John, it takes a big man to say it how it is. And it takes an even bigger man to admit mistakes and correct them publicly, for everyone’s benefits and enlightenment. We salute you for being both of those people.
This is why people trust you John, if you make a mistake you don't obfuscate, blame or build straw men. You owned it, and we need more of that in the world.
Hello, I know this is an older video but I am a new watcher of you channel from the UK. Just wanted to say good on you for correcting the record in this way as many wouldn't. It's proves you are someone who can be trusted when it comes to facts and discussion on topics like this. I have had the discussions about EVs and what you say about a small 1 litre 3 cylinder car being about as good when it comes to CO² emissions. The discussion then always turns to but it's about removing the harmful fumes from City centres. I very rarely drive into the City anyway as there is a park and ride tram station 3 miles from my house where I can leave my car free of charge to get a tram for around half the price of what parking the car in the city centre would cost. It's not always the most convenient way to do things but it means there's less hassle trying to find a parking space in the city. It makes me wonder sometimes how much power the tram uses and if that really saves emissions in the bigger picture but the tram is going to run anyway so at least I'm taking my car out of the equation for that part of the journey. At the moment I see EVs in their current form a bit like when countries ship their waste to other countries to appear greener than the countries who end up dealing with the waste. I'm not against EVs as such I just think they cost far too much environmentally and financially for very little gains in the current form. Unless the power going into them is zero emissions they never really can be.
@@AutoExpertJC Not just respect for the facts, John, also respect for yourself. This is why I listen to you from far away Upsidedownistan Portugal. Cheers and thanks for leading by example.
John, As a pilot and trainer for over 40 years I've seen plenty of mistakes made on the flightdeck, mine included. The secret is how you recover. Yours was perfect. We all cock up, just hope we catch it before is gets serious. Kudos mate.
As a nuclear engineer I love how you used the dirty word! Yes base load power and crowdsourcing renewable energy first. Then move to the marginal (for now) EV savings. I will wait for a better motive source for EVs personnally but they will have thier day in the end. I very much appreciate your intellect and sense of humor. Well done Mr. Cadogan. You are my favorite engineer to watch on RUclips!
Full respect, John! Part of the process of seeking the truth through science (or as close of an approximation to the truth as humanly possible) is to acknowledge one’s missteps and gather all the learnings through that process. Love your channel! Greetings from Germany.
I completely missed the error myself. This followup is hugely respectful to the audience, to the facts and more importantly, to the point! Huge respect JC
@@AutoExpertJC One thing you are missing from your analysis is that the generation will have more renewables over time. The Australian grid produced 38TWh in 2015-2016, but for 2020-2021 it produced 70TWh, up approximately 85% over 5 years (or 13% pa). And yes our electricity usage is going up slightly per year, but obviously not at a rate of anywhere near 13% per year compounded.
@@TankEnMate If the rate of EV adoption escalates exponentially as it has done and is doing around the world, electricity usage will increase at a rate that cannot be realistically supplied by current renewables technologies. And there will also be huge problems associated with so many charging at the same time overnight.
@@nigel.w Renewables are growing exponentially as well, as are home batteries. Superchargers are already being deployed with Megapacks. These will help balance out power generation / consumption on an intra-day time period. So I suspect it then comes down to redeploying diesel from vehicles to power generation for a short while; and this will be much more efficient than diesel vehicles (50~80% CCGT vs 15~20% ICE engine). So it will be full steam ahead for both in the near future with means an overall decrease in CO2 emissions. The countries that don't take all this onboard will be the ones to suffer; higher costs, unstable grid, AND running old unsupported clunkers. My suggestion will be look at how Norway is getting on.
I'm a building fire protection auditor. Mistakes can be serious. I make mistakes sometimes. You know, When you get home and have to fill out all the days reports and Tiffany gets, You know a little exited and she is "Down there" whilst one is tapping away on the key board. It's the rectification of said mistakes that keep customers coming back. Better to eat crow and become more experienced than be too proud and eat dirt! Much respect to you John. My analytical mind in regards to your previous information has been adjusted and updated.
John, if you’re factoring in the CO2 footprint of the electricity, then you should also factor in the CO2 emissions involved in the extraction, transport and refining of the diesel too. And if you’re going to factor money into your calculations, you need to take account of the price difference between diesel and electricity for the same mileage.
Exactly. Also, it requires one unit of electricity just to refine one liter of gasoline. This is just to refine, think about extraction, transport and leakages of fuel. Also, in US, to get 15% ethanol to mix with gasoline, they grow 42000 sq miles of corn. How much energy, water, labor needed for that every year. It produces huge amount of waste which will eventually produce tons of methane. Just 15000 sq miles of solar will produce all the electricity needed for entire US. If you really want to understand the EV and renewable with battery storage, kindly see the Tesla master plan 3. You will learn a lot. You will not get any real information for the old used car mechanic.
@@ramb5193 currently 500000 gallons of water are needed to produce 1 metric tonne of lithium. There is an environmental cost for everything we do. I once saw an article regarding the 'break even' for a CO2 vs a ICE car, and it stated it would break even at 80k miles. A little asterisk at the bottom of the article noted that it didn't include for the recycling of the battery pack. The need for green power is going to increase near exponentially to cover mining, recycling and the increasing need for power. The best thing you could do, if you work within 10/15 miles of home is to ride a bike every day - better for the environment, better for you, better for the countries health service.
Well done John, we all respect a good honest soul, no harm done and you have climbed to the leaderboard in term of confidence from your viewers. Keep up the good work !!
..and then went on to compare a 'lardy arse' Ionic 5 (which weighs about 200kg less than a Wildtrack) go figure?! Jon also forgot to mention anything about the huge CO2 emissions from the fuel discovery, extraction refining and distribution. What a clanger of a mistake!
This is what I like best about this channel. You are just about getting to the truth even if you have to admit your mistakes. Bravo my good man. I really admire your honesty here.
When calculating the co2 cost of fuel don't forget exploration, drilling equipment, energy used, transport of the crood oil, refining, transport of the fuel, equipment for storage, and after all that you burn it once then start again
Why calculate the battery manufacturing energy, but not the energy required to get the petrol or diesel from the ground to the pump. Would make for interesting comparison.
EVs are destroying the road surfaces in my area. Goodness knows what the tyre shredding and shedding is happening. I'm an old school green and have serious concerns regarding this new utopia.
@@VCanisMajorisYWe all would be very interested in you expanding on this. Why because there is something very different between EVs and the majority of ICE cars. There are new ICE cars that can approach the lack of kinetic friction that EVs have, but very few, and not under acceleration. What this means is that there is nearly zero loss of traction in an EV. There could be a clue in the weight of the vehicles, as to why there is more tyre wear.
Hi John, when you do the calculation to compare emissions from EV vs emissions from ICE, do you only consider tailpipe emissions for the ICE car, or do you also take into account the emissions produced when extracting, transporting, refining the combustible fuel?
@@nigspeed he did it was in the original video it's represented by weight of the vehicle and CO2/tonne of steel that's why he used the specific vehicles and before you say what about the engine what about this what about that EV's still have a form of propulsion that needs to be manufactured so vehicle mass is enough said I think
John if you are going to factor in the emissions due to the manufacturing process of the ev and it’s batteries do you also factor in the same emissions due to the manufacturing of the wild track and the mining and refining of its fuel source.
What I remember of an article I read, was that manufacturing EV cars cause about 50% more CO2. Powering the EV from a Coal (H0(CH0)999H0) reduces CO2 by 25%, from a liquid fuel (H1(CH2)10H1) power plant about 50%, from a natural gas (H1(CH2)1H1) power plant about 75%, from non-carbon power plant (hydro, photo voltaic, wind, etc) 100%. The big disadvantage is ICE vehicles is small engines loose a lot of energy via surface area, cooling systems, mechanical transmission, putting about 15-20% energy in fuel on the road, vs a 200-1000MW power plant delivering 50% to the outlet. Even an engine/generator motor can double an ice engine efficiency especially with a battery to boost high demand situations for short periods of time.
I am a Civil Engineer with decades in the industry. Including one decade in the Electric power generation and transmission. Contractors side. My old university Engineering mate is lost in the nuclear industry promoters world. He tipped me off that transmission of Renewables from distant 'farms' to the cities was too expensive and gave me the costs. The example was new transmission to Snowy 2 and the different generation sources. Then Allan Fels, the government adviser and AEMO adviser, said that 5 times more electricity was needed to replace the high energy density fossil fuels. And you could see that the world had an economic crisis. That's when I found that Australia has 20million vehicles and buildings, and the buildings are connected to the existing national grid. And Australia has 25GW of installed fossil fueled power generation. So, with a few solar PV panels on the building rooftops and the EV selfparking and plugged into the grid 23hrs a day. Australia could UNLOAD the national power grid and have dispatchable electricity 2 or 5 times today's electric supply with no fossil fuels, just renewable energy and EVs. Everyone agrees with EVs, and the battery technology is rapidly improving. Nuclear means a massive fattening of everything infrastructure and the world supply of tonnes of uranium ore to every country's nuclear industries. USA military defence budgets will explode 😳. Add those costs onto the whole deal. !!!!!!!!!!! So, a simple construction tender estimate process high lights glaring stupidity of the concentrated central power generation proposal.
John, if you do mine-to-wheel emissions for an EV you should do well-to-wheel emissions for the ICE vehicle. You might be surprised how much energy it takes to refine oil into petrol.
Respect to John for this video but as above it’s still not a valid comparison. The NEM carbon intensity has been progressively reducing over the past years, we can’t achieve that with fossil fuels. Still agree we should make EV’s lighter and more efficient.
Why? Compare carbon impact of car manufacture to EV car manufacture carbon impact, then do the same for the fuel vs electric generation carbon emission in situ. May work for California year round, may not work for Northern Canada most months in the year. There are no utopias, just sweet spots that depend where you are.
The "privileged" who drive EVs don't get the luxury of seeing the moon crater in the ground created to mine the materials to make it. Not in my back yard..right? But they are ok in some third world country or China (who doesn't give a rats ass who or what they destroy in the process of providing entitled westerners their merchandise). What greater wisdom than to provide China even more economic leverage over our affairs.
Have a great weekend John,you deserve it.Thanks for all the time you spend making us smarter and more aware. I'll always be watching and learning. Kind regards Michael Gulyas.
John, can I check your numbers for fuel. Are your fuel numbers calculated as 'Pump to wheels' for the Ford Ranger? You used the calcs for the EV as 'Powerstation to wheels'. So the real calculation should be 'Well to wheels' to correctly compare the two. Mining, transporting, and refining crude oil into fuels is a pretty intense process. I believe the powerstation calcs already consider this part for coal. Then with roughly 90% of the fuel used in Australia being shipped in, this adds substantial additional numbers. From numbers I have found for a country producing its own fuel it equates to about 24% additional CO2/km then add shipping the fuel to Aus.
Shhhhhh, I just got told to try and keep up asking a shorter version of what you did. You can’t break the cardinal sin “thou shalt not question the combustion Jesus”
Comparison with home solar (and battery) totally apposite. Biggest issue there is that corporate electricity is doing everything it can to not allow us ALL to move over to solar too quickly, while they work out how they can ream us for getting solar and batteries at home, and them charging us for giving them electricity. Bastards. Sigourney Weaver, Aliens mama, huge hero. She kicks ass.
Hi John, just wondering if your calculations take into account the CO2 (and any other extracts) produced when refining the diesel at the refinery before it ends up in Wildtrack girl's fuel tank? Enjoy your videos. Cheers, Phil
Yeah, I think if the calculation includes the CO2 produced to create the ‘fuel’ for the EV (electricity), I would think the same should be done for the Diesel fuel. Getting the oil out of the ground, transporting it, refining it and then transporting the final result to the petrol station all incur a CO2 cost and should be added, right?
@@cohrindrake I thought stopping at the refining part of the process would give an apples for apples comparison with the electricity generation. Otherwise, if you start including the actual mining/drilling for the primary resource, it would possibly be too hard to get the necessary data at a reasonable level.
@@philcurrie5768 But don't the EV calculations include the mining processes (including that of coal for power plants)? It seems far more apples-to-apples (to me) to compare end-to-end rather than picking an arbitrary point to start counting?
Thinking similar, as the Ev has the Co2 debt from the outset, Ranger girl will have the debt of the lifetime fuel supply chain from exploration to the Ranger fuel tank.
@@cig13 if you really want to compare apples to apples, then maybe compare a ICE car similar in size to the Ionic 5, which you can almost fit into the tray of the Ranger.
Hey John, I reckon you made another mistake there. You calculate the upfront "cost" of CO2 of an EV but then go to calculate the ICE car as if it has none. That's not true; In order for an ICE car to get its fuel into its belly, there's a lot of CO2 wastage. From extraction, refining, transporting etc. For EVs, you took a general number of 1kwh produced, which we can estimate include all those costs. It is also hard to calculate the additional cost of infrastructure since domestic use fuel is a dedicated infrastructure while charging EVs is a shared one (you have electricity going into your house regardless of the ownership of an EV). Moreover, the tendency is to balance the load on the network throughout the day (by making time-of-day costing) in such a way that there's no need to upgrade the network massively to accommodate for the increase in load). Add that to more renewals, neighbourhood batteries and household batteries, all of which cannot be done with ICE - there's some more cost there. Definitely on a large scale.
If you measure the co2 during electricity production at the power station, surely you need to also include the full production process of creating the fuel at the pump and not just the co2 burned by running the ic engine. Co2 for a unit of fuel compared to an equivalent unit of electricity. My guess is you'll need to add another 25% for the fuel production supply chain.
I agree we need to compare like for like but John is absolutely going in the right direction. Also lifetime ownership costs in terms of CO2 impact need to be factored into the model
The irony is that CO2 captured at these facilities can be turned back into oil by algae without ever reaching the greenhouse canopy some seem to fear so much.
@@peterbennett2301 One might need to take into account also how the recycling of batteries affect the equation. Materials are dug and processed once, then recycled.
Here’s something people also never include. The assumption is that batteries last say 5 years, what is the emission values when a battery fails early in its life and needs replacing. Emissions are now double as far as the battery part of the vehicle’s construction are concerned. What are the emission numbers regarding premature total engine failure verses total battery failures.
I won't be driving much longer at my age, I'm sick of the poor driving standards, and all the sneaky tricks the local authorities and police try to milk your pocket. But after 50 years driving Ice cars I have found I really like driving an EV, not to Save the planet or tow a caravan just local driving, trips up to 200 miles max. I love the silent acceleration and ease of driving, and only going to a petrol station for a paper.
Could have done without the 10 minutes of waffle about errors in general and the sponsor spot though... "prepare to fast-forward" "preparing to fast-forward Sir" "fast-forwarding Sir" :D
I guess it is fair to not care about what I want, why would you but based on your bashing corporate wonks bullshitting day and night, which they certainly do, one would expect you consistently to be getting to the point somewhat faster especially after announcing that the video is not clickbait. ... also... manners please.
Agreed, and considering his reply, and his torch grifting, he probably believes the sun shines out his arse. I reckon secretly refers to himself as JC.
Welsh guy here living in the UK, i like the way you Aussies talk straight, please or offend you don't care i wish there were more people in my country who would tell things as they are and not pander to the minority veggie eating climate lefties who want us all to stay in our cold dark houses without proper heating and walk everywhere
To make up my mind, I did 3 things: 1. A basic calculation; which gave EV´s a neglible advantage. 2. Compared ICE & EV on a pro-EV website; which gave ICE a neglible advantage. 3. Common sense; With both cars mining (coal, lithium, oil..), processing, transport losses, manufacturing, emisions etc. are in play. Some of these factors may benefit ICE, others benefit EV´s. Just cross them out against each other. In the end we won´t ¨save the planet¨ driving massive PHEV´s, but rather use public transport or bicycles whenever possible. The most common mistakes are: > Thinking refining is just for gasoline & diesel, while the same energy consuming process also delivers plastics, paraffin, jet fuel & asphalt to name some. Not all pollution of those plants can be attributed to ICE cars. > Global politics: Be sure refineries won´t pump the gas portion back into the ground when demand from the west plummets. The price of gas will just drop, making ICE cars more interesting for developing nations. So forcing EV´s down our throats rather shifts than solves the problem. Timing is essential when transitioning. > Propaganda: Don´t expect your government to be objective. They´ll promote whatever favors their agenda. > Comparing the average EV to the average ICE car on the road today. To be objective, one should compare the newest EV to the newest ICE (being a hybrid without a plug.) > There is no energy mix; Without the extra demand from EV´s, we could close down some of the most pollutive power plants in the grid. So as long as there are coal plants, EV´s run on 100% coal. I´m in favor of an electric drivetrain, but whether we should power it with rechargable batteries or a gas powered range extender depends on the cleanliness of our power plants. So if I was in the market today, I´d go for the flexibility of a plug in hybrid.
Hi John. In your calculations you only count emission of wildtrack at tailpipe. Not wheel to well there a lot of emissions just to get the fuel to the car in the first place. Where as you calculate 7.5 tonnes for EV but zero for wildtrack .
That's true but what about the emmissions/pollution etc. created for the disposal of all of the used dead batteries ? - multiple in some EVs life of vehicle.
@Ben Wood So where is this happening in the scale that is and will be required for the projected millions of dead batteries these battery evs will produce ?
@@andrewwatson5360 it's not the right time for "huge scale". Demand simply isnt there yet. Need to wait for ateast 10ys before even taking into account used EVs batteries.
@Paulius Ščerbinskas Yes but that is the whole point about EVs isn't it ? Their engineering and technology is underdone and compared to ICE motive power crude when it comes to overall efficiency and practicality. Battery powered EVs have, will and do have a place in our transportation needs but only for part of the whole as unless some "miraculous " developments occurr they will never be as versatile or as flexible in providing motive power as solid/liquid/gas energised vehicles do. And they provide a very small percentage of reduction to our CO2 and pollution creation. So rather than concentrating our efforts on one comparatively minor part that is under our nose we should be pressuring those in power for real solutions to the huge worldwide threat to complex life forms that we face. We need all need to admit to the mistakes we have made in our thinking that we can put off problems because it won't be an issue for at least ten years. Not sure we all have the strength of character that John has to admit to our misconceptions, mindsets, mistakes but we cannot afford to keep supporting B.S. because it suits us or makes us fell all warm and fuzzy. Tens of millions of dead EV batteries stockpiled awaiting a feasible technology to economically and ecologically way of recycling them is definitely not warm and fuzzy. It's a disaster being created and happening now!
As I have often said, the problem is being tackled from the wrong end. At this moment in time I think that EV's are a waste of resources. There are quite a few that I can bring to mined. First, if they want us to go along with this madcap idea then they should deal with the fear of running out of power ,.the fueling should be done off site, drive in, fresh batteries fitted and off you go, as with ice powered vehicles. The batteries have to be charged somewhere after all. Another thing that I have noticed, or not noticed is........in all of the adverts flogging the things I have yet to see a public charging point at the roadsid, I saw an article that was saying that they have six chargers at this filling station, so it reads to me that if they are all in use you would have at least a three hour wait.😢😢😢
On the subject of money where the wild track costs 15k less than the ionic. You need to include the cost of fuel and the cost of charging for the ionic over the 10yrs and see how much each has available to spend for the solar array. I am guessing over 10yrs at current fuel prices the wild track will not be able to purchase the solar array because it will have spent more than the ionic. We also need to include the maintenance cost for both over 10yrs and we also need to consider the increase in fuel cost over those 10yrs.
I did the maths and this is how it goes. The wild track will cost $30k in fuel over the 150k km and at $400/service (I am guessing average as I am sure there are a few very expensive services on diesels) every 15k km totaling $34k for fuel and service. The ionic driver spends $15k on a solar array and battery and charges completely from solar and pays $1.5k on service and saves $2500 in maintenance and saves his home energy bill. The ionic driver pays less than the wild track driver, gets to drive for free, gets free electricity and saves far more CO2 emissions than the wild track because the ionic doesn't charge from the grid and runs his house from solar.
Interesting workings. It's not easy to work out. Could I add that you seem to have factored in the CO2 cost of manufacturing the electricity to power the car, but not the CO2 cost of manufacturing and transporting the diesel to power the Wildtrak.
it never seems to get factored into ev/ice comparisons, all the mining/refining/manufactoring of ev components are accounted for, however fuel is magically deposited into the tank without a thought for all the extraction/refining/shipping/transport/etc for the fuel. also are we also assuming the grid will not get significantly greener over the course of 10years?
Jon is a repeat offender in this regard. I stopped whatcing his videos a year or so ago, but clearly make a mistake clicking on this one when it popped up in my feed! No that is a mistake to own up to!😁
This is just the current Emissions today. Assuming it won’t change, but it will. Gvts are committed around the world to reduce emissions, so the probability in the future that charging an EV in Australia will produce less and less carbon over time. So it’s already better today in 2023 (as John said after a certain amount of KM travelled) and we can predict it will only get better as the energy mix changes. And also as production changes. The batteries used today will not be the same in 10 years time - carbon in production of these vehicles will drop. I'd also be interested to know if the CO2 emissions for extraction, refining and transporting (sea and land) petroleum was included in John's calculations
20million buildings in Australia, Wikipedia. 20million vehicles in Australia. 1million new vehicles yearly, OK. 20 years to replace all Australian vehicles. The truth is in the facts. Exactly.
Imagine if wildtrack girl bought a Picanto that suited her requirements 99% of the time and rented a diesel ute/4WD for the 1% of time that she actually needed to
A wise old man told me when i was a whipper snapper " Son, it ain't the screw up that youll be judged by, but the recovery " its worked for the 77 Years ive trod this mortal coil. Nice Recovery🎉
220 g for the average car 10 km per litre not the wildtrack. Wildtrack does 7 km per litre Also should include well to tank co2 of 720 g/km taking it to 3140g per litre. So wildtrack comes in at 448g per km.
Great video John. Thankyou. Yes, the solution to the greenhouse problem will always be in the electrical grid and home and commercial energy usage. Thanks for the vehicle comparisons that actually realistic and take into account the whole scope of the manufacturing and driving experience and are easy to relate to.
I have been an advocate of household solar. I put up 7kw of solar. Almost zeros me out. and cost me 13k usd. saves me money every month and less pull from the grid. We should be doing more for this before we start with EV push.
JC, love your work and your coverage of the intellectual incandescence of the Aussie energy framework. I reckon Wildtrack girl (but not so much Ionic boy) could go another 10 years, but the servicing and fuel costs might be increasingly influential in a broader comparison. Would also be interesting to know what the disposal costs will be in 10 years for spent EV batteries.
In 10 years time redundant EV batteries might be numerous enough for the emerging battery recycling enterprises to gain access to them because for now at least the demand for them to repurpose as DIY home storage units is making them far too valuable to 'dispose of'. Unlike fossil fuels which are burnt and lost forever they retain all of their constituent mineral inputs so are a perfect source of inputs for new batteries.
10 years? My Nissan Leaf battery is 11 years old and still going strong at 73% state of health. When it gets to 50% I'll part the car out and use the battery for home energy storage. It'll still have 12kWh left (early Leaf batteries were 24kwh) which is more than most home solar batteries these days. You'll honestly get closer to 30 years use out of a battery than 10.
Hey John, much respect for being a sane, respectful and honest bloke. I’ve come to expect nothing less over the last 4 years, but it’s still refreshing to see in the world we currently live in! To make it even more hilarious, I just finished watching the movie, Don’t look up; a movie that touches very close on the subject of scientific and public credibility (and the art of bullshit). Give it a watch you’ll laugh (and cry). Thanks for your tireless work sir!
I thought something was odd about that number, but I was tired and in a hurry. Anyway, great that you 'fessed up and re-did the maths. That Ford gas guzzler has a lot to answer for, but the ionic 5 is not the virtuous archangel either. My Mazda 2 skyactiv D produces 89 gm of CO2/km.
Something nobody talks about: Tires! How much energy, total, to make ONE tire? How much petroleum? Each EV needs four of them, maybe every 3 years or less, replaced. As these tires wear, carbon compounds are released. Run the numbers on tires.
Hello John, big fan. I do have one question as to the CO2 number that you are using for the internal combustion engine. Are you only calculating the tailpipe emissions of that burned fuel, or are you also taking into account all of the CO2 involved in capturing the crude oil, refining the crude oil, transporting the crude oil, etc. as you are doing for the battery of the electric vehicle? I also agree with you totally that the biggest help is cleaning up our dirty grids. Coal has to go!
Apparently Jon is an engineer who makes mistakes - this is a huge one and unfortunately he does it so often it's inexcusable. In fact it is deliberate, only he knows why he does it.
Credible sources make clear corrections and retractions. Regarding comparisons, we can clean up the input to the Ionic over 10 years (if we vote for that). The Wildtrack will always be the same. Your broader message that it is hard is most valid, which is why we should have started 15 years ago. Hats off to you John.
In the past , life and bio-diversity flourished when CO2 was many times higher than now....and no , the planet did not enter thermal runaway , it actually got colder.
Great video, but I wondered if we should talk about what "zero emissions" really means. I mean, at first reading you would think it means "no emissions anywhere", as you have treated it. However, if I look at what seems to be driving the various government pushes against ICE cars, it's about cleaner air in big cities, so it's not so much "no emissions anywhere" as "no emissions in the street where my kids walk and play". At least EVs can deliver on that view of it - well, except for the particulates from their rubber tyres and brake discs...
The other catch would be, the short trip ev would not reach 150,000km in ten years on average I would imagine, you do less km in your little runabout than your tow/trip car. Or in ten years the software is out of date, and the vehicle is bricked.
And now, on to the "Top 6 Errors": 1) Overestimate Emissions during Battery Manufacturing Longer discussion with multiple sources in the article but bottom line: add ~65 kg CO2e per kWh. (Based on outdated articles from the time of small scale production, EV opponents often add up to 200 kg/kWh. That's wrong.) 2) Underestimate Battery Lifetime Bottom line: new batteries already last 450-1350 thousand km. Assuming the car is scrapped after 300 thousand km (like an average diesel car) gives: ~16 gr/km for battery production. (Claims of 150k km lifetime and 73-98 gr/km are erroneous) 3) Forget That Electricity Gets Greener The BEV will not drive on pure coal, now and forever. In reality you must take average values and electricity gets greener over the lifetime of the BEV. For the EU I estimate ~55 gr/km driving emissions for BEVs introduced in 2019. 4) Use Unrealistic Driving Tests In Europe, car manufacturers are responsible for testing. They have created loopholes to the tune of 40% (NECD) and 15-20% (WLTP). So take emissions from real road tests or the EPA. Example in article: diesel emissions rise from 170 to 244 gr/km. 5) Exclude Fuel Production The second reason the numbers in the brochure about CO2 emissions during driving are useless, is that they ignore the CO2 produced in fuel production. You must add 21-25% to (road test or EPA) tailpipe emissions to account for that. 6) Lack of System Thinking The real prize is BEVs produced by and driving on renewable electricity. Assuming a life cycle on fully renewable energy, emissions would plummet by a factor of 10. And that's not magical thinking because the technology is already here. and Zenmo energy models I even find the flexibility of BEVs drive down the cost of a 100% renewable energy system if you use their flexibility (with 'smart charging') and charge them off-peak on excess solar and wind. So it's a 'double whammy'. Conclusion: Faulty assumptions can lead you to think BEVs offer only a small improvement in terms of CO2 emissions. Thorough analysis shows that compared to diesel/gasoline, BEVs already emit less than half and this will become less than a tenth in the future.
Love your work John! I think assuming that the grid CO2 mass/kWh rate into the future isn’t going to drop is a bit unfair. This factor has to drop into the future but in comparison, the ICE emissions will stay almost the same. It would add value to the calculation to make this a variable in the ev calc, and look at an expected full lifecycle analysis over 20 years based on the current trend of the grid emissions intensity.
I agree. I’m trying to relate the CO2 grams per kW of John’s “AushTrallyaan” National Grid (which sounds like its’ heavily coal-dependant) to the New Zealand Grid (which is largely hydro and wind driven). Maybe we do come out better in NZ with EV’s - apart from running the risk of burning our garages down !!
Maybe because I'm engineer, but I don't think making a mistake in calculations - however well reviewed - is not unusual. You just tell people about it, make the corrections, and move on, as you just did. Thanks.
Kudos for correcting your mistake, John. But as a scientist you also know that science does not stand still. I agree with much of what you say but whatever your truth is in 2023 it will have changed by 2030 and beyond. By then, the battery chemistry will have improved, energy density will have increased, the batteries will be lighter, V2L will be common, the electric motors will be more efficient, and the grid will be much greener. Your calculations will change - a lot. It’s not the 2023 numbers that matter - it’s how they will change. And we have to start the process. As a medical scientist who graduated in 1972, and worked in a cardiac unit, I made calculations about how many lives lost from heart disease we could have prevented at that time. I would never ever have guessed that we would be preventing 80% of them by 2020. I am surprised that you have such a static view of science.
Thank you so very much for this! You have made my thoughts on EVs sadder now knowing the FACTs that they are not as good as touted. I would rather know the facts that live in la la land. Thanks again for your correction and the info. Always perfectly presented.
Did you take into account the approximately 27% of power lost in transmission from generator to charger? Also the charger itself isn't 100% efficient so lets guess 90%. So each 1KW consumed by the car is ~1.5KW at the generator. So is the CO2 number was used, for power at the load, or power at the generator? This all just means that the electric vehicle co2 number caclulated could actually be 1.5x higher.
One of the most honest and forthright people on the airwaves, he is one hundred percent correct in my opinion on everything he had to say here and of course those vested interests which he alluded to will howl in protest and try and deny his figures , his accurate assessment of our political "masters" and his comments on nuclear energy.
Thanks for the stand up correction John. 👍 Agree the investment on the solar is better bang for $ and enviro buck before thinking EV. Keep up the great work delivering honest, interesting & practical videos across multiple subjects.
the EV push may be more about eventual control, restrictions, geofencing, shut offs, out of reach of ordinary people etc, than the planet. Some other things make way more sense and are way more workable without throwing a baby out with the bathwater and leaving a high percentage of people high and dry.
What was not mentioned is that the electricity grid also uses renewables and the exports of excess solar generation that the grid then sells to consumers.
Nice one John. I commented on the video yesterday saying I was seeing different numbers. This explains why. Mistakes are not the problem, its the people that think they never make them themselves and can't put their hand up when they do.
Appreciate your honesty John. May the IPCC and others admit to theirs? I have become aware of the environmental damage being done with the installation of wind turbines in pristine Qld forest areas with the creation of access tracks and operating space around each to get clear air. Birds, bats and insects are going to be destroyed in huge numbers over the lifetime of these installations with far reaching effects over the wider area. Similarly with solar farms due to the heat generated being potentially fatal to an even wider group of animals and birds crossing over and under. Then we come to BEVs. What are the health risks of extended exposure sitting for hours within the magnetic field of a giant battery? Equivalent to holding a mobile phone to each ear I have heard or getting a continuous dose of EMF radiation? I'd like to know, if we ever will know? And we need to remind ourselves that we are doing this while ignoring the fact that the atmosphere consists of 99.999% other than man-made CO2. If we eeked out a reduction of man-made CO2 from .001% to .0009% what good if anything, will come from that? In the meantime I'm hanging on to my 2016 Kia Cee'd diesel at least until EV range can match that. Could be a long wait?
Hi John, a question I have about the EV versus diesel comparison. The 7500kg of CO2 to make the battery makes sense, but the CO2 emissions from the diesel as I understand your calculations are only from the time that the diesel is put into your tank. Should the calculations not include the CO2 that it takes to produce the diesel before you put it in your tank? I’m not arguing one way or the other, but as you say the facts are important and it just seems the whole process is getting counted for the battery production, but not from the oil coming out of the ground until it gets to the service station. I may have misunderstood and please correct me if I have. Regards Stacey
@Auto Expert John Cadogan - Australia has enormous areas of, as we say in 'Murica, _"Miles and miles of nothing but miles and miles."_ That phrase would lose a lot of poetic value in Metric, so please forgive. *Point being, Australia **_should be_** one of the greenest countries in the world,* and _would be IF_ you would get the Pigliticians to stop feeding at the public trough for a minute and, uh ... Cover a small fraction of the Outback with Solar Farms. Put them along the roads, drop in the occasional battery station (no lithium needed there btw) and you will seldom be more than a couple of dozen klicks away from the power needed to recharge your EVehicles. Even the eBourgemobiles would not need much of a battery to go a _veddy_ comfortable 75 km between recharges. Thoughts?
John, John, John. Grab your calculator out. You have used the CO2 produced in the production of electricity, so to be fair, you need to use the CO2 produced in the production of diesel or petrol. Your calcuations a based on diesel or petrol turning up at the bowser with zero CO2 produced to get it there.
That have become a bit better the last years. Well some brands are still behind. But generally most EV should make 200 000-250 000km on the first battery. Something like 90-95% of the cars will... The issue here is more one of economy than one of environment. Most car manufactures have a warranty of 160 000km of battery life (or 8 years, what ever comes first). If you buy a used car that have runned more than 160 000km.. or are older than 8 years, you really can´t afford to take a loan on it. Because that car is a ticking economical time bomb. You can have a cell failure at any time. It might happen at 160 001km or it might happen at 250 000km you would never know a head. When that happen the car is effectively worthless. Because the glider part of the car is old and worn and really not worth much, and a new battery and install cost would be more expensive then just buying a new car. Like a brand new car, not even talking about a 3-4 year used car. There is not to many 8+ year used car on the market yet, but we are only 3 or 4 years away from that. And that might be a economical disaster for some people.
I agree 100% with the home solar and battery I have had 13kwh battery installed with 5kw solar for the last 3 years. We all would be better off if the government just paid for us all for a home set up and keep the ice cars. Would be cheaper and better in the long run. So much energy from a batter 70kwh to do 400 km. 13 kWh to run my whole house for 24 h Ev s are a con
Hiya John, May God bless your days. I live way out in the desert in Baja Mexico. Nearest EV charger is about 400 miles away. We run our ranch on solar. 15KW of solar and 66KW of battery made out of used EV batteries. We run gas and diesel vehicles at the moment due to the charger stations being so far away. If we grow our solar array more then we may think of using an EV. You are absolutely correct the home Solar/Battery system is better than just a battery in the EV. The world is focused on cutting CO2. CO2 is not the key thing to get rid of we actually need that for plants and trees. Anthropomorphic additions of C02 are ok. The oxides of nitrogen/sulphur coming out of ICE vehicles and power plants are the things killing the planet. Maybe you could run those in your equation. You are correct, modern nuclear plants are much better than coal and gas power plants. Cheers ❤❤❤
You're making an excellent case for decarbonising the grid. Thanks. The sooner we go electric everything, the better. Renewable generation plus storage ftw!
@@essentialmix1606 A resource that is infinite and renewable. Already having rolling power blackouts in some places and only 20m EVs on the planet. They want 1 billion 🤣
@@motleydude73 EVs will form part of the grid in the future. When/if there are a billion batteries parked in garages the storage potential will be like nothing mankind has ever seen. All it takes is a small amount of curiosity to discover some of the potential benefits... Or you could cross your arms and just push back on anything you don't understand or care to learn about I guess. Have a nice day 👍
Hey John, I have been sitting on this question for a while and I think it is a good time to pose it. Have you had a look into the use of redox flow batteries (vanadium or zinc bromine) for home energy storage? They are far less energy dense than lithium-based chemistries, however, for stationary home storage their benefits seem to far outweigh that particular downside. Given the relative abundance of the elements used in the most common redox electrolytes, and the comparative ease with which they can be recycled, redox batteries are far less CO2 intensive to produce. Therefore, WildTrack girly would be even better off after ~10 years with a redox flow battery paired with her solar array - bonus points for not storing a potential source of a runaway exothermic chemical reaction near her home.
I think there is still an error in your calculations, you account for the carbon footprint of manufacturing the battery but not for refining the diesel, the information I have found is that you should add 24% to the footprint you calculated for burning the fuel. Big difference! Also over the life of the vehicle the source of the electricity generated is likely to change. Not sure how you account for that but it is also likely quite large. You have a very good point about smaller vehicles ICE or EV being better not something most commentators point out.
John , You are hitting the nail on the head here. New Zealanders seem to suffer of this Virtue signaling with pushing for more EV’s on the roads Because we want to be GREEN , ZERO EMISSIONS. trying to explain to some numpties that the Best advice is to Maintain your car well( So it runs as efficiently as possible ) and drive it for as long as possible.
There are other factors to consider, such as driving less or purchasing a newer ICE which is more efficient. Your older vehicle can then be onsold as a second or third vehicle or serve someone in their early adult years as reliable transport.
It’s interesting how people interpret someone driving an EV as virtue signaling when they have no idea what that person is actually thinking, it say more about you than the ev driver, on the other hand there is some interesting studies about people who drive big Uts in NZ showing how most Ute drivers own utes for emotional reasons (to impress others, to feel included, to not feel scared) in other words to compensate for lacking something.
@@ricks7583 yes but that 20% all goes directly into evs to be stored in batteries full of cobalt mined by congalese children and which will spontaneously explode into a thermal runaway fireball (spoiler alert for johns next fudio)
Hello John. Well done owning up to your mistake. Great integrity. I did notice that you calculated the EV battery at 7000kg of CO2, which it should. However within your calculations for the ICE vehicle did your CO2 figures also include the production of each litre of fuel used?
Good on you for swallowing your pride to correct your mistake in a frankly majestic way. And thank you for highlighting the marketing campaign that is "green vehicles". Grinds my gears. I do also find it ironic that the central pillar of the "green" movement is less CO2 and less CO2 actually means less plant matter ergo less green. Yet it's marketed as being good for the trees. I get the approach of reducing climate impacts etc but as a logistical application, solar, wind, EVs and anything reducing CO2 is the opposite of green
You forgot to add the minimum lifespan of a lithium-ion batteries, which is around 5 years or at least 2,000 charging cycles. But after 1000 cycles the batteries loose around 20% of the full charge. Then the number become amazingly complicated.
John, it takes a big man to say it how it is. And it takes an even bigger man to admit mistakes and correct them publicly, for everyone’s benefits and enlightenment.
We salute you for being both of those people.
Gotta respect the facts, dude - but thanks for the message. Appreciated.
Clearly he is conjoined at the hip...
@@gbsailing9436 who is?
@@benmmm7359
The one who says things as they are, and the one who admits his mistakes.
@@benmmm7359 Who is what? Use full complete sentences....
This is why people trust you John, if you make a mistake you don't obfuscate, blame or build straw men. You owned it, and we need more of that in the world.
Politicians, listen up...
@@AutoExpertJC The politician says "What?" when you tell them to listen up.🤣🤣
But how do they make solar panels and batteries
Good job mate, love the STEM promotion. I have had the benefit of viewing the error episode first, so i have a chance to spot the error in hindsight!
@@AutoExpertJC The Hon John Cadogan as next Prime Minister of Australia.
MAGA hats to come soon?
BRILLIANT & HONEST FINAL 15 MINUTES!!
EVERYONE NEEDS TO SEE THIS!
Hello, I know this is an older video but I am a new watcher of you channel from the UK. Just wanted to say good on you for correcting the record in this way as many wouldn't. It's proves you are someone who can be trusted when it comes to facts and discussion on topics like this.
I have had the discussions about EVs and what you say about a small 1 litre 3 cylinder car being about as good when it comes to CO² emissions. The discussion then always turns to but it's about removing the harmful fumes from City centres. I very rarely drive into the City anyway as there is a park and ride tram station 3 miles from my house where I can leave my car free of charge to get a tram for around half the price of what parking the car in the city centre would cost. It's not always the most convenient way to do things but it means there's less hassle trying to find a parking space in the city. It makes me wonder sometimes how much power the tram uses and if that really saves emissions in the bigger picture but the tram is going to run anyway so at least I'm taking my car out of the equation for that part of the journey. At the moment I see EVs in their current form a bit like when countries ship their waste to other countries to appear greener than the countries who end up dealing with the waste. I'm not against EVs as such I just think they cost far too much environmentally and financially for very little gains in the current form. Unless the power going into them is zero emissions they never really can be.
John the fact that you made this video is why I take you at your word.
I wish more people had this old school honour of being a man of your word.
It's just having respect for the facts. If you get the facts wrong, gotta 'fess up.
@@AutoExpertJC Own it , Learn from it , Grow from it. Good Job dude Love your work :)
@@AutoExpertJC Not just respect for the facts, John, also respect for yourself.
This is why I listen to you from far away Upsidedownistan Portugal. Cheers and thanks for leading by example.
John, As a pilot and trainer for over 40 years I've seen plenty of mistakes made on the flightdeck, mine included. The secret is how you recover. Yours was perfect. We all cock up, just hope we catch it before is gets serious. Kudos mate.
TEMS = Threat Error Management
@@mawsoncasey7347 System?
you wouldnt want to make a fatal mistake at 10000ft with 300 passengers onboard.
@@andrewchung83 although at 10,000’ you have at least several minutes to fix the mistake, and a copilot
As a nuclear engineer I love how you used the dirty word! Yes base load power and crowdsourcing renewable energy first. Then move to the marginal (for now) EV savings. I will wait for a better motive source for EVs personnally but they will have thier day in the end. I very much appreciate your intellect and sense of humor. Well done Mr. Cadogan. You are my favorite engineer to watch on RUclips!
Full respect, John! Part of the process of seeking the truth through science (or as close of an approximation to the truth as humanly possible) is to acknowledge one’s missteps and gather all the learnings through that process. Love your channel! Greetings from Germany.
I completely missed the error myself. This followup is hugely respectful to the audience, to the facts and more importantly, to the point! Huge respect JC
Thank you.
@@AutoExpertJC One thing you are missing from your analysis is that the generation will have more renewables over time. The Australian grid produced 38TWh in 2015-2016, but for 2020-2021 it produced 70TWh, up approximately 85% over 5 years (or 13% pa). And yes our electricity usage is going up slightly per year, but obviously not at a rate of anywhere near 13% per year compounded.
@@TankEnMate If the rate of EV adoption escalates exponentially as it has done and is doing around the world, electricity usage will increase at a rate that cannot be realistically supplied by current renewables technologies. And there will also be huge problems associated with so many charging at the same time overnight.
@@nigel.w Renewables are growing exponentially as well, as are home batteries. Superchargers are already being deployed with Megapacks. These will help balance out power generation / consumption on an intra-day time period. So I suspect it then comes down to redeploying diesel from vehicles to power generation for a short while; and this will be much more efficient than diesel vehicles (50~80% CCGT vs 15~20% ICE engine). So it will be full steam ahead for both in the near future with means an overall decrease in CO2 emissions. The countries that don't take all this onboard will be the ones to suffer; higher costs, unstable grid, AND running old unsupported clunkers. My suggestion will be look at how Norway is getting on.
Why are these irrelevant comments beneath my own thread??
I'm a building fire protection auditor. Mistakes can be serious. I make mistakes sometimes. You know, When you get home and have to fill out all the days reports and Tiffany gets, You know a little exited and she is "Down there" whilst one is tapping away on the key board. It's the rectification of said mistakes that keep customers coming back. Better to eat crow and become more experienced than be too proud and eat dirt! Much respect to you John. My analytical mind in regards to your previous information has been adjusted and updated.
John, if you’re factoring in the CO2 footprint of the electricity, then you should also factor in the CO2 emissions involved in the extraction, transport and refining of the diesel too. And if you’re going to factor money into your calculations, you need to take account of the price difference between diesel and electricity for the same mileage.
Exactly. Also, it requires one unit of electricity just to refine one liter of gasoline. This is just to refine, think about extraction, transport and leakages of fuel. Also, in US, to get 15% ethanol to mix with gasoline, they grow 42000 sq miles of corn. How much energy, water, labor needed for that every year. It produces huge amount of waste which will eventually produce tons of methane. Just 15000 sq miles of solar will produce all the electricity needed for entire US. If you really want to understand the EV and renewable with battery storage, kindly see the Tesla master plan 3. You will learn a lot. You will not get any real information for the old used car mechanic.
@@ramb5193 currently 500000 gallons of water are needed to produce 1 metric tonne of lithium. There is an environmental cost for everything we do. I once saw an article regarding the 'break even' for a CO2 vs a ICE car, and it stated it would break even at 80k miles. A little asterisk at the bottom of the article noted that it didn't include for the recycling of the battery pack. The need for green power is going to increase near exponentially to cover mining, recycling and the increasing need for power. The best thing you could do, if you work within 10/15 miles of home is to ride a bike every day - better for the environment, better for you, better for the countries health service.
Well done John, we all respect a good honest soul, no harm done and you have climbed to the leaderboard in term of confidence from your viewers. Keep up the good work !!
Wisdom comes with responsibilities John, well done for fessing up mate.
It wasn't that hard - it's an integrity thing.
@@AutoExpertJC True.
It’s not the mistake that matters (we’re all human), it’s how you handle it. And you handled it in an exemplary manner.
..and then went on to compare a 'lardy arse' Ionic 5 (which weighs about 200kg less than a Wildtrack) go figure?! Jon also forgot to mention anything about the huge CO2 emissions from the fuel discovery, extraction refining and distribution. What a clanger of a mistake!
This is what I like best about this channel. You are just about getting to the truth even if you have to admit your mistakes. Bravo my good man. I really admire your honesty here.
Learn your real name: FAST!
When calculating the co2 cost of fuel don't forget exploration, drilling equipment, energy used, transport of the crood oil, refining, transport of the fuel, equipment for storage, and after all that you burn it once then start again
Why calculate the battery manufacturing energy, but not the energy required to get the petrol or diesel from the ground to the pump. Would make for interesting comparison.
EVs are destroying the road surfaces in my area. Goodness knows what the tyre shredding and shedding is happening. I'm an old school green and have serious concerns regarding this new utopia.
@@VCanisMajorisY so EVs in your area are huge and weight 20 tons?
@@werafonas Maybe he lives at one of the Iron Ore mines in the Pilbara...
Because it’s so cheap
@@VCanisMajorisYWe all would be very interested in you expanding on this. Why because there is something very different between EVs and the majority of ICE cars. There are new ICE cars that can approach the lack of kinetic friction that EVs have, but very few, and not under acceleration. What this means is that there is nearly zero loss of traction in an EV. There could be a clue in the weight of the vehicles, as to why there is more tyre wear.
Hi John, when you do the calculation to compare emissions from EV vs emissions from ICE, do you only consider tailpipe emissions for the ICE car, or do you also take into account the emissions produced when extracting, transporting, refining the combustible fuel?
Good question. I would like the answer to that as well. I'm guessing the answer would be yes, knowing the usual depth of John's ramblings :-)
No one ever does. Nor the electricity required to make petrol/diesel.
Did he also include the emissions incurred in the production of the Ranger ?
@@nigspeed Not important when doing a differential analysis.
@@nigspeed he did it was in the original video it's represented by weight of the vehicle and CO2/tonne of steel that's why he used the specific vehicles and before you say what about the engine what about this what about that EV's still have a form of propulsion that needs to be manufactured so vehicle mass is enough said I think
John if you are going to factor in the emissions due to the manufacturing process of the ev and it’s batteries do you also factor in the same emissions due to the manufacturing of the wild track and the mining and refining of its fuel source.
What I remember of an article I read, was that manufacturing EV cars cause about 50% more CO2. Powering the EV from a Coal (H0(CH0)999H0) reduces CO2 by 25%, from a liquid fuel (H1(CH2)10H1) power plant about 50%, from a natural gas (H1(CH2)1H1) power plant about 75%, from non-carbon power plant (hydro, photo voltaic, wind, etc) 100%. The big disadvantage is ICE vehicles is small engines loose a lot of energy via surface area, cooling systems, mechanical transmission, putting about 15-20% energy in fuel on the road, vs a 200-1000MW power plant delivering 50% to the outlet. Even an engine/generator motor can double an ice engine efficiency especially with a battery to boost high demand situations for short periods of time.
I was always taught to accuse privately and apologise publicly. Glad to see it wasn’t just my parents that had a moral compass. Well done, sir.
We all make mistakes. Respect to you John for acknowledging it and correcting.
No wukkas, Ben.
#respect
I am a Civil Engineer with decades in the industry. Including one decade in the Electric power generation and transmission. Contractors side.
My old university Engineering mate is lost in the nuclear industry promoters world.
He tipped me off that transmission of Renewables from distant 'farms' to the cities was too expensive and gave me the costs. The example was new transmission to Snowy 2 and the different generation sources.
Then Allan Fels, the government adviser and AEMO adviser, said that 5 times more electricity was needed to replace the high energy density fossil fuels.
And you could see that the world had an economic crisis.
That's when I found that Australia has 20million vehicles and buildings, and the buildings are connected to the existing national grid.
And Australia has 25GW of installed fossil fueled power generation.
So, with a few solar PV panels on the building rooftops and the EV selfparking and plugged into the grid 23hrs a day.
Australia could UNLOAD the national power grid and have dispatchable electricity 2 or 5 times today's electric supply with no fossil fuels, just renewable energy and EVs.
Everyone agrees with EVs, and the battery technology is rapidly improving.
Nuclear means a massive fattening of everything infrastructure and the world supply of tonnes of uranium ore to every country's nuclear industries.
USA military defence budgets will explode 😳. Add those costs onto the whole deal. !!!!!!!!!!!
So, a simple construction tender estimate process high lights glaring stupidity of the concentrated central power generation proposal.
Here in the US I’ve seen reports of ev batteries losing 15%+/- charge on cold nights.
John, if you do mine-to-wheel emissions for an EV you should do well-to-wheel emissions for the ICE vehicle. You might be surprised how much energy it takes to refine oil into petrol.
Respect to John for this video but as above it’s still not a valid comparison. The NEM carbon intensity has been progressively reducing over the past years, we can’t achieve that with fossil fuels. Still agree we should make EV’s lighter and more efficient.
What about mine to final disposal?
Why? Compare carbon impact of car manufacture to EV car manufacture carbon impact, then do the same for the fuel vs electric generation carbon emission in situ. May work for California year round, may not work for Northern Canada most months in the year. There are no utopias, just sweet spots that depend where you are.
Also need to factor in emissions from wheel to subsequent disposal of EV (with batteries). Do the same for ICE vehicles.
The "privileged" who drive EVs don't get the luxury of seeing the moon crater in the ground created to mine the materials to make it. Not in my back yard..right? But they are ok in some third world country or China (who doesn't give a rats ass who or what they destroy in the process of providing entitled westerners their merchandise). What greater wisdom than to provide China even more economic leverage over our affairs.
Have a great weekend John,you deserve it.Thanks for all the time you spend making us smarter and more aware. I'll always be watching and learning. Kind regards Michael Gulyas.
John, can I check your numbers for fuel. Are your fuel numbers calculated as 'Pump to wheels' for the Ford Ranger? You used the calcs for the EV as 'Powerstation to wheels'. So the real calculation should be 'Well to wheels' to correctly compare the two. Mining, transporting, and refining crude oil into fuels is a pretty intense process. I believe the powerstation calcs already consider this part for coal. Then with roughly 90% of the fuel used in Australia being shipped in, this adds substantial additional numbers. From numbers I have found for a country producing its own fuel it equates to about 24% additional CO2/km then add shipping the fuel to Aus.
Shhhhhh, I just got told to try and keep up asking a shorter version of what you did. You can’t break the cardinal sin “thou shalt not question the combustion Jesus”
Keep up, you two. Turn your ears away from the EV fake gods.
Comparison with home solar (and battery) totally apposite. Biggest issue there is that corporate electricity is doing everything it can to not allow us ALL to move over to solar too quickly, while they work out how they can ream us for getting solar and batteries at home, and them charging us for giving them electricity. Bastards.
Sigourney Weaver, Aliens mama, huge hero. She kicks ass.
You learn more from mistakes than success. As a lifelong engineer I've learned a lot!!!
Hi John, just wondering if your calculations take into account the CO2 (and any other extracts) produced when refining the diesel at the refinery before it ends up in Wildtrack girl's fuel tank? Enjoy your videos. Cheers, Phil
Yeah, I think if the calculation includes the CO2 produced to create the ‘fuel’ for the EV (electricity), I would think the same should be done for the Diesel fuel. Getting the oil out of the ground, transporting it, refining it and then transporting the final result to the petrol station all incur a CO2 cost and should be added, right?
@@cohrindrake I thought stopping at the refining part of the process would give an apples for apples comparison with the electricity generation. Otherwise, if you start including the actual mining/drilling for the primary resource, it would possibly be too hard to get the necessary data at a reasonable level.
@@philcurrie5768 But don't the EV calculations include the mining processes (including that of coal for power plants)? It seems far more apples-to-apples (to me) to compare end-to-end rather than picking an arbitrary point to start counting?
Thinking similar, as the Ev has the Co2 debt from the outset, Ranger girl will have the debt of the lifetime fuel supply chain from exploration to the Ranger fuel tank.
@@cig13 if you really want to compare apples to apples, then maybe compare a ICE car similar in size to the Ionic 5, which you can almost fit into the tray of the Ranger.
Hey John,
I reckon you made another mistake there.
You calculate the upfront "cost" of CO2 of an EV but then go to calculate the ICE car as if it has none.
That's not true; In order for an ICE car to get its fuel into its belly, there's a lot of CO2 wastage.
From extraction, refining, transporting etc.
For EVs, you took a general number of 1kwh produced, which we can estimate include all those costs.
It is also hard to calculate the additional cost of infrastructure since domestic use fuel is a dedicated infrastructure while charging EVs is a shared one (you have electricity going into your house regardless of the ownership of an EV).
Moreover, the tendency is to balance the load on the network throughout the day (by making time-of-day costing) in such a way that there's no need to upgrade the network massively to accommodate for the increase in load).
Add that to more renewals, neighbourhood batteries and household batteries, all of which cannot be done with ICE - there's some more cost there. Definitely on a large scale.
If you measure the co2 during electricity production at the power station, surely you need to also include the full production process of creating the fuel at the pump and not just the co2 burned by running the ic engine.
Co2 for a unit of fuel compared to an equivalent unit of electricity.
My guess is you'll need to add another 25% for the fuel production supply chain.
Good point. Also need to consider emission of NOx gases by ICE engines and their detrimental health effects.
I agree we need to compare like for like but John is absolutely going in the right direction. Also lifetime ownership costs in terms of CO2 impact need to be factored into the model
The irony is that CO2 captured at these facilities can be turned back into oil by algae without ever reaching the greenhouse canopy some seem to fear so much.
And a lot of Cobalt to purify that fuel.
@@peterbennett2301 One might need to take into account also how the recycling of batteries affect the equation. Materials are dug and processed once, then recycled.
Did the same 2 days ago, on a simple thermal expansion calc. Humility lives on in my life too.
We all love you John because you admit to mistakes , which means you have integrity and honesty and we can trust you 👍
Thank you very much, dude.
Here’s something people also never include. The assumption is that batteries last say 5 years, what is the emission values when a battery fails early in its life and needs replacing. Emissions are now double as far as the battery part of the vehicle’s construction are concerned. What are the emission numbers regarding premature total engine failure verses total battery failures.
I won't be driving much longer at my age, I'm sick of the poor driving standards, and all the sneaky tricks the local authorities and police try to milk your pocket. But after 50 years driving Ice cars I have found I really like driving an EV, not to Save the planet or tow a caravan just local driving, trips up to 200 miles max. I love the silent acceleration and ease of driving, and only going to a petrol station for a paper.
Kudos to you John for having the intestinal fortitude to stand up and rectify your error.
Could have done without the 10 minutes of waffle about errors in general and the sponsor spot though... "prepare to fast-forward" "preparing to fast-forward Sir" "fast-forwarding Sir" :D
Tell someone who gives a shit what you want.
I guess it is fair to not care about what I want, why would you but based on your bashing corporate wonks bullshitting day and night, which they certainly do, one would expect you consistently to be getting to the point somewhat faster especially after announcing that the video is not clickbait.
... also... manners please.
Agreed, and considering his reply, and his torch grifting, he probably believes the sun shines out his arse. I reckon secretly refers to himself as JC.
@@AutoExpertJCme. I love your vids John but cut the boomer ramblings and shorten your vids
When he said he “carries a torch everyday” I pictured him walking around with a welder. I had no idea he was talking about flashlights.
Engineer myself only major error I can recall was getting married.
You are a amazing host and this mistake doesnt change that. I wish we had people like you in charge of our country keep making great videos Thank you.
I admire your integrety and wish I had your depth of understanding. You set an amazing example.
Welsh guy here living in the UK, i like the way you Aussies talk straight, please or offend you don't care i wish there were more people in my country who would tell things as they are and not pander to the minority veggie eating climate lefties who want us all to stay in our cold dark houses without proper heating and walk everywhere
To make up my mind, I did 3 things:
1. A basic calculation; which gave EV´s a neglible advantage.
2. Compared ICE & EV on a pro-EV website; which gave ICE a neglible advantage.
3. Common sense; With both cars mining (coal, lithium, oil..), processing, transport losses, manufacturing, emisions etc. are in play. Some of these factors may benefit ICE, others benefit EV´s. Just cross them out against each other.
In the end we won´t ¨save the planet¨ driving massive PHEV´s, but rather use public transport or bicycles whenever possible.
The most common mistakes are:
> Thinking refining is just for gasoline & diesel, while the same energy consuming process also delivers plastics, paraffin, jet fuel & asphalt to name some. Not all pollution of those plants can be attributed to ICE cars.
> Global politics: Be sure refineries won´t pump the gas portion back into the ground when demand from the west plummets. The price of gas will just drop, making ICE cars more interesting for developing nations. So forcing EV´s down our throats rather shifts than solves the problem. Timing is essential when transitioning.
> Propaganda: Don´t expect your government to be objective. They´ll promote whatever favors their agenda.
> Comparing the average EV to the average ICE car on the road today. To be objective, one should compare the newest EV to the newest ICE (being a hybrid without a plug.)
> There is no energy mix; Without the extra demand from EV´s, we could close down some of the most pollutive power plants in the grid. So as long as there are coal plants, EV´s run on 100% coal.
I´m in favor of an electric drivetrain, but whether we should power it with rechargable batteries or a gas powered range extender depends on the cleanliness of our power plants. So if I was in the market today, I´d go for the flexibility of a plug in hybrid.
Hi John. In your calculations you only count emission of wildtrack at tailpipe. Not wheel to well there a lot of emissions just to get the fuel to the car in the first place. Where as you calculate 7.5 tonnes for EV but zero for wildtrack .
That's true but what about the emmissions/pollution etc. created for the disposal of all of the used dead batteries ? - multiple in some EVs life of vehicle.
@Andrew Watson yeah batteries can and are being recycled to refuse a high % of the materials again. Fuel can't be.
@Ben Wood So where is this happening in the scale that is and will be required for the projected millions of dead batteries these battery evs will produce ?
@@andrewwatson5360 it's not the right time for "huge scale". Demand simply isnt there yet. Need to wait for ateast 10ys before even taking into account used EVs batteries.
@Paulius Ščerbinskas Yes but that is the whole point about EVs isn't it ?
Their engineering and technology is underdone and compared to ICE motive power crude when it comes to overall efficiency and practicality.
Battery powered EVs have, will and do have a place in our transportation needs but only for part of the whole as unless some "miraculous " developments occurr they will never be as versatile or as flexible in providing motive power as solid/liquid/gas energised vehicles do.
And they provide a very small percentage of reduction to our CO2 and pollution creation.
So rather than concentrating our efforts on one comparatively minor part that is under our nose we should be pressuring those in power for real solutions to the huge worldwide threat to complex life forms that we face.
We need all need to admit to the mistakes we have made in our thinking that we can put off problems because it won't be an issue for at least ten years.
Not sure we all have the strength of character that John has to admit to our misconceptions, mindsets, mistakes but we cannot afford to keep supporting B.S. because it suits us or makes us fell all warm and fuzzy.
Tens of millions of dead EV batteries stockpiled awaiting a feasible technology to economically and ecologically way of recycling them is definitely not warm and fuzzy.
It's a disaster being created and happening now!
It shows a deep integrity to admit an error
Respect for the facts...
Are you including battery changes? 🤔
As I have often said, the problem is being tackled from the wrong end. At this moment in time I think that EV's are a waste of resources. There are quite a few that I can bring to mined. First, if they want us to go along with this madcap idea then they should deal with the fear of running out of power ,.the fueling should be done off site, drive in, fresh batteries fitted and off you go, as with ice powered vehicles. The batteries have to be charged somewhere after all. Another thing that I have noticed, or not noticed is........in all of the adverts flogging the things I have yet to see a public charging point at the roadsid, I saw an article that was saying that they have six chargers at this filling station, so it reads to me that if they are all in use you would have at least a three hour wait.😢😢😢
On the subject of money where the wild track costs 15k less than the ionic. You need to include the cost of fuel and the cost of charging for the ionic over the 10yrs and see how much each has available to spend for the solar array. I am guessing over 10yrs at current fuel prices the wild track will not be able to purchase the solar array because it will have spent more than the ionic. We also need to include the maintenance cost for both over 10yrs and we also need to consider the increase in fuel cost over those 10yrs.
I did the maths and this is how it goes. The wild track will cost $30k in fuel over the 150k km and at $400/service (I am guessing average as I am sure there are a few very expensive services on diesels) every 15k km totaling $34k for fuel and service.
The ionic driver spends $15k on a solar array and battery and charges completely from solar and pays $1.5k on service and saves $2500 in maintenance and saves his home energy bill. The ionic driver pays less than the wild track driver, gets to drive for free, gets free electricity and saves far more CO2 emissions than the wild track because the ionic doesn't charge from the grid and runs his house from solar.
Interesting workings. It's not easy to work out. Could I add that you seem to have factored in the CO2 cost of manufacturing the electricity to power the car, but not the CO2 cost of manufacturing and transporting the diesel to power the Wildtrak.
it never seems to get factored into ev/ice comparisons, all the mining/refining/manufactoring of ev components are accounted for, however fuel is magically deposited into the tank without a thought for all the extraction/refining/shipping/transport/etc for the fuel.
also are we also assuming the grid will not get significantly greener over the course of 10years?
Jon is a repeat offender in this regard. I stopped whatcing his videos a year or so ago, but clearly make a mistake clicking on this one when it popped up in my feed! No that is a mistake to own up to!😁
This is just the current Emissions today. Assuming it won’t change, but it will.
Gvts are committed around the world to reduce emissions, so the probability in the future that charging an EV in Australia will produce less and less carbon over time.
So it’s already better today in 2023 (as John said after a certain amount of KM travelled) and we can predict it will only get better as the energy mix changes. And also as production changes.
The batteries used today will not be the same in 10 years time - carbon in production of these vehicles will drop.
I'd also be interested to know if the CO2 emissions for extraction, refining and transporting (sea and land) petroleum was included in John's calculations
20million buildings in Australia, Wikipedia.
20million vehicles in Australia.
1million new vehicles yearly, OK.
20 years to replace all Australian vehicles.
The truth is in the facts. Exactly.
Imagine if wildtrack girl bought a Picanto that suited her requirements 99% of the time and rented a diesel ute/4WD for the 1% of time that she actually needed to
Lol
07:14 video starts.
A wise old man told me when i was a whipper snapper " Son, it ain't the screw up that youll be judged by, but the recovery " its worked for the 77 Years ive trod this mortal coil. Nice Recovery🎉
Thankyou for apologising and admitting you were incorrect. It takes a big person to do that.
Also to note. If Ioniq boy wants to tow something, he's going to drastically increase his energy consumption. Wildtrack girl, not so much.
The physics is the same for everyone.
220 g for the average car 10 km per litre not the wildtrack. Wildtrack does 7 km per litre Also should include well to tank co2 of 720 g/km taking it to 3140g per litre. So wildtrack comes in at 448g per km.
Great video John. Thankyou. Yes, the solution to the greenhouse problem will always be in the electrical grid and home and commercial energy usage. Thanks for the vehicle comparisons that actually realistic and take into account the whole scope of the manufacturing and driving experience and are easy to relate to.
What greenhouse problem?
If all the politicians say it's a problem, you can be sure it's not.
I have been an advocate of household solar. I put up 7kw of solar. Almost zeros me out. and cost me 13k usd. saves me money every month and less pull from the grid. We should be doing more for this before we start with EV push.
JC, love your work and your coverage of the intellectual incandescence of the Aussie energy framework. I reckon Wildtrack girl (but not so much Ionic boy) could go another 10 years, but the servicing and fuel costs might be increasingly influential in a broader comparison. Would also be interesting to know what the disposal costs will be in 10 years for spent EV batteries.
In 10 years time redundant EV batteries might be numerous enough for the emerging battery recycling enterprises to gain access to them because for now at least the demand for them to repurpose as DIY home storage units is making them far too valuable to 'dispose of'. Unlike fossil fuels which are burnt and lost forever they retain all of their constituent mineral inputs so are a perfect source of inputs for new batteries.
10 years? My Nissan Leaf battery is 11 years old and still going strong at 73% state of health.
When it gets to 50% I'll part the car out and use the battery for home energy storage. It'll still have 12kWh left (early Leaf batteries were 24kwh) which is more than most home solar batteries these days.
You'll honestly get closer to 30 years use out of a battery than 10.
Hey John, much respect for being a sane, respectful and honest bloke. I’ve come to expect nothing less over the last 4 years, but it’s still refreshing to see in the world we currently live in! To make it even more hilarious, I just finished watching the movie, Don’t look up; a movie that touches very close on the subject of scientific and public credibility (and the art of bullshit). Give it a watch you’ll laugh (and cry). Thanks for your tireless work sir!
I thought something was odd about that number, but I was tired and in a hurry. Anyway, great that you 'fessed up and re-did the maths. That Ford gas guzzler has a lot to answer for, but the ionic 5 is not the virtuous archangel either. My Mazda 2 skyactiv D produces 89 gm of CO2/km.
In Denmark 2022 53,3% off All electric is from Green power, and all GAS use is 40% BIOGAS 2022
Something nobody talks about: Tires! How much energy, total, to make ONE tire? How much petroleum? Each EV needs four of them, maybe every 3 years or less, replaced. As these tires wear, carbon compounds are released. Run the numbers on tires.
Hello John, big fan. I do have one question as to the CO2 number that you are using for the internal combustion engine. Are you only calculating the tailpipe emissions of that burned fuel, or are you also taking into account all of the CO2 involved in capturing the crude oil, refining the crude oil, transporting the crude oil, etc. as you are doing for the battery of the electric vehicle? I also agree with you totally that the biggest help is cleaning up our dirty grids. Coal has to go!
Very good point. The full emissions have not been accounted for in regards to the extraction, refining and transportation of oil.
Apparently Jon is an engineer who makes mistakes - this is a huge one and unfortunately he does it so often it's inexcusable. In fact it is deliberate, only he knows why he does it.
The biggest problem with yesterday’s’ video is the same as today’s video. Still no bin camera, lack of effective scoreboard.
Slack me...
@@AutoExpertJC why not ask one of your Ming Moles to borrow their Ho Pro camera ?
The HoPros get a complete flogging...
@@AutoExpertJC 😂😂😂😂 feather duster, or whole chook ?
They're ruggedised, so 'full fowl'.
Credible sources make clear corrections and retractions.
Regarding comparisons, we can clean up the input to the Ionic over 10 years (if we vote for that). The Wildtrack will always be the same.
Your broader message that it is hard is most valid, which is why we should have started 15 years ago.
Hats off to you John.
I appreciate your work. The big question that no one can answer is what is the ideal ppm of CO2?
In the past , life and bio-diversity flourished when CO2 was many times higher than now....and no , the planet did not enter thermal runaway , it actually got colder.
Great video, but I wondered if we should talk about what "zero emissions" really means. I mean, at first reading you would think it means "no emissions anywhere", as you have treated it. However, if I look at what seems to be driving the various government pushes against ICE cars, it's about cleaner air in big cities, so it's not so much "no emissions anywhere" as "no emissions in the street where my kids walk and play". At least EVs can deliver on that view of it - well, except for the particulates from their rubber tyres and brake discs...
Oh, I really like your comparison about installing home solar/battery versus buying an EV. Great idea!
The other catch would be, the short trip ev would not reach 150,000km in ten years on average I would imagine, you do less km in your little runabout than your tow/trip car. Or in ten years the software is out of date, and the vehicle is bricked.
And now, on to the "Top 6 Errors":
1) Overestimate Emissions during Battery Manufacturing Longer discussion with multiple sources in the article but bottom line: add ~65 kg CO2e per kWh. (Based on outdated articles from the time of small scale production, EV opponents often add up to 200 kg/kWh. That's wrong.)
2) Underestimate Battery Lifetime Bottom line: new batteries already last 450-1350 thousand km. Assuming the car is scrapped after 300 thousand km (like an average diesel car) gives: ~16 gr/km for battery production. (Claims of 150k km lifetime and 73-98 gr/km are erroneous)
3) Forget That Electricity Gets Greener The BEV will not drive on pure coal, now and forever. In reality you must take average values and electricity gets greener over the lifetime of the BEV. For the EU I estimate ~55 gr/km driving emissions for BEVs introduced in 2019.
4) Use Unrealistic Driving Tests In Europe, car manufacturers are responsible for testing. They have created loopholes to the tune of 40% (NECD) and 15-20% (WLTP). So take emissions from real road tests or the EPA. Example in article: diesel emissions rise from 170 to 244 gr/km.
5) Exclude Fuel Production The second reason the numbers in the brochure about CO2 emissions during driving are useless, is that they ignore the CO2 produced in fuel production. You must add 21-25% to (road test or EPA) tailpipe emissions to account for that.
6) Lack of System Thinking The real prize is BEVs produced by and driving on renewable electricity. Assuming a life cycle on fully renewable energy, emissions would plummet by a factor of 10. And that's not magical thinking because the technology is already here.
and Zenmo energy models I even find the flexibility of BEVs drive down the cost of a 100% renewable energy system if you use their flexibility (with 'smart charging') and charge them off-peak on excess solar and wind. So it's a 'double whammy'.
Conclusion: Faulty assumptions can lead you to think BEVs offer only a small improvement in terms of CO2 emissions. Thorough analysis shows that compared to diesel/gasoline, BEVs already emit less than half and this will become less than a tenth in the future.
Love your work John!
I think assuming that the grid CO2 mass/kWh rate into the future isn’t going to drop is a bit unfair. This factor has to drop into the future but in comparison, the ICE emissions will stay almost the same.
It would add value to the calculation to make this a variable in the ev calc, and look at an expected full lifecycle analysis over 20 years based on the current trend of the grid emissions intensity.
I agree. I’m trying to relate the CO2 grams per kW of John’s “AushTrallyaan” National Grid (which sounds like its’ heavily coal-dependant) to the New Zealand Grid (which is largely hydro and wind driven). Maybe we do come out better in NZ with EV’s - apart from running the risk of burning our garages down !!
Maybe because I'm engineer, but I don't think making a mistake in calculations - however well reviewed - is not unusual. You just tell people about it, make the corrections, and move on, as you just did. Thanks.
* me thinks u meant "is unusual" ? to err is human. That's why automation in various things can be so good for ppl's safety and efficiency.
You still bated me to click, that’s because you are the Master Bater! ;)
Master Baition is my super-power, duuuuuuuude!
Kudos for correcting your mistake, John. But as a scientist you also know that science does not stand still. I agree with much of what you say but whatever your truth is in 2023 it will have changed by 2030 and beyond. By then, the battery chemistry will have improved, energy density will have increased, the batteries will be lighter, V2L will be common, the electric motors will be more efficient, and the grid will be much greener. Your calculations will change - a lot. It’s not the 2023 numbers that matter - it’s how they will change. And we have to start the process. As a medical scientist who graduated in 1972, and worked in a cardiac unit, I made calculations about how many lives lost from heart disease we could have prevented at that time. I would never ever have guessed that we would be preventing 80% of them by 2020. I am surprised that you have such a static view of science.
Good on you for having the guts to swallow your pride and correct yourself. Respect!
Thank you so very much for this! You have made my thoughts on EVs sadder now knowing the FACTs that they are not as good as touted. I would rather know the facts that live in la la land. Thanks again for your correction and the info. Always perfectly presented.
Respect to you for owning your error. Hope the punishment session with Tiffany wasn't too painful!
Having not yet seen the oft' mentioned "Tiffany" I remain unconvinced that she is real...
DOUG out
Did you take into account the approximately 27% of power lost in transmission from generator to charger? Also the charger itself isn't 100% efficient so lets guess 90%. So each 1KW consumed by the car is ~1.5KW at the generator. So is the CO2 number was used, for power at the load, or power at the generator? This all just means that the electric vehicle co2 number caclulated could actually be 1.5x higher.
One of the most honest and forthright people on the airwaves, he is one hundred percent correct in my opinion on everything he had to say here and of course those vested interests which he alluded to will howl in protest and try and deny his figures , his accurate assessment of our political "masters" and his comments on nuclear energy.
❤ Respect.
You own your error and correct it.
It's not that hard. Just sucks a bit to have done it wrong in the first place.
Thanks for the stand up correction John. 👍
Agree the investment on the solar is better bang for $ and enviro buck before thinking EV.
Keep up the great work delivering honest, interesting & practical videos across multiple subjects.
the EV push may be more about eventual control, restrictions, geofencing, shut offs, out of reach of ordinary people etc, than the planet.
Some other things make way more sense and are way more workable without throwing a baby out with the bathwater and leaving a high percentage of people high and dry.
I too suffered irreparable brain damage from manually calculated differential equations back in the 1980s. I feel your pain.
What was not mentioned is that the electricity grid also uses renewables and the exports of excess solar generation that the grid then sells to consumers.
Nice one John. I commented on the video yesterday saying I was seeing different numbers. This explains why.
Mistakes are not the problem, its the people that think they never make them themselves and can't put their hand up when they do.
Appreciate your honesty John. May the IPCC and others admit to theirs? I have become aware of the environmental damage being done with the installation of wind turbines in pristine Qld forest areas with the creation of access tracks and operating space around each to get clear air. Birds, bats and insects are going to be destroyed in huge numbers over the lifetime of these installations with far reaching effects over the wider area. Similarly with solar farms due to the heat generated being potentially fatal to an even wider group of animals and birds crossing over and under. Then we come to BEVs. What are the health risks of extended exposure sitting for hours within the magnetic field of a giant battery? Equivalent to holding a mobile phone to each ear I have heard or getting a continuous dose of EMF radiation? I'd like to know, if we ever will know? And we need to remind ourselves that we are doing this while ignoring the fact that the atmosphere consists of 99.999% other than man-made CO2. If we eeked out a reduction of man-made CO2 from .001% to .0009% what good if anything, will come from that? In the meantime I'm hanging on to my 2016 Kia Cee'd diesel at least until EV range can match that. Could be a long wait?
Hi John, a question I have about the EV versus diesel comparison. The 7500kg of CO2 to make the battery makes sense, but the CO2 emissions from the diesel as I understand your calculations are only from the time that the diesel is put into your tank. Should the calculations not include the CO2 that it takes to produce the diesel before you put it in your tank? I’m not arguing one way or the other, but as you say the facts are important and it just seems the whole process is getting counted for the battery production, but not from the oil coming out of the ground until it gets to the service station.
I may have misunderstood and please correct me if I have.
Regards
Stacey
You are correct, Jon has failed to account for this (and a few other key items as well!
@Auto Expert John Cadogan - Australia has enormous areas of, as we say in 'Murica, _"Miles and miles of nothing but miles and miles."_ That phrase would lose a lot of poetic value in Metric, so please forgive. *Point being, Australia **_should be_** one of the greenest countries in the world,* and _would be IF_ you would get the Pigliticians to stop feeding at the public trough for a minute and, uh ... Cover a small fraction of the Outback with Solar Farms. Put them along the roads, drop in the occasional battery station (no lithium needed there btw) and you will seldom be more than a couple of dozen klicks away from the power needed to recharge your EVehicles. Even the eBourgemobiles would not need much of a battery to go a _veddy_ comfortable 75 km between recharges. Thoughts?
John, John, John. Grab your calculator out. You have used the CO2 produced in the production of electricity, so to be fair, you need to use the CO2 produced in the production of diesel or petrol. Your calcuations a based on diesel or petrol turning up at the bowser with zero CO2 produced to get it there.
Thanks for the video. It is also worth taking the life span of the EV battery into consideration.
That have become a bit better the last years. Well some brands are still behind. But generally most EV should make 200 000-250 000km on the first battery. Something like 90-95% of the cars will...
The issue here is more one of economy than one of environment. Most car manufactures have a warranty of 160 000km of battery life (or 8 years, what ever comes first). If you buy a used car that have runned more than 160 000km.. or are older than 8 years, you really can´t afford to take a loan on it. Because that car is a ticking economical time bomb. You can have a cell failure at any time. It might happen at 160 001km or it might happen at 250 000km you would never know a head. When that happen the car is effectively worthless. Because the glider part of the car is old and worn and really not worth much, and a new battery and install cost would be more expensive then just buying a new car. Like a brand new car, not even talking about a 3-4 year used car.
There is not to many 8+ year used car on the market yet, but we are only 3 or 4 years away from that. And that might be a economical disaster for some people.
You'll never be Prime Mincer with this level of honesty 😂
I agree 100% with the home solar and battery I have had 13kwh battery installed with 5kw solar for the last 3 years. We all would be better off if the government just paid for us all for a home set up and keep the ice cars. Would be cheaper and better in the long run. So much energy from a batter 70kwh to do 400 km. 13 kWh to run my whole house for 24 h Ev s are a con
Hiya John, May God bless your days. I live way out in the desert in Baja Mexico. Nearest EV charger is about 400 miles away. We run our ranch on solar. 15KW of solar and 66KW of battery made out of used EV batteries. We run gas and diesel vehicles at the moment due to the charger stations being so far away. If we grow our solar array more then we may think of using an EV. You are absolutely correct the home Solar/Battery system is better than just a battery in the EV. The world is focused on cutting CO2. CO2 is not the key thing to get rid of we actually need that for plants and trees. Anthropomorphic additions of C02 are ok. The oxides of nitrogen/sulphur coming out of ICE vehicles and power plants are the things killing the planet. Maybe you could run those in your equation. You are correct, modern nuclear plants are much better than coal and gas power plants. Cheers ❤❤❤
You're making an excellent case for decarbonising the grid. Thanks. The sooner we go electric everything, the better. Renewable generation plus storage ftw!
All eggs in one basket? What a joke.
@@motleydude73 I know right? For far too long we have been completely reliant on oil.
@@essentialmix1606 A resource that is infinite and renewable. Already having rolling power blackouts in some places and only 20m EVs on the planet. They want 1 billion 🤣
@@motleydude73 EVs will form part of the grid in the future. When/if there are a billion batteries parked in garages the storage potential will be like nothing mankind has ever seen. All it takes is a small amount of curiosity to discover some of the potential benefits... Or you could cross your arms and just push back on anything you don't understand or care to learn about I guess. Have a nice day 👍
@@essentialmix1606 EVs are pointless piles of crap. They will solve nothing and cause owners nothing but problems. Already are.
Hey John, I have been sitting on this question for a while and I think it is a good time to pose it. Have you had a look into the use of redox flow batteries (vanadium or zinc bromine) for home energy storage? They are far less energy dense than lithium-based chemistries, however, for stationary home storage their benefits seem to far outweigh that particular downside. Given the relative abundance of the elements used in the most common redox electrolytes, and the comparative ease with which they can be recycled, redox batteries are far less CO2 intensive to produce. Therefore, WildTrack girly would be even better off after ~10 years with a redox flow battery paired with her solar array - bonus points for not storing a potential source of a runaway exothermic chemical reaction near her home.
cost of production? Hydrogen is plentiful too......
Good too see a RUclips creater owning up to a mistake.
I think there is still an error in your calculations, you account for the carbon footprint of manufacturing the battery but not for refining the diesel, the information I have found is that you should add 24% to the footprint you calculated for burning the fuel. Big difference! Also over the life of the vehicle the source of the electricity generated is likely to change. Not sure how you account for that but it is also likely quite large. You have a very good point about smaller vehicles ICE or EV being better not something most commentators point out.
John , You are hitting the nail on the head here. New Zealanders seem to suffer of this Virtue signaling with pushing for more EV’s on the roads Because we want to be GREEN , ZERO EMISSIONS. trying to explain to some numpties that the Best advice is to Maintain your car well( So it runs as efficiently as possible ) and drive it for as long as possible.
There are other factors to consider, such as driving less or purchasing a newer ICE which is more efficient. Your older vehicle can then be onsold as a second or third vehicle or serve someone in their early adult years as reliable transport.
NZ generates 80% of its electricity from renewables does it not?
It’s interesting how people interpret someone driving an EV as virtue signaling when they have no idea what that person is actually thinking, it say more about you than the ev driver, on the other hand there is some interesting studies about people who drive big Uts in NZ showing how most Ute drivers own utes for emotional reasons (to impress others, to feel included, to not feel scared) in other words to compensate for lacking something.
@@ricks7583 yes but that 20% all goes directly into evs to be stored in batteries full of cobalt mined by congalese children and which will spontaneously explode into a thermal runaway fireball (spoiler alert for johns next fudio)
Another study showed that people who modified their cars to have loud exhausts tended to be sadists and narcissists
Hello John. Well done owning up to your mistake. Great integrity. I did notice that you calculated the EV battery at 7000kg of CO2, which it should. However within your calculations for the ICE vehicle did your CO2 figures also include the production of each litre of fuel used?
well if you're gonna go there then you should include the same info for the electric production the ev uses
Good on you for swallowing your pride to correct your mistake in a frankly majestic way. And thank you for highlighting the marketing campaign that is "green vehicles". Grinds my gears. I do also find it ironic that the central pillar of the "green" movement is less CO2 and less CO2 actually means less plant matter ergo less green. Yet it's marketed as being good for the trees. I get the approach of reducing climate impacts etc but as a logistical application, solar, wind, EVs and anything reducing CO2 is the opposite of green
You forgot to add the minimum lifespan of a lithium-ion batteries, which is around 5 years or at least 2,000 charging cycles. But after 1000 cycles the batteries loose around 20% of the full charge. Then the number become amazingly complicated.