Found a good source [2] on this and made a spreadsheet, so look for yourself [1]. There's a second sheet attached that shows the countries with below <30% fossil fuel in the electricity mix for a better overview.

[1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16K4gNhy_AN8Eg4Ov3z7p...

[2] https://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=2&p...

Edit: Have a look at Norway - they could burn their own oil cheaply, but they are a bit smarter than that. Noteworthy is also Brazil - before someone comes in and says you need to have a fully developed rich economy to do this.

Edit2: Friendlier view link.

I think this misses the point. With that thinking virtually everything produces carbon emissions - the question is how much, and what is it a function of. Hydroelectric (which doesn't just include dams btw.) may have a positive CO2 balance, but it doesn't scale linearly with the amount of electricity you produce from it. The same goes for all other renewables. Battery manufacturing is trickier - it does scale its footprint with number of miles driven (because it has a limited service life), but I'd assume the term has a fairly low multiplier compared to directly burning gasoline to get ahead.

So my point is: The devil is in the details, blanket claims like "X is bad because CO2" doesn't really help. "Zero emission" may be a bad approximation, but I'd postulate that if you live in a place with very low fossil energy mix and use a car that has negligible direct and indirect emissions for each mile driven, you can claim "Zero emission" - otherwise the term becomes rather useless.