thanks for doing this film and research. the other figure missing from ice car emissions, is the co2 from the extraction and refining of fossil fuel, before the vehicle burns it. that hidden cost is often ignored
I have a mate who works in the oil industry. They use the same argument. As you say, production costs (CO2 embedded) are much higher for the BEV (battery electric vehicle). This makes sense because the batteries are a significant manufacturing effort. But BEVs will look better and better the more they have driven. People used to use the same argument about solar panels. Today, almost no one uses that argument because of the weight of evidence against it.
@@theelectrictransition Green energy (solar, wind) is cheaper than fossil fuel energy today, even without grid scale storage. Interconnectors between countries (like the one in the channel tunnel and Viking Link) pay for themselves by buying energy cheap in one country and selling in another. It's only a matter of time before fossil fuel is priced out of the electricity market.
@jchidley Absolutely. Doing the right thing has never been easier. It's good news all round. We have to be realistic, renewables will get a bit more expensive than they currently are, near the end of the transition. That's because we have to do a bit more to compensate for the increased variability - more storage, for example. Even so, fossil fuels simply can't compete now.
But what the oil industry don't tell you is that by the time the gallon gets into your tank 50% of the potential energy in the crude oil has been wasted on pumping, shipping and refining. These are huge energy intensive and wasteful processes which are brilliantly illustrated in this video, jump to 1:32 on the timeline. ruclips.net/video/mk-LnUYEXuM/видео.html
Seems to me that there's fossil fuels burned in manufacturing and using any car, at least with EVs using the car is emission free, sure generating the electricity might also use fossil fuels right now, but that's all gradually being replaced by renewables, same with manufacturing, EVs aren't perfect but they're a huge step in the right direction
Yes, absolutely right. It is all going in the right direction. EVs are only a little cleaner than ICE in some parts of the world, but it's what they offer in the future as the grid continues to decarbonise that makes them a better path
From my own research I have found that, the CO2 created per kWh of an EV's battery manufacture, is about 100 kg per 1 kWh of battery, so a small EV with 30 kWh batteries creates 3 tons of CO2 to manufacture its batteries, a medium EV with 60 kWh batteries creates 6 tons of CO2 to manufacture its batteries and a large EV with 90 kWh batteries creates 9 tons of CO2 to manufacture its batteries. Then there is the difference in CO2 created, by charging an EV up, on either green renewable generated or standard generated electricity, an EV charged up with renewables, will produce 90% less CO2 per mile than an ICE, and about 60% less CO2 if its charged up with standard generated electricity. To make a comparison of Carbon Footprints between an equal sized EV and ICE an average ICE doing the UK average annual 7,500 mileage, will produce 1 and 1/2 tons of CO2, (that's 250 kg per month), an average EV, charged with renewables, (virtually all major public EV charging stations use renewables) creates about 125 kg of CO2 per year ( about 12 kg per month) and an average EV charged with standard generated electricity, creates about 600 kg of CO2 per year, ( 50 kg per month). After just 2 years, (or 15,000 miles), factoring in the CO2 produced during the EVs battery manufacturing, and charging the EV with renewables, the small EV would have created 3 and 1/4 tons of CO2, and the ICE 3 tons of CO2, (I've canceled out, the equal Carbon Footprints, to make the same vehicle, as the difference in manufacturing comes down to the EV's batteries) BUT, after 2 and 1/2 years, (or 18,750 miles) the Carbon Footprint of the ICE, becomes greater than the Carbon Footprint of the small EV, ( 3 and 3/4 tons of CO2 for the ICE, and about 3 and 1/2 tons of CO2 for the EV) AND that ICE Carbon Footprint INCREASES each year, by 1 and 1/3 tons of CO2, more than the small EV's, (the longer the ICE is on the road, the far greater its negative environmental impact is, whereas the opposite is true for an EV, THIS blows the "bangernomics" of keeping an old ICE banger on the road, totally out of the water), charging up the small EV with bog standard produced electricity, would mean, it would take the ICE, 3 and 1/2 years, (or 26,250 miles) to overtake the small EVs Carbon Footprint. Now to the medium sized EV with a 60 kWh battery, its Carbon Footprint is 6 tons more than its ICE equal as it rolls off the production line, so it would take the equal ICE, 4 and 1/2 years,.(or 33,750 miles) for its Carbon Footprint, to overtake the medium size EV that's charged up with renewables, or about 6 and 1/2 years, (48,750 miles) if the EV is charged up with bog standard produced electricity, The large EV, with its 90 kWh battery, has got some ground to make up, as its extra 9 tons of CO2 created over and above an equal ICE takes some reigning in, almost 7 years, when its charged with renewables, and 10 years, when its charged with bog standard produced electricity.
Thanks for the detail. Yes, your data fits well with the Volvo and Polestar studies by the look of it. It's great to have more and more confirmation of the same numbers; that just continues to increase the confidence we have in them. Your point about larger cars is valid, although they tend to be a bit less fuel efficient, so the offset in CO2 during usage will be somewhat affected by that. Small cars for the win though, for sure. I'm a fan of smaller cars, as you may tell from my smart ForTwo video
@@markmiller8903 interesting assertion. We've known about the warming effect of CO2 for nearly 200 years now. What makes you conclude that this is incorrect?
Hello. Thank you for your assessment in my area the East Coast of the USA we are fighting offshore wind as we think we understand the incredible destruction it's going to come to our near shores some of the folks are ranks associate EVs with the same forces that want to Foster offshore wind on us. I'm having a hard time convincing people here that it's a separate issue and that the electric vehicle movement is not necessarily related to offshore wind. It's simply a better mode of mobility. Thank you for your production of this analysis that rationally assesses the situation of ice versus EV. There are so many half-truths out there and cherry-picked facts but truly cloud the situation badly. I've done some cost analysis and it's clear that for the total investment to install the offshore wind the New Jersey plans to install it would cost nearly $200,000 per home that the wind farms would serve and instead they could have a 30,000 solar system installation that would provide better electric service then the offshore wind.
You are right, it is a separate issue. I'm interested in your desire to fight offshore wind. That's not a fight I'd be having, personally - but to each their own. What is really useful about wind is what a good capacity factor it has, better than solar I think. That's because sunlight/daytime has less impact on generation than for solar. That ability to generate 24 hours a day somewhat reduces the need for storage, which might make for a cheaper overall system in the long term. Storage - battery storage, for example - adds a lot to the cost of grid-scale installations. Energy usage patterns vary by location/local climate, so in some countries the peak of solar generation matches the peak in energy demand. That seems to be very much the case in Australia, for example, where air conditioning is a significant part of the overall energy usage, and its use peaks during the day. However, that's not the case here in the UK, as we don't use a lot of air conditioning in our homes - at least, not yet. That's why we have a lot of offshore wind - and are planning a lot more to come. In most countries, we will probably need both wind AND solar - and a number of other things in the mix as well. Hydro, for example, which is also due to be expanded here in the next 10 years. The remaining nuclear we have should also stay operational for as long as possible, although we have to admit we can't build any new nuclear fast enough to help with the transition. I'm not personally a fan of nuclear, due to the long term storage problems it bring with it, but I can't deny that we need every low carbon source we can get to reduce our CO2 emissions as fast as we can. It seems to me like there is no single winner when it comes to energy - we need the resilience that having many energy sources brings with it.
It is not just about emissions but also about health. How many people are dying from pollution? I don't have numbers but this can challenge dead's from our last pandemic, except this is still going on. A main reason China pushes EVs is to clean up air pollution. Clean air is good for the majority of people while a minority of fossil industry shareholders are opposing this. They make a big thing about problems EVs and EV production have and try to block for personal gain. The bottom line is that ICE cars and not EVs give you lung cancer and asthma and a whole range of pollution related health problems.
Yes, absolutely. I mentioned the stat in a video a month or so ago. At the moment, 3.6 million people die each year from the adverse health effects caused by burning fossil fuels, mostly from NOx. It's a scary statistic.
I wonder if a similar 'Passport' idea could be extended to the manufacture of ICE vehicles also? Some companies already try to clean up their act but an end of production 'grading' might put more pressure on them also.
Yes, an interesting point. With an ICE car, more of the emissions come from use than production, so we have generally focused on emissions control through various emissions standards, at least here in Europe
Whilst I commend Volvo's look at EV production vs ICE... Their data is only relevant to their manufacturing process. It is fair to say that as a traditional manufacturer Volvo make cars in a similar way to VW. So 30 to 40hrs per car. Whilst Tesla make their cars in just over 10hrs. With a factory run on Solar Energy and water consumption at around 1/3rd of the average (plus it's recycled water). As such it's very logical to say that a Tesla is far greener than a Volvo! Not only that but the Tesla battery is usually good for around 300,000. However, even that difference will be significantly out of date with the 2025 Tesla made 50% cheaper, faster and using the latest 1,000,000 CATL batteries.
That's a very good point. Efficient manufacturing and renewable energy are both important improvements. Having said that, most of the difference between the two cars detailed in the Volvo study are caused by battery manufacturing. Tesla make some of their own batteries, but far from the majority, at the moment. Most of their battery supply is still bought in from suppliers, most notably Panasonic and CATL. As those are not manufactured onsite at Texas, the huge renewable installation they have at that site plays little part in that element of their manufacture.
Well explained, and a level headed analysis. But I still have my reservations about these cars, like Elon bragging his cyber truck would survive an apocalypse, Maybe it would, but the first thing to go down in such an event would be the power grid. So the car may survive but unless you had a full charge you wouldn't be going far. At least you can siphon petrol or diesel from other abandoned vehicles. Not so with electric cars. Unless it was a nuclear disaster, The resulting EMP would fry most modern vehicles and they wouldn't function. Where as some older cars with basic electrical systems may still function, mainly older diesel motors as they only require enough power to crank the engine. As they have no ignition coil or other highly transistorized or microchip components. Lets all hope we never have to find any of this out.
Thanks. Yeah, some of the things Elon talks about are a bit unfortunate. I would hope that we need not think quite so deeply about our choice of car as to consider what would best cater for the apocalypse! I would think most modern ICE cars would be affected by an EMP as well, so I would think you'd have to go back to something from the 1990s or earlier to find something without electronic ignition and ECUs, at least in the UK. That might severely limit the number of cars that would survive, were such a thing to happen. Some people have solar setups that will power their houses in the event of a grid outage, but they are pretty rare - most solar systems have to shut down, to avoid back-feeding power, thereby protecting linesmen. It's an option that people might consider adding, if they are getting solar themselves - but it's an additional expense on what is already a significant investment that a lot of people will struggle to afford.
It's an interesting thought. You are right, it's not nothing - but it's a lot less by volume than the fuel a car uses, so I would think it would be a small percentage of the total. And as Mark points out, it is captured and recycled - although I'm not sure what for.
Also they don't include the huge amount of electricity needed to extract, refine and transport the oil and petrol. ICE cars are dirty, noisy, smelly dinosaurs, and speaking of which, burning their farts from millions of years ago has to go.
How exactly is gasoline made, the last time i checked, drilling for oil is a very carbon intensive process. You act like gasoline is refined from water.
Well done oil extraction and refining is carbon intensive. But the emissions will not change much if at all as BEVs require oil for production of steel, copper and plastics. Not to mention the tyres and roads they currently enjoy for free.
I completely agree. That's the primary energy point I make, although I do gloss over it a bit in this video. I can't find good numbers on just how inefficient extraction and refinement are, so I decided not to dwell on that in this video. It featured a bit more prominently in the last one on the same subject. However, I like to back up what I say with published research, and on this point, I am struggling to find that research. Hopefully, I can resolve that at some point.
@@244col all what you say is the same for ICE cars, the only difference is burning of gasoline to propel the car VS electricity, and how is the electricity is produced. The other issue with gas cars they continue to produce pollution for as long as they are being driven.
Just to talk about CO2 production during mining, transportation and manufacture is important in a global warming sense. However an ICE vehicle has significant drawbacks in air quality terms and associated health issues. This is particularly important as ICE vehicles output these pollutants at a local level and not in some remote area. The volume of oxygen burnt just running an ICE engine is quite shocking for every Kg of fuel used requires just over 14Kg of oxygen
Yes, absolutely right. I was tempted to add that in - indeed I did exactly that at the end of my previous video on this subject, but I decided to keep this one a bit simpler, to better address the viewer who made the comment
Key words 'over it's lifetime', which for many buying EV's on a PCP deal, is 3 years, which is often nowhere near enough to recover the increase CO2 output during manufacture. Then the EV enters the second hand market, which for EV's for now, is absolutely awful as no-one wants them because of the risk of the battery failing (if you can find a dealer who will take them PX). Yes, there's always a battery warranty, which helps to a degree, then when that expires (7-8 years), the EV is basically worthless, while an ICE still has some value. Then it's also about the emissions required to recycle the batteries too, which is immense, and also where the electricity comes from to charge it - if it's from coal or even a renewable/coal mix, then it won't help with overall emissions much. There are many factors that often make an EV nowhere near as green as people are being told they are.
"Then it's also about the emissions required to recycle the batteries too, which is immense," But not as immense as mining new materials. By the way, when you say immense what exactly is immense? Do you have any data on this? Or are you just guessing?
"and also where the electricity comes from to charge it - if it's from coal or even a renewable/coal mix, then it won't help with overall emissions much. " See, this sort of comment makes me realise why ill-informed people say these things. Let me put you straight because you obviously have absolutely no idea. Most EV drivers fill up at night on a cheap rate. That's good for the grid because they otherwise have to shut down generators, be it wind, natural gas or, in the UK, occasionally, coal. The UK grid, like all grids, is getting greener every year so any EV runs greener every year, petrol and diesel do not.
@@SillySausage-mq3so the sun is shining always. State of Mind. And over 10 years the Sun shines. And I have Rooftop Solar for 12 Years Now. Every year 6000 kWh. And I let a House with Rooftop Solar. 6000 kWh. Inductioncooking, Microwave Airfryer. And HT Heatpump 60 degrees LG Therma V Monoblock. No Gas. Electricity from the Roof, and Grid Solar Wind Greenchoice, Heating from the Air. Works perfect for 12 years now.🙂👍since 2012.
@@theelectrictransition Yes very Easy. Cheap, Clean. And People dont want that. Weird. They want to Pay Gas at the gas station, pollute make noise. Rooftop Solar really makes the difference. Prices down to 10 cent a Wp. In 2012 it was 2 dollar Wp. Thank You for your posting. Important.👍🙂
I for one have own an EV for 3 years now and I'm happy about it. I understand that ,their's a lot of propaganda against EV, but I have my own commonsense to understand the truth from the lies.
That's good to hear. Unfortunately, not everyone wants to make the distinction, either to suit their own personal biases, or because they have been led astray by sources they thought to be trustworthy.
End-of-life handling is sooner in vehicles with a degradable power-source. Furthermore, the energy loss as it's exchanged from input (recharge) to output (driving) increases with battery degradation, year upon year. On a separate note; climate is not going to be changed by anything we do, so one has to ask what the true objective of vehicle electrification is. In order to answer that question, a better understanding of global, societal management, both historically, and contemporary, must be acquired. In 1972, The Club of Rome, an elitist think tank, was tasked with defining the physical limits to population growth and the constraints resulting from economic activities on the planet. In 1991, they published "The Global Revolution," where on page 115 they state; "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill."
The climate is already being changed by what we do in very measurable ways. It would be lovely if that were not the case, but the science is abundantly clear. Even the oil companies knew it in the 1970s, hence the ongoing court case in America about them misleading shareholders.
@@ianhamilton3113 I have a drawer full of expensive, non-useable cellphones. Let me know what data you need to understand the life-cycle of a lithium-ion battery.
@@theelectrictransition Firstly, let me preemptively state that there is no such thing as a consensus in the scientific world. Furthermore, 96% of 77 scientists, polled in a non-scientific study, is not a foundation for "abundantly clear science." If you form your opinion of media hoopla, you're never going to be informed. Science involves quantifying definable evidence by observation, and interpreting that evidence via the correct heuristic of statistical analysis, nothing more. Many seem to be in your camp of "settled science," etc, but very few could describe a molecule. Simply put, you're being hoodwinked by entities for whom currency is their tool, and subsequently holds no value.
So you think a phone battery is the same as an EV battery/ That's why some people don't think EV's work! That explains a lot. What you need is educating from an expert. Try this guy, he's a battery chemistry technician so unlike you or I he knows what his talking about. ruclips.net/video/ewYSecZpxIw/видео.html
That's shown in the table from the Volvo assessment, for example at 04:50. It's about 58 tonnes of CO2 equivalent for the ICE, and ranges from 27 to 54 tonnes for the EV depending on energy source. That's based on an expected life of 200,000 kms - just over 120,000 miles, but assumes no decarbonisation of the grid during the EV's lifetime. The primary energy conversion for the ICE car also looks suspiciously low, perhaps because the industry standard measure is to ignore primary energy in ICE calculations
@@theelectrictransition appreciate the response, towards the end of the video I understood from some metrics that somewhere between 1/2 and 1/4 would be due to production (give or take) which is interesting to consider.
@@theelectrictransition the famous phrase use to be that a Prius was worse than a Hummer for the environment, I'm looking forward to some honesty in industry.
Agreed, and that's what I was trying to demonstrate in the video. There is a subset of people who want to believe EVs are bad, but the data doesn't really support it. My approach is to take a question like this and investigate what the data says, with a view to debunking any myths that may be leading to the question in the first place
Obviously, the biggest cries come from fossil fuel fanboys, but they ignore the elephant in the room, which is the production of all the fossil fuels for their cars, never mind the burning of that fuel. Of course, the reality is that EVs are just not green, and I don't think anyone is really claiming they are, but as long as people require personal transport, the EV is the best we can achieve currently. The newer battery technology is slowly reducing the negative effects of battery manufacture, and even going some way in making batteries safer if damaged. As we move closer to a renewable energy supply, EVs can only get greener. Fossil fuels are dead, we are just seeing their last flailing desperate attempts to cling on to the bitter end. They have some climate change deniers being a vocal minority, that make others wonder if EVs are the answer, but the reality will win out
I agree. You are right - any car uses resources. Having no car at all is the best we can do in terms of CO2 emissions. However, as you suggest, asking people to go without transport is a difficult ask. On average, we're not very good at making sacrifices for the greater good. Some people do manage it, but it seems unlikely to be a winning strategy across society as a whole.
@@theelectrictransition not sure this vid answers my question - which wants answers to the *emissions* from the fires, not the binary "number" of fires. Which should include the waste attributed to more intense fire fighting efforts. Even a 20x multiplier may not cover these imbalances.
@jjolla6391 488 fires in 13.5 years is all of the data I need to tell me it's not a concern. There are people who want to believe that battery fires are an issue, but the data doesn't agree
China has coal, that's true. However, it's far from all coal. They are installing renewables at a truly staggering rate at the moment, and as a result, their CO2 emissions are expected to start to decline in the next 5 years or so
@@theelectrictransition There are a total of 3,092 operating coal-fired power plant units in China. As of January 2023, the province of Shandong, which lies to the south of Beijing, houses the highest number of coal power plants, at over 400 units. And they ate going to build thousands more, everyone else going green, more expensive power and will do nothing for climate change as china, aint doing shit :) China will build thousands MORE coal power stations in the next decade as well.
@@theelectrictransition Indeed, China has a massive advantage too as far as renewables. Loads of space so plenty of choice for the most suitable location. The biggest advantage however is once a site is chosen there are no bloody NIMBYS blocking it at every turn.
I wonder if you consider the carbon footprint of the wind turbines in your calculation of the total carbon footprint of an EV. Wind turbines are made in factories using oil as a part of the carbon fiber, producing large amounts of excess heat, and significant amounts of toxic byproducts. We cannot make wind turbines without using fossil fuels. They are then hauled to the site by large semi trucks, one blade per truck. Once on the site they are erected by diesel powered cranes, and set into large concrete bases. After about 10 years, the blades are ready for recycling, except they are not recyclable. They are chopped up and dumped into landfills. Hooray for environmentally clean wind power. Oh, and while they are working, they kill a significant number of birds and bats, eagles being especially vulnerable because of how they hunt for prey. I don't care if you have an electric car, just don't pretend they are going to save the planet.
Yes. Yes, I do consider those things. Those are the reasons wind is classed as low carbon, not zero carbon. But 16 grams of CO2 equivalent per kWh is pretty low, despite all of that. It stands to reason that it's low, because there is no use of fuel as part of the operation, other than maintenance. Once a turbine is built, it runs for several decades. As long as the site of a wind farm is considered carefully, there are very few collisions with wildlife. It's not none, but it's a drop in the ocean - an unfortunate choice of phrase - compared to the number killed by oil spills. We lost 250,000 seabirds to Exxon Valdez, for example. Unfortunately, we also lose billions birds each year to cats. I think pointing the finger at wind farms might be misunderstanding the scale of losses elsewhere.
it would be good if we could get more detail around the non-carbon emissions - battery disposals/refurbishing are yet to be understood - unlike Carbonm which is a true renewable as it ends up greening the planet, batteries when they die leave behind Nickel, Copper, Cobalt, Manganese amonst other elements. Let alone considering the environmental destruction caused by solar farms or wind turnbies and the required distribution infrastructure to get the electrons to the charging stations
I have no problem with people wanting to buy EVs, I only have a problem with mandating them. I also have a problem with those that can afford to adopt them and solar energy constantly beat down those that cant afford them or simply can't use EVs vehicles because they use their pick up trucks for their heavy duty manual labor jobs. For many people the EV and Solar evangelists' are not doing anyone any favors, in fact it is a big turn off to the vast majority of Americans. The image that comes to mind when speaking with these EV and Solar Evangelists is of a Soy Tea sipping with a pinky sticking straight up rich aristocrat, looking down on the masses with disdain and complete piety. So if you want to sell EVs and solar to every one. Why dont you guys show how middle class and lower income could get these items that fit their budgets?? Instead of preaching how "cheap it all is". The cost of something to you is not the same for everyone.
I feel your pain, and hopefully you don't find that attitude here. I completely agree that there is a lot of initial expense here, and that remains a big problem. Having said that, there are some savings to be made in the long run, as running costs are usually somewhat lower than ICE. Hopefully manufacturers will start to get EV prices down soon. Transition is hard, but eventually the economies of scale will resolve the issue. In the meantime, we may have to rely on the secondhand market for a bit of help; depreciation helps a bit - but even that doesn't solve the problem completely of course - they can still be more expensive than ICE equivalents in some markets. There is no country-wide mandation in place in the US at the moment. So far, the government are mostly using the carrot of incentives not the stick that would be outright bans - although I believe California might be making moves that I can understand might be more like the latter. I think the problem for governments is that people are naturally resistant to change. If left to our own devices, we often choose to keep doing what we know. That's a problem, since we know that, when seen from a wider perspective, ICE are not really doing us any good. Maybe have a watch of this video if you want to consider in more depth the question of whether we can have choice. ruclips.net/video/oeVKdYRXLDw/видео.html
It is worth pointing out that CO2, which is a naturally occurring gas, it plant fertilizer and therefore necessary for plants to grow and thrive. It should also be pointed out that doubling CO2 does not correspond to doubling of surface temperature since the principle of saturation applies. Without the benefit of GHGs, global temperature would be minus 19 degrees Celsius and there would be no life on earth. It is worth pointing out that water vapour (about 3% to 5%) in the atmosphere has 50 times GWP than CO2. It is also worth pointing out that wind farms only have a 30% load factor and consequently require fossil fuel generating stations as backup when there's insufficient wind or wind speeds are too great. These gas fired stations operate as spinning reserve. Wind farm construction receive subsidy from the government otherwise they are uneconomic. EV batteries have a design life of 8 years and produce highly toxic fumes that are a danger to human health when they spontaneously combust (as a result of thermal runaway). EV fires are almost impossible to put out. Finally no one should ignore the ugly truth of electric batteries, namely the mining of Lithium and Cobalt metals. About 200 tonnes of earth needs to be mined to produce 500 kg battery for an EV. Cobalt is mined using boy slave labour. Shame on you to own an EV as you are doing more harm than good to the environment. Meanwhile both China and India are forging ahead with coal fired power stations. China the world's largest Lithium ion battery producer uses coal power to make them.
"Finally no one should ignore the ugly truth of electric batteries, namely the mining of Lithium and Cobalt metals." Ah! but you an recycle Lithium and Cobalt. You can't recycle burn oil. Also Cobalt has been used for decades in the refining of crude oil. Funny how some people never complained about that isn't it?
@@ianhamilton3113 Ah but Lithium and Cobalt in batteries aren't recycled in quantity. The small quantities of Cobalt used in refining oil is recoverable and reused. My argument still holds true that vast quantities of Cobalt are mined to satisfy the demand for EV batteries to the detriment of boy slaves in the Congo. Even more Lithium is mined destroying the local ecology. Indeed, more copper will have to be mined for electric vehicles. You're using a whataboutery fallacy that does you no credit.
Is this the voice of big oil ? .... Apart from all the other nonsense check out Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries , the vast majority of EVs don't have any cobalt in their batterys ...
@@rico4229 No the voice of a realist. Very few Evs use Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries because these batteries are heavier and their energy density is even than Lithium ion batteries. The only upside is their re-charging cycles. We all know that climate alarmists and neo marxist activists get their funding from wealthy foundations such the the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation.
@@johnmitchinson9577 Yes, and my point is you never worried about "boy slave" until it suited your argument. You couldn't give a flying .... about boys in the Congo. Pathetic. Face facts, EV's are taking over. Research on ICE has finished. More EV' models are entering the market every year. Petrol and diesel will become harder to find as fewer people drive them. Economics will kill ICE. The S curve is here.
Even with a question mark? I was hoping that made it clear that what I often do on the channel is delve into people's questions and comments and consider the data on that subject. I have specifically tried to avoid clickbait - by steering clear of exclamation marks, for example
thanks for doing this film and research. the other figure missing from ice car emissions, is the co2 from the extraction and refining of fossil fuel, before the vehicle burns it. that hidden cost is often ignored
Thanks. Yes, that's right. I'm struggling to find good data on that point to present in the videos, but hopefully I'll find that data eventually
There are 10 calories of oil, in every calorie of food we consume. Net Zero is achieved when you're dead.
Mmm ... Noooo ...
@@rico4229 "Most studies put it at about 10-to-one; in other words, ."
- Popular Mechanics
CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas at a concentration of 4% of the air. CO2 does not affect global temperatures.
I have a mate who works in the oil industry. They use the same argument. As you say, production costs (CO2 embedded) are much higher for the BEV (battery electric vehicle). This makes sense because the batteries are a significant manufacturing effort. But BEVs will look better and better the more they have driven.
People used to use the same argument about solar panels. Today, almost no one uses that argument because of the weight of evidence against it.
I think people want to justify why they don't have to change, and those people will probably continue to do so to the bitter end!
@@theelectrictransition Green energy (solar, wind) is cheaper than fossil fuel energy today, even without grid scale storage. Interconnectors between countries (like the one in the channel tunnel and Viking Link) pay for themselves by buying energy cheap in one country and selling in another. It's only a matter of time before fossil fuel is priced out of the electricity market.
@jchidley Absolutely. Doing the right thing has never been easier. It's good news all round.
We have to be realistic, renewables will get a bit more expensive than they currently are, near the end of the transition. That's because we have to do a bit more to compensate for the increased variability - more storage, for example. Even so, fossil fuels simply can't compete now.
But what the oil industry don't tell you is that by the time the gallon gets into your tank 50% of the potential energy in the crude oil has been wasted on pumping, shipping and refining. These are huge energy intensive and wasteful processes which are brilliantly illustrated in this video, jump to 1:32 on the timeline.
ruclips.net/video/mk-LnUYEXuM/видео.html
Seems like a balanced and thoughtful assessment of the emissions issue. Thank you.
Thanks
Seems to me that there's fossil fuels burned in manufacturing and using any car, at least with EVs using the car is emission free, sure generating the electricity might also use fossil fuels right now, but that's all gradually being replaced by renewables, same with manufacturing, EVs aren't perfect but they're a huge step in the right direction
Yes, absolutely right. It is all going in the right direction. EVs are only a little cleaner than ICE in some parts of the world, but it's what they offer in the future as the grid continues to decarbonise that makes them a better path
EVs *will* trend TOWARDS "perfect"
EVS are a huge step in the wrong direction. Toxic EV metals are much worse than fossil fuels.
ICE cars have catalytic converters which render the exhaust emissions to negligable.
From my own research I have found that,
the CO2 created per kWh of an EV's battery manufacture,
is about 100 kg per 1 kWh of battery,
so a small EV with 30 kWh batteries creates 3 tons of CO2 to manufacture its batteries,
a medium EV with 60 kWh batteries creates 6 tons of CO2 to manufacture its batteries
and a large EV with 90 kWh batteries creates 9 tons of CO2 to manufacture its batteries.
Then there is the difference in CO2 created,
by charging an EV up, on either green renewable generated or standard generated electricity,
an EV charged up with renewables, will produce 90% less CO2 per mile than an ICE,
and about 60% less CO2 if its charged up with standard generated electricity.
To make a comparison of Carbon Footprints between an equal sized EV and ICE
an average ICE doing the UK average annual 7,500 mileage, will produce 1 and 1/2 tons of CO2,
(that's 250 kg per month),
an average EV, charged with renewables, (virtually all major public EV charging stations use renewables)
creates about 125 kg of CO2 per year ( about 12 kg per month)
and an average EV charged with standard generated electricity,
creates about 600 kg of CO2 per year, ( 50 kg per month).
After just 2 years, (or 15,000 miles), factoring in the CO2 produced during the EVs battery manufacturing,
and charging the EV with renewables,
the small EV would have created 3 and 1/4 tons of CO2, and the ICE 3 tons of CO2,
(I've canceled out, the equal Carbon Footprints, to make the same vehicle,
as the difference in manufacturing comes down to the EV's batteries)
BUT, after 2 and 1/2 years, (or 18,750 miles) the Carbon Footprint of the ICE,
becomes greater than the Carbon Footprint of the small EV,
( 3 and 3/4 tons of CO2 for the ICE, and about 3 and 1/2 tons of CO2 for the EV)
AND that ICE Carbon Footprint INCREASES each year,
by 1 and 1/3 tons of CO2, more than the small EV's,
(the longer the ICE is on the road, the far greater its negative environmental impact is,
whereas the opposite is true for an EV, THIS blows the "bangernomics" of keeping an old ICE banger on the road,
totally out of the water),
charging up the small EV with bog standard produced electricity, would mean,
it would take the ICE, 3 and 1/2 years, (or 26,250 miles) to overtake the small EVs Carbon Footprint.
Now to the medium sized EV with a 60 kWh battery,
its Carbon Footprint is 6 tons more than its ICE equal as it rolls off the production line,
so it would take the equal ICE, 4 and 1/2 years,.(or 33,750 miles)
for its Carbon Footprint, to overtake the medium size EV that's charged up with renewables,
or about 6 and 1/2 years, (48,750 miles) if the EV is charged up with bog standard produced electricity,
The large EV, with its 90 kWh battery, has got some ground to make up,
as its extra 9 tons of CO2 created over and above an equal ICE takes some reigning in,
almost 7 years, when its charged with renewables,
and 10 years, when its charged with bog standard produced electricity.
Thanks for the detail. Yes, your data fits well with the Volvo and Polestar studies by the look of it. It's great to have more and more confirmation of the same numbers; that just continues to increase the confidence we have in them.
Your point about larger cars is valid, although they tend to be a bit less fuel efficient, so the offset in CO2 during usage will be somewhat affected by that.
Small cars for the win though, for sure. I'm a fan of smaller cars, as you may tell from my smart ForTwo video
Wow you sure are smart! Except CO2 has no impact on our temperature.
@@markmiller8903 I wish. I have bad news - it makes quite a lot of difference. Haven't you noticed the increasing frequency of extreme weather events?
@@markmiller8903 Do you want me to explain that to you as well.
@@markmiller8903 interesting assertion. We've known about the warming effect of CO2 for nearly 200 years now. What makes you conclude that this is incorrect?
Nice one.
Thank you 😊
Hello. Thank you for your assessment in my area the East Coast of the USA we are fighting offshore wind as we think we understand the incredible destruction it's going to come to our near shores some of the folks are ranks associate EVs with the same forces that want to Foster offshore wind on us. I'm having a hard time convincing people here that it's a separate issue and that the electric vehicle movement is not necessarily related to offshore wind. It's simply a better mode of mobility. Thank you for your production of this analysis that rationally assesses the situation of ice versus EV. There are so many half-truths out there and cherry-picked facts but truly cloud the situation badly. I've done some cost analysis and it's clear that for the total investment to install the offshore wind the New Jersey plans to install it would cost nearly $200,000 per home that the wind farms would serve and instead they could have a 30,000 solar system installation that would provide better electric service then the offshore wind.
You are right, it is a separate issue.
I'm interested in your desire to fight offshore wind. That's not a fight I'd be having, personally - but to each their own.
What is really useful about wind is what a good capacity factor it has, better than solar I think. That's because sunlight/daytime has less impact on generation than for solar. That ability to generate 24 hours a day somewhat reduces the need for storage, which might make for a cheaper overall system in the long term. Storage - battery storage, for example - adds a lot to the cost of grid-scale installations.
Energy usage patterns vary by location/local climate, so in some countries the peak of solar generation matches the peak in energy demand. That seems to be very much the case in Australia, for example, where air conditioning is a significant part of the overall energy usage, and its use peaks during the day. However, that's not the case here in the UK, as we don't use a lot of air conditioning in our homes - at least, not yet. That's why we have a lot of offshore wind - and are planning a lot more to come.
In most countries, we will probably need both wind AND solar - and a number of other things in the mix as well. Hydro, for example, which is also due to be expanded here in the next 10 years. The remaining nuclear we have should also stay operational for as long as possible, although we have to admit we can't build any new nuclear fast enough to help with the transition. I'm not personally a fan of nuclear, due to the long term storage problems it bring with it, but I can't deny that we need every low carbon source we can get to reduce our CO2 emissions as fast as we can.
It seems to me like there is no single winner when it comes to energy - we need the resilience that having many energy sources brings with it.
It is not just about emissions but also about health. How many people are dying from pollution? I don't have numbers but this can challenge dead's from our last pandemic, except this is still going on. A main reason China pushes EVs is to clean up air pollution. Clean air is good for the majority of people while a minority of fossil industry shareholders are opposing this. They make a big thing about problems EVs and EV production have and try to block for personal gain. The bottom line is that ICE cars and not EVs give you lung cancer and asthma and a whole range of pollution related health problems.
Yes, absolutely. I mentioned the stat in a video a month or so ago. At the moment, 3.6 million people die each year from the adverse health effects caused by burning fossil fuels, mostly from NOx. It's a scary statistic.
I wonder if a similar 'Passport' idea could be extended to the manufacture of ICE vehicles also? Some companies already try to clean up their act but an end of production 'grading' might put more pressure on them also.
Yes, an interesting point. With an ICE car, more of the emissions come from use than production, so we have generally focused on emissions control through various emissions standards, at least here in Europe
Whilst I commend Volvo's look at EV production vs ICE... Their data is only relevant to their manufacturing process. It is fair to say that as a traditional manufacturer Volvo make cars in a similar way to VW. So 30 to 40hrs per car. Whilst Tesla make their cars in just over 10hrs. With a factory run on Solar Energy and water consumption at around 1/3rd of the average (plus it's recycled water). As such it's very logical to say that a Tesla is far greener than a Volvo! Not only that but the Tesla battery is usually good for around 300,000. However, even that difference will be significantly out of date with the 2025 Tesla made 50% cheaper, faster and using the latest 1,000,000 CATL batteries.
That's a very good point. Efficient manufacturing and renewable energy are both important improvements. Having said that, most of the difference between the two cars detailed in the Volvo study are caused by battery manufacturing. Tesla make some of their own batteries, but far from the majority, at the moment. Most of their battery supply is still bought in from suppliers, most notably Panasonic and CATL. As those are not manufactured onsite at Texas, the huge renewable installation they have at that site plays little part in that element of their manufacture.
Well explained, and a level headed analysis. But I still have my reservations about these cars, like Elon bragging his cyber truck would survive an apocalypse, Maybe it would, but the first thing to go down in such an event would be the power grid. So the car may survive but unless you had a full charge you wouldn't be going far. At least you can siphon petrol or diesel from other abandoned vehicles. Not so with electric cars. Unless it was a nuclear disaster, The resulting EMP would fry most modern vehicles and they wouldn't function. Where as some older cars with basic electrical systems may still function, mainly older diesel motors as they only require enough power to crank the engine. As they have no ignition coil or other highly transistorized or microchip components. Lets all hope we never have to find any of this out.
Thanks.
Yeah, some of the things Elon talks about are a bit unfortunate. I would hope that we need not think quite so deeply about our choice of car as to consider what would best cater for the apocalypse!
I would think most modern ICE cars would be affected by an EMP as well, so I would think you'd have to go back to something from the 1990s or earlier to find something without electronic ignition and ECUs, at least in the UK. That might severely limit the number of cars that would survive, were such a thing to happen.
Some people have solar setups that will power their houses in the event of a grid outage, but they are pretty rare - most solar systems have to shut down, to avoid back-feeding power, thereby protecting linesmen. It's an option that people might consider adding, if they are getting solar themselves - but it's an additional expense on what is already a significant investment that a lot of people will struggle to afford.
The ICE figures do not include the waste oil from a service each year. This is significant.
It is recycled so nothing is wasted.
It's an interesting thought. You are right, it's not nothing - but it's a lot less by volume than the fuel a car uses, so I would think it would be a small percentage of the total. And as Mark points out, it is captured and recycled - although I'm not sure what for.
Also they don't include the huge amount of electricity needed to extract, refine and transport the oil and petrol. ICE cars are dirty, noisy, smelly dinosaurs, and speaking of which, burning their farts from millions of years ago has to go.
How exactly is gasoline made, the last time i checked, drilling for oil is a very carbon intensive process. You act like gasoline is refined from water.
Well done oil extraction and refining is carbon intensive. But the emissions will not change much if at all as BEVs require oil for production of steel, copper and plastics. Not to mention the tyres and roads they currently enjoy for free.
I completely agree. That's the primary energy point I make, although I do gloss over it a bit in this video.
I can't find good numbers on just how inefficient extraction and refinement are, so I decided not to dwell on that in this video. It featured a bit more prominently in the last one on the same subject. However, I like to back up what I say with published research, and on this point, I am struggling to find that research. Hopefully, I can resolve that at some point.
@@244col all what you say is the same for ICE cars, the only difference is burning of gasoline to propel the car VS electricity, and how is the electricity is produced. The other issue with gas cars they continue to produce pollution for as long as they are being driven.
Just to talk about CO2 production during mining, transportation and manufacture is important in a global warming sense. However an ICE vehicle has significant drawbacks in air quality terms and associated health issues. This is particularly important as ICE vehicles output these pollutants at a local level and not in some remote area. The volume of oxygen burnt just running an ICE engine is quite shocking for every Kg of fuel used requires just over 14Kg of oxygen
Yes, absolutely right. I was tempted to add that in - indeed I did exactly that at the end of my previous video on this subject, but I decided to keep this one a bit simpler, to better address the viewer who made the comment
Key words 'over it's lifetime', which for many buying EV's on a PCP deal, is 3 years, which is often nowhere near enough to recover the increase CO2 output during manufacture. Then the EV enters the second hand market, which for EV's for now, is absolutely awful as no-one wants them because of the risk of the battery failing (if you can find a dealer who will take them PX). Yes, there's always a battery warranty, which helps to a degree, then when that expires (7-8 years), the EV is basically worthless, while an ICE still has some value. Then it's also about the emissions required to recycle the batteries too, which is immense, and also where the electricity comes from to charge it - if it's from coal or even a renewable/coal mix, then it won't help with overall emissions much. There are many factors that often make an EV nowhere near as green as people are being told they are.
"Then it's also about the emissions required to recycle the batteries too, which is immense," But not as immense as mining new materials. By the way, when you say immense what exactly is immense? Do you have any data on this? Or are you just guessing?
"and also where the electricity comes from to charge it - if it's from coal or even a renewable/coal mix, then it won't help with overall emissions much. " See, this sort of comment makes me realise why ill-informed people say these things. Let me put you straight because you obviously have absolutely no idea.
Most EV drivers fill up at night on a cheap rate.
That's good for the grid because they otherwise have to shut down generators, be it wind, natural gas or, in the UK, occasionally, coal.
The UK grid, like all grids, is getting greener every year so any EV runs greener every year, petrol and diesel do not.
"EV nowhere near as green as people are being told they are." What people and by whom?
The more comments we type the higher the stats for this video and more people will see it. That's why I added this last one
@ianhamilton3113 thanks, you're a one man comment machine!
I dont Care. I have Rooftop Solar and EV. Rooftop Solar is for Free. Never no More ICE Gas for me.
Yep, that's best of all. An option that's not available with ICE
Until a hail storm :) Or bad weather for weeks.
@@SillySausage-mq3so the sun is shining always. State of Mind. And over 10 years the Sun shines. And I have Rooftop Solar for 12 Years Now. Every year 6000 kWh. And I let a House with Rooftop Solar. 6000 kWh. Inductioncooking, Microwave Airfryer. And HT Heatpump 60 degrees LG Therma V Monoblock. No Gas. Electricity from the Roof, and Grid Solar Wind Greenchoice, Heating from the Air. Works perfect for 12 years now.🙂👍since 2012.
@@willeisinga2089 How many batteries do you have ?
Size ?
@@theelectrictransition Yes very Easy. Cheap, Clean. And People dont want that. Weird. They want to Pay Gas at the gas station, pollute make noise. Rooftop Solar really makes the difference. Prices down to 10 cent a Wp. In 2012 it was 2 dollar Wp. Thank You for your posting. Important.👍🙂
I for one have own an EV for 3 years now and I'm happy about it. I understand that ,their's a lot of propaganda against EV, but I have my own commonsense to understand the truth from the lies.
That's good to hear. Unfortunately, not everyone wants to make the distinction, either to suit their own personal biases, or because they have been led astray by sources they thought to be trustworthy.
End-of-life handling is sooner in vehicles with a degradable power-source. Furthermore, the energy loss as it's exchanged from input (recharge) to output (driving) increases with battery degradation, year upon year.
On a separate note; climate is not going to be changed by anything we do, so one has to ask what the true objective of vehicle electrification is. In order to answer that question, a better understanding of global, societal management, both historically, and contemporary, must be acquired.
In 1972, The Club of Rome, an elitist think tank, was tasked with defining the physical limits to population growth and the constraints resulting from economic activities on the planet.
In 1991, they published "The Global Revolution," where on page 115 they state; "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill."
"End-of-life handling is sooner in vehicles with a degradable power-source." Have you got any data on that?
The climate is already being changed by what we do in very measurable ways. It would be lovely if that were not the case, but the science is abundantly clear. Even the oil companies knew it in the 1970s, hence the ongoing court case in America about them misleading shareholders.
@@ianhamilton3113 I have a drawer full of expensive, non-useable cellphones. Let me know what data you need to understand the life-cycle of a lithium-ion battery.
@@theelectrictransition Firstly, let me preemptively state that there is no such thing as a consensus in the scientific world. Furthermore, 96% of 77 scientists, polled in a non-scientific study, is not a foundation for "abundantly clear science."
If you form your opinion of media hoopla, you're never going to be informed.
Science involves quantifying definable evidence by observation, and interpreting that evidence via the correct heuristic of statistical analysis, nothing more.
Many seem to be in your camp of "settled science," etc, but very few could describe a molecule.
Simply put, you're being hoodwinked by entities for whom currency is their tool, and subsequently holds no value.
So you think a phone battery is the same as an EV battery/ That's why some people don't think EV's work! That explains a lot. What you need is educating from an expert. Try this guy, he's a battery chemistry technician so unlike you or I he knows what his talking about. ruclips.net/video/ewYSecZpxIw/видео.html
please state the baseline, for an ICE vehicle what is the production emissions vs lifetime (say 10yr)
That's shown in the table from the Volvo assessment, for example at 04:50. It's about 58 tonnes of CO2 equivalent for the ICE, and ranges from 27 to 54 tonnes for the EV depending on energy source. That's based on an expected life of 200,000 kms - just over 120,000 miles, but assumes no decarbonisation of the grid during the EV's lifetime. The primary energy conversion for the ICE car also looks suspiciously low, perhaps because the industry standard measure is to ignore primary energy in ICE calculations
@@theelectrictransition appreciate the response,
towards the end of the video I understood from some metrics that somewhere between 1/2 and 1/4 would be due to production (give or take) which is interesting to consider.
@jeebusk Yes, that's right. Production is where we next need to make improvements, I'd say
@@theelectrictransition the famous phrase use to be that a Prius was worse than a Hummer for the environment, I'm looking forward to some honesty in industry.
No they don't. The Co2 saving is entirely true unless you make your electricity with carbon, which is hardly the fault of car owners.
Agreed, and that's what I was trying to demonstrate in the video. There is a subset of people who want to believe EVs are bad, but the data doesn't really support it. My approach is to take a question like this and investigate what the data says, with a view to debunking any myths that may be leading to the question in the first place
They only hide my emissions if I keep the windows up!
Hehehe
Obviously, the biggest cries come from fossil fuel fanboys, but they ignore the elephant in the room, which is the production of all the fossil fuels for their cars, never mind the burning of that fuel.
Of course, the reality is that EVs are just not green, and I don't think anyone is really claiming they are, but as long as people require personal transport, the EV is the best we can achieve currently. The newer battery technology is slowly reducing the negative effects of battery manufacture, and even going some way in making batteries safer if damaged.
As we move closer to a renewable energy supply, EVs can only get greener. Fossil fuels are dead, we are just seeing their last flailing desperate attempts to cling on to the bitter end.
They have some climate change deniers being a vocal minority, that make others wonder if EVs are the answer, but the reality will win out
I agree. You are right - any car uses resources. Having no car at all is the best we can do in terms of CO2 emissions. However, as you suggest, asking people to go without transport is a difficult ask. On average, we're not very good at making sacrifices for the greater good. Some people do manage it, but it seems unlikely to be a winning strategy across society as a whole.
has the study taken into account the emissions from those spectacular battery fires and cleanup we are starting to see ?
ruclips.net/video/WDP1XAsoR_0/видео.html
@@theelectrictransition not sure this vid answers my question - which wants answers to the *emissions* from the fires, not the binary "number" of fires. Which should include the waste attributed to more intense fire fighting efforts. Even a 20x multiplier may not cover these imbalances.
@jjolla6391 488 fires in 13.5 years is all of the data I need to tell me it's not a concern. There are people who want to believe that battery fires are an issue, but the data doesn't agree
ALL EVS in China are powered by coal powered power stations, EVS very cleans :)
So where did you get your stats on Chinas electricity generation mix?
completely untrue. 30% renewable energy and this is greatly improving every year. Information is freely available if you care to look
China has coal, that's true. However, it's far from all coal. They are installing renewables at a truly staggering rate at the moment, and as a result, their CO2 emissions are expected to start to decline in the next 5 years or so
@@theelectrictransition There are a total of 3,092 operating coal-fired power plant units in China. As of January 2023, the province of Shandong, which lies to the south of Beijing, houses the highest number of coal power plants, at over 400 units.
And they ate going to build thousands more, everyone else going green, more expensive power and will do nothing for climate change as china, aint doing shit :)
China will build thousands MORE coal power stations in the next decade as well.
@@theelectrictransition Indeed, China has a massive advantage too as far as renewables. Loads of space so plenty of choice for the most suitable location. The biggest advantage however is once a site is chosen there are no bloody NIMBYS blocking it at every turn.
I wonder if you consider the carbon footprint of the wind turbines in your calculation of the total carbon footprint of an EV. Wind turbines are made in factories using oil as a part of the carbon fiber, producing large amounts of excess heat, and significant amounts of toxic byproducts. We cannot make wind turbines without using fossil fuels. They are then hauled to the site by large semi trucks, one blade per truck. Once on the site they are erected by diesel powered cranes, and set into large concrete bases. After about 10 years, the blades are ready for recycling, except they are not recyclable. They are chopped up and dumped into landfills. Hooray for environmentally clean wind power. Oh, and while they are working, they kill a significant number of birds and bats, eagles being especially vulnerable because of how they hunt for prey. I don't care if you have an electric car, just don't pretend they are going to save the planet.
Yes. Yes, I do consider those things. Those are the reasons wind is classed as low carbon, not zero carbon. But 16 grams of CO2 equivalent per kWh is pretty low, despite all of that.
It stands to reason that it's low, because there is no use of fuel as part of the operation, other than maintenance. Once a turbine is built, it runs for several decades.
As long as the site of a wind farm is considered carefully, there are very few collisions with wildlife. It's not none, but it's a drop in the ocean - an unfortunate choice of phrase - compared to the number killed by oil spills. We lost 250,000 seabirds to Exxon Valdez, for example. Unfortunately, we also lose billions birds each year to cats. I think pointing the finger at wind farms might be misunderstanding the scale of losses elsewhere.
it would be good if we could get more detail around the non-carbon emissions - battery disposals/refurbishing are yet to be understood - unlike Carbonm which is a true renewable as it ends up greening the planet, batteries when they die leave behind Nickel, Copper, Cobalt, Manganese amonst other elements. Let alone considering the environmental destruction caused by solar farms or wind turnbies and the required distribution infrastructure to get the electrons to the charging stations
Sure, here you go.
ruclips.net/video/rDAcObFOyho/видео.html
@@theelectrictransition Thanks for that link.
Schon wieder ein Hidden Emission Video 🥱👎
aber eine positive: Ich zeige, dass die betreffenden Daten zeigen, dass die Besorgnis unbegründet ist
I have no problem with people wanting to buy EVs, I only have a problem with mandating them. I also have a problem with those that can afford to adopt them and solar energy constantly beat down those that cant afford them or simply can't use EVs vehicles because they use their pick up trucks for their heavy duty manual labor jobs. For many people the EV and Solar evangelists' are not doing anyone any favors, in fact it is a big turn off to the vast majority of Americans. The image that comes to mind when speaking with these EV and Solar Evangelists is of a Soy Tea sipping with a pinky sticking straight up rich aristocrat, looking down on the masses with disdain and complete piety. So if you want to sell EVs and solar to every one. Why dont you guys show how middle class and lower income could get these items that fit their budgets?? Instead of preaching how "cheap it all is". The cost of something to you is not the same for everyone.
I feel your pain, and hopefully you don't find that attitude here. I completely agree that there is a lot of initial expense here, and that remains a big problem. Having said that, there are some savings to be made in the long run, as running costs are usually somewhat lower than ICE.
Hopefully manufacturers will start to get EV prices down soon. Transition is hard, but eventually the economies of scale will resolve the issue. In the meantime, we may have to rely on the secondhand market for a bit of help; depreciation helps a bit - but even that doesn't solve the problem completely of course - they can still be more expensive than ICE equivalents in some markets.
There is no country-wide mandation in place in the US at the moment. So far, the government are mostly using the carrot of incentives not the stick that would be outright bans - although I believe California might be making moves that I can understand might be more like the latter.
I think the problem for governments is that people are naturally resistant to change. If left to our own devices, we often choose to keep doing what we know. That's a problem, since we know that, when seen from a wider perspective, ICE are not really doing us any good.
Maybe have a watch of this video if you want to consider in more depth the question of whether we can have choice. ruclips.net/video/oeVKdYRXLDw/видео.html
It is worth pointing out that CO2, which is a naturally occurring gas, it plant fertilizer and therefore necessary for plants to grow and thrive. It should also be pointed out that doubling CO2 does not correspond to doubling of surface temperature since the principle of saturation applies. Without the benefit of GHGs, global temperature would be minus 19 degrees Celsius and there would be no life on earth. It is worth pointing out that water vapour (about 3% to 5%) in the atmosphere has 50 times GWP than CO2. It is also worth pointing out that wind farms only have a 30% load factor and consequently require fossil fuel generating stations as backup when there's insufficient wind or wind speeds are too great. These gas fired stations operate as spinning reserve. Wind farm construction receive subsidy from the government otherwise they are uneconomic. EV batteries have a design life of 8 years and produce highly toxic fumes that are a danger to human health when they spontaneously combust (as a result of thermal runaway). EV fires are almost impossible to put out.
Finally no one should ignore the ugly truth of electric batteries, namely the mining of Lithium and Cobalt metals. About 200 tonnes of earth needs to be mined to produce 500 kg battery for an EV. Cobalt is mined using boy slave labour. Shame on you to own an EV as you are doing more harm than good to the environment. Meanwhile both China and India are forging ahead with coal fired power stations. China the world's largest Lithium ion battery producer uses coal power to make them.
"Finally no one should ignore the ugly truth of electric batteries, namely the mining of Lithium and Cobalt metals." Ah! but you an recycle Lithium and Cobalt. You can't recycle burn oil.
Also Cobalt has been used for decades in the refining of crude oil. Funny how some people never complained about that isn't it?
@@ianhamilton3113 Ah but Lithium and Cobalt in batteries aren't recycled in quantity. The small quantities of Cobalt used in refining oil is recoverable and reused. My argument still holds true that vast quantities of Cobalt are mined to satisfy the demand for EV batteries to the detriment of boy slaves in the Congo. Even more Lithium is mined destroying the local ecology. Indeed, more copper will have to be mined for electric vehicles. You're using a whataboutery fallacy that does you no credit.
Is this the voice of big oil ? .... Apart from all the other nonsense check out Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries , the vast majority of EVs don't have any cobalt in their batterys ...
@@rico4229 No the voice of a realist. Very few Evs use Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries because these batteries are heavier and their energy density is even than Lithium ion batteries. The only upside is their re-charging cycles. We all know that climate alarmists and neo marxist activists get their funding from wealthy foundations such the the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation.
@@johnmitchinson9577 Yes, and my point is you never worried about "boy slave" until it suited your argument. You couldn't give a flying .... about boys in the Congo. Pathetic. Face facts, EV's are taking over. Research on ICE has finished. More EV' models are entering the market every year. Petrol and diesel will become harder to find as fewer people drive them. Economics will kill ICE. The S curve is here.
Nice clickbait title.
Even with a question mark? I was hoping that made it clear that what I often do on the channel is delve into people's questions and comments and consider the data on that subject. I have specifically tried to avoid clickbait - by steering clear of exclamation marks, for example