Viet Nguyen-Tien, from the LSE, commented: “Our findings provide critical insights into the lifespan and environmental impact of electric vehicles. No longer just a niche option, BEVs are a viable and sustainable alternative to traditional vehicles – a significant step towards achieving a net-zero carbon future.”
Co-author Robert Elliott, Professor of Economics at the University of Birmingham, commented: “BEVs offer significant environmental benefits, especially as Europe switches to a more renewable energy mix. Despite higher initial emissions from production, a long-lasting electric vehicle can quickly offset its carbon footprint, contributing to the fight against climate change – making them a more sustainable long-term option.
Implications for Consumers and Policymakers
“Our findings offer consumers reliable data to make informed decisions about their vehicle purchases, whilst policymakers can use our insights to shape regulations and incentives that promote the adoption of durable and environmentally friendly vehicles and plan ahead their end-of-life treatment.”
The study highlights the importance of advances in technology in promoting the adoption of BEVs. It also provides valuable insights for fleet replacement strategies and planning how to effectively recycle electric vehicles at the end of their working life.
Reference: “The closing longevity gap between battery electric vehicles and internal combustion vehicles in Great Britain” by Viet Nguyen-Tien, Chengyu Zhang, Eric Strobl and Robert J. R. Elliott, 24 January 2025, Nature Energy.
DOI: 10.1038/s41560-024-01698-1
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.
5 Comments
“BEVs now rival petrol and diesel vehicles in lifespan and mileage, with modern models lasting 18.4 years and traveling 124,000 miles on average.”
One of the things that contribute to the shortened longevity of ALL vehicles is accidents. It is usually cheaper to write off a badly damaged vehicle than to repair it. The other issue is road-salt damage to the vehicles used in the USA ‘Rust Belt.’ Another variable is people upgrading to newer cars instead of maintaining what they have. EVs aren’t immune to those same problems and I’m dubious that the 18.4-year longevity claim is accurate.
I had a 1970 IH Scout Aristocrat that I had bought new and rebuilt the engine about every 124,000 miles. I sold it with the mileage approaching 1/2 million miles, after about 45 years. The only reason I sold it was because about a decade after moving to the US Midwest from California, the salt used on Winter roads had done pervasive damage to the body and undercarriage and it didn’t seem to make economic sense to do a frame-off restoration. However, the person I sold it to in Missouri had intentions of doing just that, so it is probably still being driven.
Batteries remain heavy – which costs energy to transport, the energy sources remain as coal burning – so their are not an advantage for pollution. The extra weight on roads will require the entire road system including all bridges to be rebuilt. Batteries themselves are inherently dangerous and, mostly, inherently polluting to the environment long term – MORE polluting than all prior human industry. Present battery technology is preclusive and simply no good.
Little facts like these are specifically overlooked – because an army of writers are hired to pollute dialogue regarding electrics. There are other aspects regarding efficiency that remain unaddressed.
Non-polluting Hydrogen burning in piston engines is the only real solution at this time, with these energy sources.
One of the advantages of hydrocarbon fuels over pure hydrogen, it that much of the result of combustion results in a gas (CO2) that is non-condensing, which is released into the atmosphere. Hydrogen, on the other hand, results in ONLY water vapor. A first-order estimate is that the magnitude of the H20 vapor volume and CO2 volumes will be comparable. Initially, it will only increases the relative humidity, but that results in an increased Heat Index in Urban Heat Islands. If the air becomes saturated, then the water condenses out, making roads slick (worse in Winter if rime ice is formed!), encouraging the growth of mold and corrosion in steel, and dense ground fogs in transition seasons in transportation corridors. All of those can lead to increased automotive accidents.
A potential solution to that is to condense the water vapor on board, but the increasing weight will cut into the gas mileage or efficiency of the fuel, possibly affect the handling of the car, particularly the stopping distance of an empty water tank versus a full water tank. A water tank also becomes an additional maintenance issue requiring purging at least as frequently as filling the gas tank. However, because oxygen is being derived from the air, it will probably require purging more frequently than fueling. One could just let it drip onto the highway, but that results in pavement being perpetually wet, decreasing stopping distance and requiring that the more fastidious drivers to wash their cars more frequently, along with the other issues of mold, corrosion, and decreased fuel mileage. Additionally, water discharged onto roads will dissolve and dilute road salt used to melt ice and snow. Adding more salt will be expensive and may result in more environmental damage, particularly close to roads.
Along with those issues above, hydrogen has a nasty habit of embrittling steel — meaning storage tanks, fuel lines, and couplings. Piston heads and intake valves might also become embrittled, shortening the life of piston engines. As far as I know, the problem of embrittlement has not yet been solved because any substitutes have to have similar tensile strengths and costs. Hydrogen also has the widest range of air:fuel mixtures that are explosive; that means even small leaks in a garage or parking facility could be deadly. I suspect that insurance companies will frown on people parking their hydrogen cars in garages if leaks prove to be a problem.
Personally, I don’t think most hydrogen advocates have thought this through, or have a sufficient technical background to be making recommendations. I hope that society doesn’t make the mistake of endorsing a particular solution before being apprised of all the facts.
Pollution, like ugly babies, is in the eye of the beholder. CO2 wasn’t really a concern before the 1960s. H2O isn’t currently seen as a problem, but that is likely to change if we stop using fossil fuels.
“… decreasing stopping distance” should be changed to “increasing.”
Something I didn’t mention is that one of the motivations for eliminating fossil fuels is its claimed role in global warming. Unfortunately, virgin hydrogen from geologic sources will add to the water vapor in the air, potentially increasing the warming rate instead of decreasing it. While water vapor will precipitate out in a few days, it can contribute to warming during the time it is present, at a rate greater than CO2, albeit for a shorter time. Additionally, hydrogen made by electrolysis from water, and oxidized in areas that normally have low evapo-transpiration rates, will also present the potential of warming in areas that are typically already hot, exacerbating global warming. I’m obviously not as optimistic about the potential for a hydrogen economy saving us from ourselves as most advocates seem to be.
thank you for the last information