My name is Dan Fichana, what was used, was my arguement that someone was taking the LCA conducted by the author and using to scale up based on kwhr of the batteries for a Tesla Model S which is wrong in terms of LCA. That blogger that I was referring to also failed to consider differences in materials.
I had previously coauthored a book and my chapter focused primary on life cycle assessments as did my thesis.
The main issue I had with the paper is that they under estimated the battery life and used batteries which no EVs uses. Yes, had an EV used iron phosphate batteries, eutrophication would be high, but that is a function of nitrates and phosphates, so if you use iron phosphate, yes, it's going to be extremely high, if you use lithium titanate, or NCA (nickel cobalt aluminum), not so much. The other battery they used was NCM (nickel cobalt manganese, again, no one uses it currently). LCAs are VERY, VERY specific to input materials.
I also did not like the fact that the paper used 150,000 km; that's 93,000 miles. The commonly accepted figure is ~250,000 km or 155000 miles (US DOT 12.5K per year , ~13 year car lifespan).
It also fails to consider recycling and the end of car life use of the batteries. It's expected that the batteries will have substantial capacity left during the end of the car life which could be used for other purposes, but the LCA allocates all virgin material resources to Ev production which is wrong.
Now, if you dig in further, you get to peak vs off peak charging, this depends on who you ask. In the US, peakers cite NG and coal as the source, optimists cite solar as the source, night chargers cite base nuclear and coal as the source. In the peakers and night, you are talking about maybe 500 g CO2 per kwhr for a full LCA, or enough for roughly 3 miles, of course the grid is getting cleaner though. If you use solar or wind, it's much, much less. Also as you get more and more involved, those base coal plants may emit less due to carbon capture techniques.
So to sum it up wrong materials, lower than normal mileage, attributing virgin material, and failing to consider end of car life uses for batteries.
There's too many errors, some of which could have been corrected with better assumptions