Category: Technology

More than half of Internet Traffic is Bots

Super fact 66 : Bots make up more than half of all internet traffic surpassing human activity for the first time in 2024. The 2025 Imperva Bad Bot Report found that bots accounted for 51% of all web traffic. Human activity accounted for 49% of all internet traffic, malicious “bad bots” accounted for 37%,  and 14% of traffic comes from “good bots,” such as search engine crawlers.

What made me look up this information is that I’ve recently seen a lot of idiotic and inflammatory comments, as well as inappropriate laughing emojis on social media pages and posts. The pages that seem to be targeted the most by this abuse seems to be pages related to things like climate change, clean energy, EV cars, evolution, vaccines, modern medicine, modern physics, geopolitics, information on political issues, etc. However, those topics might reflect my interests. Perhaps all topics are targeted by this growing strange abuse.

It looks like those among us who slept through the science classes in high school now think they are the real experts and have declared war on all science nerds. The question that arose in my mind is, are these keyboard warriors humans or are they bots? It is true that Artificial Intelligence does not (yet) demonstrate true independent intelligence, but that is true for many people as well. So, how do you know the difference? Anyway, that is the background to why I investigated this issue.

I looked it up and found that bot traffic has been increasing and is now the majority of all internet traffic according to, for example, the 2025 Imperva Bad Bot Report. You can read more here. Facebook is not an exception. 40% of all posts are machine generated. These bots/fake accounts spread a lot of misinformation, inflammatory comments, and some are scams.

Many people are also spreading false information and some of them are scammers, but the fact that machines do it as well add to the problem. It is also very common for bots and fake accounts to leave reactions on Facebook posts, which might be what I saw, but I am not sure. What is certain is that I have come across a lot of false information on Facebook, as well as scams and deep fakes, and Meta/Facebook is obviously not able to clean it out. There are also bots that are remotely controlled ransomware, computer viruses, spyware, and other malware.

A picture of giant computer screen with a red warning triangle containing an exclamation mark. Underneath the triangle is the text “System Hacked” | More than half of Internet Traffic is Bots
Warning of a system hacked. Virus, cyber attack, malware concept. Asset id: 1916985977 by Sashkin

Why I consider this a super fact is because it appears to me that people underestimate the influence of malicious bots. If you had asked me before I looked this up how common bot traffic was, I might have said a few percent. After all streaming, youTube, gaming, etc., require a lot of bandwidth. Considering all the fake stuff and nonsense that is spreading partially with the help of bots, this is dangerous. We know the bots make up more than half of all internet traffic, and bot traffic is growing faster than human traffic, it is important information, and I think it is surprising information to a lot of people, thus making it a super fact.

Fake Nonsense on Facebook

This section is not directly tied to the super fact above, but it concerns a related topic and is based on my personal experience with the social media platform that I have used the most, Facebook. Instagram seems to be even worse, but I am not using it as much. Why I am bringing this up is because increased bot traffic and the increased presence of fake accounts and deep fakes on social media can make this a lot worse. Combined with our gullibility and lack of critical thinking as well as the failure of social media platforms to keep after this, we are facing a serious threat.

Gullible Planet

It is well known that there are a lot of nonsense posts on Facebook (and elsewhere). The fact that we so easily fall for it and don’t check with reliable sources is a big problem. When I see something fake, I often post corrections, for example, using sites like snopes. Sometimes people are grateful, sometimes they get angry, and I’ve even been blocked and lost friends just by posting a snopes link. A lot of the fake stuff is posted by people, but a lot of posts, comments and reactions are posted by bots, and this is becoming more common. With increased malicious bot traffic, AI and deep fakes, we must improve our critical thinking skills.

Below are some examples of fake stuff I’ve come across on Facebook

Did you read that viral article on Facebook claiming that they found 20 feet humanoid skeletons in Turkey? The article stated that archeologists think that they might be fossilized Nephilim, the giants mentioned in the Old Testament. If so, did you doubt the accuracy of the article? If you did, you did good. It was based on an article in a satirical website called World News Daily Report. However, judging from the comment section, including the comments of some of my friends, most people didn’t doubt the article’s accuracy.

How about the story from a purported science magazine that scientists had just discovered that the Easter Island statues/heads have bodies/torsos below the ground. The article stated that this was a revolution in archeology that forced a reevaluation of history. The commentors were amazed over this discovery and some pointed out that not realizing this sooner was a big failure on the part of archeologists and scientists. Well, that the Easter Island statues/heads have bodies/torsos below the ground has been known all along.

How about the story about the lunch lady named Aileen G. Ainuse who poisoned the water supply at Sunnydale High School in Goobersville, Indiana, killing over 300 students and staff. It was accompanied by a scary photo of a starving lady. The readers were shocked and appalled, but not many bothered to verify the story, for example, with the help of snopes. The story was false.

Another article stated that the fact that there were no stars in the black sky in a photo allegedly taken on the moon was proof that the photo was fake and that the astronauts were never on the moon. First of all, it was day, the sun was out. When the sun is out it is very difficult to see the stars because the sun’s light is a million times brighter than the light from the stars and in addition the bright sunlight reflected off the surface of the moon dims the stars. In addition, the cameras used had short shutter speeds for picking up the bright light, not faint stars. Seeing stars in a daytime photo taken on the moon is not something you should expect. Several commentors pointed this out but most other commentors didn’t pay attention and were fooled.

I’ve also seen the opposite, people refusing to believe a true story because they fundamentally misunderstand something. Below is a youTube video showing an animation composed of actual satellite photos by NASA. Many commentors seeing this video insisted that it was a hoax because the back side of the moon is dark. But it is not. When the side of the moon that is turned towards us (the near side) is dark (a new moon) the back side reflects the sun’s light (like a full moon). The backside (far side) of the moon also looks different from the side turned towards us. In the video below the sun is behind the camera and shines on earth as well as the backside of the moon.

A final example is a deep fake Ad featuring Meryl Streep and Dr. Sanjay Gupta promoting an Alzheimer’s cure. I saw it on Facebook several times over a period of several weeks. It looked very real to me, but something felt off, so I fact checked. It turned out that Meryl Streep and Sanjay Gupta had nothing to do with the video. They were AI generated likenesses promoting a scam product. The video used all the typical polemic tricks such as “a cure that the billion dollar companies don’t want you to know about”, “buy now before they take our website down”…. We need to get better at protecting ourselves and believing 20 feet skeletons on Facebook are real is not the way to do it.

To see the other Super Facts click here

Satellites handle a very small amount of global internet traffic

Super fact 54 : Satellites currently handle a very small percentage of global internet traffic, estimated at about 1%. The vast majority of internet traffic is carried by undersea cables.

I consider this a super fact because it is surprising, true and not trivia. It is an important fact since most of us use internet every day. It is a very common belief that satellites handle most of the global internet traffic, or at least a very large portion of it. I should say that a few years ago I thought so myself.

Space satellite orbiting the Earth. 3D rendering | Satellites handle a very small amount of global internet traffic
Stock Illustration ID: 1372134458 by Boris Rabtsevich
Multiple layers inside a black cable. Optical fibers emerge from the cut end, and they shine.
Submarine underwater communication fiber optic cable on deep seabed. Asset id: 2175977719 by Dragon Claws

How Much Internet Traffic is Handled by Satellites

I should say that I did not find a lot of sites that answered this question, but all of the sites that I found gave similar answers such as, less than 1%, 1.5%, 1-2%, very little, etc.

I started out by asking ChatGPT this question “How much of internet communication does Satellites handle?” The answer I got was that Satellites handle a relatively small percentage of global internet traffic — typically less than 1–2% — with most of the world’s internet communication carried through undersea fiber optic cables and terrestrial infrastructure (like cell towers and wired broadband). Wikipedia states that satellites handle less than 5% – to an estimate of even 0.5%. I should add I do not rely on ChatGPT, SGE or Gemini, or Wikipedia for this blog but I take hints from them.

According to NOAA, over 95 percent of international data and voice transfers are currently routed through the many fiber optic cables that crisscross the world’s seafloors, whilst satellites currently carry just about 1% of global internet traffic according to Research Outreach. Operations Forces Report, Space Voyage Ventures, Neterra, and Newsweek made similar claims .

The reason satellite internet is used less is because satellite internet is significantly more expensive to use than traditional wired connections. In addition, satellites have higher latency (delay) compared to fiber optic cables, and less bandwidth (data capacity). Satellite internet is primarily used in remote areas where other forms of internet access are unavailable. Satellite internet is also used for military and government operations, as well as maritime and aviation connectivity. However, satellite internet is improving so this may change in the future. This is a comparison between satellite internet and optical fiber.

Satellites handle a very small amount of global internet traffic
Photo by SpaceX on Pexels.com
Eight layers in various colors are shown. See below for indicators.
This is a cross section of submarine fiber optic cable. Picture by Oona Räisänen (User:Mysid), Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

The layers in the picture of the submarine communications cable above are (from outside to inside): (1) Polyethylene (2) Mylar tape (3) Stranded steel wires (4) Aluminum water barrier (5) Polycarbonate (6) Copper or aluminum tube (7) Petroleum jelly (8) Optical fibers.

Related Post

A related post and super fact is: GPS uses relativity for accuracy

To see the other Super Facts click here

Robotics And Leonberger Dogs

Daily writing prompt
On what subject(s) are you an authority?
View all responses

So, on what subject(s) am I an authority? My understanding on what being an authority on a subject means is that it is being an expert with recognized credibility on that subject. However, the word “authority” has so many other meanings and it brings to mind the “appeal to authority fallacy”. The “appeal to authority fallacy” refers to appealing to influential people or organizations who may not necessarily be experts, and regardless of the evidence.

In science you don’t really have such authorities, you have experts who often disagree with each other. In the event almost all experts agree on a certain fact that has been thoroughly vetted you can trust that fact with nearly 100% certainty, and that is not appeal to authority but a probability argument. Therefore, I don’t really like the use of the word authority in this context. It is confusing. I would have preferred the question to be “In what subject(s) do you have recognized expertise?”

This is a screenshot of a pdf file. It says, “Reflex Control for Obstacle Avoidance and Self Preservation by Thomas Wikman. Submitted in partial Fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Ph.D. Thesis advisor Dr. Wyatt S. Newman. Department of Electrical Engineering and Applied Physics. Case Western Reserve University.”
This is the front page of my PhD thesis “Reflex Control for Obstacle Avoidance and Self Preservation”.

Robotics

Reflex Control for Obstacle Avoidance and Self Preservation

My PhD thesis was in Robotics, specifically Reflex Control for Obstacle Avoidance and Self Preservation. Therefore, you can say that I am an expert on Reflex Control for Obstacle Avoidance and Self Preservation, Reflex Control (in Robotics) as well as Robotics. My expertise has been recognized through my published research papers, the citing of those papers, my PhD thesis, and my peers including Rodney Brooks.

Rodney Brooks is a former director of the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, founder of several robotics research companies, and he is arguably the most famous roboticist in the world. In the 1990’s he was featured on the front page in national magazines such as Time Magazine several times. During my internship at the Robotics Lab at Sandia National Laboratory in Albuquerque, New Mexico in 1993, I spoke to Rodney Brooks about my research, and he congratulated me on my research, which he liked.

Briefly, reflex control in Robotics refers to functionally simple, quick, and reliable behaviors that override whatever more complex algorithms or humans (joystick / telerobotics) are commanding in case those algorithms or humans execute dangerous motion. Take for example, a robot moving quickly among multiple objects and the path planning algorithm generates a faulty command that would result in a collision when executed. The reflex control layer would detect the problem (assuming it knows about the objects) and halt the robot before it collided with the object. This would need to happen quickly, in milliseconds, and always in a failsafe way. After the collision has been avoided the system or the human can figure out what went wrong and figure out a new path.

To do this the Reflex controller needs to be embedded with the motion controller, and know the characteristics of the motors, the robot configuration, and mechanical characteristics, such as mass, friction model, inertia, etc., exactly. The result is that when you drive a robot around among multiple objects such as boxes hanging from the ceiling, coat racks, and sombreros, and other robots it will avoid colliding with these objects regardless of input from people or high-level path planning algorithms. It looked like the objects were protected by an invisible force field.

The Robotics Research Corporation Robot / RRC Robot, is a seven-jointed silver colored robot. It is mounted to the floor and surrounded by objects | Robotics And Leonberger Dogs
This is an old black and white photo of the Robotics Research Corporation Robot surrounded by objects including boxes hanging in the ceiling, a coat rack, and a control cabinet. I took the photo, and I created the software for the robot and placed the objects in its workspace.

Robot Kinematics

In addition, to “Reflex Control for Obstacle Avoidance and Self Preservation” or “Reflex Control for Robots”, which is very narrow field, I gained expertise in fields of robotics that are a bit wider. One such field is robot kinematics. That includes, for example, calculating the position, speed and acceleration of the tool tip (the end tip) of the robot from the position and motion of the joints of the robot. Or it could be calculating the possible joint angles from the position of the tool tip. The RRC robot was a seven-jointed robot so this could get complicated. I should say that when I worked for ABB Robotics (after my Ph.D) I created the kinematic models for 30+ of ABB Robotics robots. Therefore, I have expertise and recognized credibility in Robot Kinematics as well.

This is a stick figure drawing of the RRC robot for the purpose of defining the coordinate systems for each joint.
The drawing shows the seven joints, the seven possible rotations around those joints, the seven joint angles (the thetas), and the seven coordinate systems and their origos (the O’s) at each joint.

Robot kinematics can get complicated, at least for a seven-jointed robot like the RRC Robot. An example is the Jacobian, which is a matrix that relates joint velocities to end-effector / tool-tip velocities. The Jacobian is crucial for understanding and controlling robot motion, particularly for inverse kinematics and trajectory planning. Below is the Jacobian for the first four joints of the RRC robot. I spent an entire day deriving it. Depending on your eyesight it is difficult to read the scribbles, but it is a bunch of very long, mostly trigonometric equations. Don’t worry about understanding the matrix, it is just to show how complicated robot kinematics can get.

Hundreds of trigonometric expressions arranged in a 4 X 4 matrix.
First part of the 4-dimensional (first four joints) Jacobian for the RRC Robot.
Hundreds of trigonometric expressions arranged in a 4 X 4 matrix.
Second part of the 4-dimensional (first four joints) Jacobian for the RRC Robot.
Hundreds of trigonometric expressions arranged in a 4 X 4 matrix.
Third part of the 4-dimensional (first four joints) Jacobian for the RRC Robot.
Hundreds of trigonometric expressions arranged in a 4 X 4 matrix | Robotics And Leonberger Dogs
Fourth part of the 4-dimensional (first four joints) Jacobian for the RRC Robot.

Configuration Space in Robotics

Another subject I gained a lot of expertise in is configuration space or so-called C-space. It is related to robot kinematics. C-space is a mathematical representation of all possible configurations a robot can take. In C-space for a robot arm (like the RRC Robot) the coordinates are the joint angles instead of X, Y and Z.  For the seven-jointed RRC robot you have seven joint angles and C-space is thus seven dimensions. C-space is very useful if you succeed in representing obstacles in it. A point might become a curve, or multi-dimensional membrane in C-space, and a ball might become a multi-dimensional banana. I had a lot of fun creating algorithms for creating C-space with obstacles in it.

My Other Expertise

I also have a degree a master’s degree in engineering physics (Teknisk Fysik) from Uppsala University in Sweden. I should say that engineering physics in Uppsala was focused a lot on theoretical physics and modern physics as well as practical applications for physics. Case Western Reserve University later converted this degree to a master’s in electrical engineering. I loved physics and was a good student, but my special interest was the theory of relativity. Even though I had and still have a hard time with the General Theory of relativity and I studied the special theory of relativity way beyond what was required at school, and I read dozens of technical books on the subject. So, this is also sort of an area expertise for me.

Below are some links to topics related to the special theory of relativity on this website:

I spent at least 30 years working with software as a software engineer / robotics engineer and gained a lot of experience in software development. It was mostly embedded software but also graphical user interfaces, things you can see on a screen, and Networking Software Development. I worked a lot with Visual Studio, a powerful, expandable, and popular integrated development environment (IDE) from Microsoft.

I developed a lot of code using C++ and C#, .Net, WPF, but also other languages and libraries. I started with Visual Studio 97 (in 1997), then Visual Studio 6, Visual Studio .NET 2002, Visual Studio .NET 2003, Visual Studio 2005, Visual Studio 2008, Visual Studio 2010, Visual Studio 2012, Visual Studio 2015, Visual Studio 2017, but I never got around to Visual Studio 2019 and Visual Studio 2022. So, you can say that I am an expert on Visual Studio with C++ and C# and .NET (I am less of an expert on the other languages typically used with Visual Studio).

Later in life I also came to learn a lot about climate change / climate disruption / global warming / the greenhouse effect whatever you call it. I used to be skeptical about climate change, and I thought it might be politicized by the scientific community, but after some interesting red flags I took a deep dive into the subject, and I learned that climate change is very real and caused by us. I was politicized not the scientific community. There is a scientific consensus on the subject for very good reasons. I continued by reading dozens of climate science papers and several dozens of technical and non-technical books on the topic. Therefore, at this point I know more about it than a lot of people. Maybe expert is a strong word, but almost expert.

Least but not last

Being a Leonberger Dog Expert

I know a lot about Leonbergers because my family was lucky enough to live with one for thirteen years. His name was Le Bronco von der Löwenhöhle—but we called him “Bronco” for short. Bronco wasn’t our only dog, but our world wouldn’t have been the same without him. For instance, he once saved the life of our pug by fending off an attack from another dog. He probably saved our Labrador’s life, too, by sniffing out an impending insulin shock before it happened. Then there was the time he scared off a trespasser who’d been terrorizing my wife and other women in the neighborhood.

A big Leonberger is standing on a large red leather sofa and stretching out to give me a hug | Robotics And Leonberger Dogs
Bronco loved to dance and hug. Here he is giving me a hug (not yet fully grown).

Bronco is no longer with us, but even in his passing he was distinctive. Leonbergers tend to live less than nine years—but Bronco came very close to reaching his thirteenth birthday. In fact, he received an award for longevity called the “Grey Muzzle Award.”  We already knew he was a special dog, but we sent his DNA to two labs for research anyway. I wrote a book about our amazing Bronco and his many amusing adventures and included helpful information on Leonbergers for new owners and interested dog lovers. I also have a Leonberger website.

In the process of writing my book about Bronco and Leonbergers I came to learn a lot about Leonberger dogs, the Leonberger breed standard, their history, health issues, Leonberger organizations, health and care, etc. I became a bit of a Leonberger expert. If you are interested in the book, check it out here or here. You can also get it from Amazon in many other countries, Barnes & Noble, Chapters Indigo and many other bookstores. For more information check here.

To see the Super Facts click here

Implications of the 23AndMe Bankruptcy

This post is not a super fact post but it contains some other important information. 23AndMe, the large personal genomics and biotechnology company just went into bankruptcy. This has implications for its 15 million customers including me and my wife. In fact, it is advised that you delete your data from their website, and I will tell you how to do that.

About 23AndMe

23AndMe, founded in 2006 provides a direct-to-consumer genetic testing service in which customers provide a saliva sample that is analyzed to generate reports relating to the customer’s ancestry, genetic predispositions, inherited health conditions and other health related topics. Who doesn’t want to know something about their ancestry going back possibly thousands of years? Who doesn’t want to know about genetic timebombs in their DNA?

I took the test, and my wife took the test, our daughter took the test, other family members took the test, and it was fun and very interesting, and a good conversation starter. For example, I found out that I am practically a Neanderthal, well maybe not exactly.

Man geneticist. Doctor sits at table in genetic laboratory. Chains of DNA or RNA. Sequencing human genome. Doctor studies DNA. Geneticist conducts scientific experiments Geneticist looks at test tubes | Implications of the 23AndMe Bankruptcy
Geneticist sequencing human genome Asset id: 2479929725 by FOTOGRIN

What we did not think about is that 23AndMe represented a significant privacy risk. This is data that can be misused in various ways. You can be discriminated against based on this data, you can be denied employment, insurance companies can use it to deny you health insurance, you can be subject to surreptitious testing without your consent. Not to mention familial complications, such as infidelity, and people finding out who their real parents are, and relatives were. In the wrong hands this data is dangerous.

In October 2023 hackers stole 7 million people’s data. Stolen information included people’s names, addresses and genetic data and was sold online. This made the economic difficulties the company was in even worse. Yesterday the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and their founder and CEO resigned. Now people are rightfully worried about their data.

Ancestry from 23AndMe

However, the information we got from our genetic tests was interesting and fun. I found out that my ancestry was 99.8% Northwestern European, 85.3% Scandinavian/Sweden/Norway, 14.4% Finnish, 0.1% other Northwestern European, and 0.2% Siberian.

Not surprising since my family have lived in northern Sweden and northern Finland since at least 1628 according to the ancestry records. Other people in my family were a lot more mixed than that. I can add that I also thought it was fun to on occasion find second cousins or third cousins whose existence I was unaware of.

I also found out that I had strong Neanderthal ancestry. The report says I have more Neanderthal variants than 99% of customers. On the 23AndMe website there was a forum, or club for people with strong Neanderthal ancestry, so I joined. However, some people were taking it a bit too seriously and after I while I did feel comfortable in the Neanderthal club, so I left.

Photo of a reconstruction of a Neanderthal man
Reconstruction of a Neanderthal by Natural History Museum. Werner Ustorf, CC BY-SA 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0&gt;, via Wikimedia Commons

Fun Facts from 23AndMe

I was happy to find that I did not seem to have any hereditary predisposition for any illnesses among the ones they listed. Well, I have the typical predisposition for type II diabetes. I was happy to see that I am not predisposed to get Alzheimer’s, which I was worried about, since I have a couple of relatives with that condition.

The most fun and perhaps least important aspect of the genetic testing was the non-health related predispositions. For example, regarding “ice cream flavor preference” my genes says that I am “more likely to prefer vanilla over chocolate ice cream”. My wife got the opposite, and this is correct. I love vanilla, she loves chocolate. I am less likely than average to be afraid of heights and less likely to be motion sick.

Our eye colors, finger and toe lengths, propensity for dandruff, cheek dimples, hair texture and thickness, earwax type, freckles, bunions, the DNA analysis got it all right. By the way I am good at smelling asparagus, just like my DNA test says. The one thing that my DNA test got wrong was that the most likely time for me to wake up in the morning is 6:53AM. The DNA test got my wife’s wake up time correct, but I am not waking up at 6:53AM.

Deleting your data from 23AndMe

OK this is a lot of fun and maybe useful, but the big question is do we want this information in the wrong hands. I’ve mentioned a few ways in which this data can be misused but there may be many more ways this data can be misused that I have not thought about, that no one has yet thought about. Therefore, I deleted all our data from 23AndMe today. If you are a member of 23AndMe I suggest you do the same. Below I am giving you the instructions for how to delete your data from 23AndMe.

  • Log into your 23andMe account. You may need to reset your password.
  • Go to your profile and locate the little menu up on the far top right. Select Settings.
  • Scroll to the “23andMe Data” section at the bottom of the page and click View (button). If you want to download your data, select what you want to download. I downloaded the “reports summary”, which is a pdf file. I also downloaded ancestry composition raw data, which is a large CSV file compressed into a zip file. Finally, I downloaded family tree data, which is in json format.
  • Scroll to the “Delete Data” section and click Permanently Delete Data. This is a Red button at the bottom.
  • Confirm your request: You’ll receive an email from 23andM. Click the link/button in the email to confirm.

Important Note : I am back from my ski vacation, and I once again respond to comments posting and visiting other people’s blogs.

To see the Super Facts click here

EV Cars Indeed Emit Less Carbon Pollution

Super fact 29: EV Cars emit less pollution than Internal Combustion Engine Cars, even considering manufacturing, disposal and EV Cars being charged by dirty grids.

EV Cars emitting less carbon pollution is a Super Fact

At least here in Texas it is quite common to hear people say that EV cars do not reduce emissions. After all EV cars use electricity from the dirty grid. It is also frequently implied that environmentalists and people who care about fossil fuel emissions do not understand that the electricity for EV cars typically comes from the dirty grid. However, the environmentalists I know do know that. In fact, they typically know more and have sometimes done the math. This is why I consider it a super fact. We know that it is true that EV Cars emit less carbon pollution. This is a fact that matters, it is not trivia, and yet this fact is frequently disputed, argued over, or surprising to people.

EV Cars are more efficient than Internal Combustion Engines

For starters, EV cars are much more efficient than Internal Combustion Engine cars, or ICE, and even a coal-fired power plant is less wasteful than a car engine. The net result is that the emissions caused by EVs via the electrical grid are significantly less per mile. The miles per gallon equivalent (MPGe) for electric vehicles (EVs) varies by state/grid and depends on the model of the car but in general it is much better than for an ICE . Replacing gasoline-powered cars with EVs saves energy, regardless of the energy source used to recharge the EVs. For an ICE 16-25% of the original energy goes to the wheels whereas for an EV 87-91% of the original energy goes to the wheels.

Image showing an ICE car and its various carbon losses | EV Cars Indeed Emit Less Carbon Pollution
16-25% of original energy goes to the wheels. Data from FuelEconomy.gov, Image by Karin Kirk for Yale Connections.
Image showing an EV car and its various carbon losses | EV Cars Indeed Emit Less Carbon Pollution
87-91% of original energy goes to the wheels. Data from FuelEconomy.gov, Image by Karin Kirk for Yale Connections.

The Manufacture and Disposal of EV Cars

It takes more energy to manufacture an EV battery for an EV car than it does to produce a combustion engine. So, the production of an electric vehicle does emit more carbon than a petrol car. However, the lower emissions resulting from driving an EV means that an electric car quickly pays back that debt, so to speak. It is typically paid back within two years, according to Hannah Richie, the research director at Our World in Data. The statistics show that switching from an average ICE to an equally sized EV will save 1.2 tons of carbon emissions per person and year. That is a lot considering that the average carbon footprint per year is 4 tons worldwide and 14.4 tons per year for an American.

So, are electric vehicles definitely better for the climate than gas-powered cars? This article from MIT answers the question in the affirmative. The graph below includes construction of facilities, manufacturing of vehicle and battery, production of fuel, vehicle operation as well as disposal. It  is taken from this government website and this article also answers the question above in the affirmative. This is an article from the Department of Energy is stating the same thing.

The histogram graph show that if you consider construction of facilities, manufacturing of vehicle and battery, production of fuel, vehicle operation as well as disposal the total average greenhouse gas emissions from EV cars is 52% less.
Lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions comparison of average gasoline car and average EV.

Hannah Richie at Our World in Data also states that other environmental damages related to EVs such as mining for minerals are less than the damage from mining and extraction for fossil fuel cars, and she claims that the price of lithium-ion batteries has fallen by 98% over the last three decades. It should be noted that EVs are becoming increasingly common. According to Our World in Data in 2022, 88% of all cars sold in Norway were EVs and 54% of all cars in Sweden were EVs.

EV Cars Indeed Emit Less Carbon Pollution
Photo by Kindel Media on Pexels.com

Other EV Myths

There are other EV myths that you may want to have debunked, such as Electric vehicle batteries are unreliable and need to be replaced every few years. In 2011 battery failures were common, 7.5%, but in 2023 battery failures were 0.1%. See this article for details and other myth debunking. A related post is my post on electrification.

I should add that there are some drawbacks with EVs such as the easy with which you can charge them, depending on your location. This post is not a promotion of EVs, and I do not drive an EV for various reasons. This post, like most posts in this blog, is about correcting misinformation and getting the facts correct.

To see the other Super Facts click here