I think the biggest point which was covered and I come across time and again is that when anti-ev people compare emissions they almost always look at mining of lithium, cobalt etc but then only include tailpipe emissions from ICE and totally ignore the oil extraction, processing and transport.
However, no one accounts for recyling or the significantly increased wear on roads. Laying new roads is insanely polluting. And heavier EVs damage roads on average over two times as quickly.
@@Hello_there_obi EV are not heavier than ICE cars. Do not forget they do not have a 300kg petrol engine and a 100kg tank with petrol, + 30kg exhaust pipe. Road wear caused by 40 tonnes truck not by 1.7 tonnes evs.
@@buscseik ahahahahah no. Just no. You could have googles this and spared the embarrassment. Why didn’t you?! You googled one side and not the other I just don’t understand why you’d do that 😅
Well for a start you've just plucked the 'two times as quickly' figure out of thin air. EV’s aren’t twice the weight of another comparable model so how do they cause twice the road wear? The the BMW 3 Series vs the Tesla Model 3 - 1800kg vs 2100kg which is about 16% more. Yet you claim 100% more road wear? Secondly, many of the heaviest cars on the roads currently are large ICE SUV's such as Range Rovers, Large Audi’s, Large Mercs etc. Modern cars have been getting heavier and larger consistently for at least the last 20 years and I didn’t hear anyone complaining about road wear whilst that was happening but now that EVs are on the scene and are a bit heavier suddenly its an issue. Loads of cobalt is used to remove sulphur from oil in the production of petrol/diesel and is also used in batteries in consumer electrics like mobile phones. No one has cared about that for the last 20 years but suddenly when EV’s came along, cobalt use was a big problem. Oil refineries use massive amounts of electricity. No on cares how thats produced but if an EV has any fossil fuel produced electricity in it suddenly its an issue. Bottom line is that whatever metrics you choose to use, EV’s are over all cleaner and more environmentally friendly. They are more efficient and do more with less resources and almost all of them can be recycled which isn’t true about oil being burned in an engine. They are certainly not perfect but cherry picking the odd little statistic here or there doesn’t change the fact that oil extraction, transportation, refinery, more transportation and then burning in ICE that are at best 35% efficiency and pump out poisonous fumes in the towns and cities we all live in is worse for the environment and worst for us than using EVs.
Answered a lot of questions perfectly. One of my pet peeves in Australia is the running down of public transport, back in the day we all caught busses or trains to work. What happened, they were the original self driving vehicle.
Get involved politically to change this situation? In London I'm OK for public transport but lots of the countryside places far less well. Hopefully we'll have a change of Government in the UK at the next election.
@@peterdollins3610 The UK is way ahead of the USA. It's funny to me when you folks complain about your public transport, I was there for two weeks and took the train all over the place. Your trains work very well compared to whatever we have in the USA.
I've been catching public transport to work since 1980 and haven't had an issue with it. I've seen the public transport system improved a lot since then in Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane. What city are you talking about?
What happened was USA imperialist economics and adoption of the American way of transportation. Look at the USA now and it's trains and local public transport. Everything there is haywire as in NZ, same thing. We're on the road to hell in a handcart.
It was planned and bribed away here in the states. Look at Philadelphia, where the houses don’t even have drive ways. The politicians allowed Rockefeller, Ford, and Goodyear to buy up most all the trolley systems in the country and get rid of them!
I road a bicycle (non-electric) to work 15 years ago when I lived in Denver which has amazing cycle paths. My coworkers thought I was crazy but after a while when they saw me slim down and very fit, they changed their tune. Now I ride a bike and a scooter in Malaysia (I can't wait until they get electric motorbikes here). Thank you for the great videos!
I appreciate this so much. I keep seeing people argue with me that lithium mining or dirty grids mean that EVS aren't any better than gasoline vehicles and I'm glad I have such a comprehensive study to point them towards now
you should basically ignore those people, but EV's are catastrophically bad for the environment compared to public transport, we should be aiming to get rid of cars entirely
@@afgor1088 there is definitely something to be gained there too. Make remote work the default, perhaps even something of a policy to give people some advantage if they decide to live closer to work (if remote work is not an option). Giving everybody a restrictive flight budget. Improving international rail connectivity (Europe tends to have great national rail, but quite poor internationally). We have to do all those things and more really to make a difference. For everything we do there will be developing economies that can’t afford to think in those terms and have individuals that simply do whatever they can to get by
I've had an EV for 2 years now and apart from the obvious savings on fuel (I've got PV panels and a domestic battery; at the moment my electricity bill, including the car, is around £25.) even though it's only got a 100 mile range, I would NEVER go back to an ICE car, they are a joy to drive and as my son says, even mine will go 'like s***t off a shovel'. The charging infrastructure in the UK needs work and govmnt support, but thats another story. (See EVman's rants on the subject!) These figures simply confirm what I've been trying to tell people. Cars cost about the same to manufacture whether they're ICE or EV, and once you've taken this into account, there's no comparison! Thank you Dave for your always informative and unbiased work, you are the best on UA-cam! Cheers Kate
I have an electric velomobile. There is an article on the internet entitled "Electric velomobiles: as fast and comfortable as automobiles but 80 times more efficient"
I ride a bike, which makes EVs seem downright filthy and wasteful by comparison. Fortunately for our environment, only the wealthy will be able to afford anything beyond the simplicity of bicycles in the future anyway.
Thanks for your contribution to the environment.Infrastructure in Australia hasn't caught up to the point that owning an EV is completely practical yet, particularly for people that live in areas where long distance travel is normal. It seems like Evs really make sense in high population areas like cities where short trips and good infrastructure are the norm. Lots of people live in cities in Australia too, don't get me wrong but if for example, one day I decided to travel 900km from Melbourne to Sydney, I'd have to think very carefully before driving a currently luxury price tagged EV. If I did own an EV, to achieve the same outcome, I'd probably need to either a) fly then hire a car which is terrible for the environment or b) keep a petrol car as well as an EV, equally terrible.
I love my car but recently on a visit to Basel Switzerland I was seriously impressed by the tram network. Many people use bikes and walk, and Basel is also part of the huge European rail network. Trains are expensive but if you don't have a car they are reasonable. If occasionally I need a car I can just hire one!
Given that transit will be prevalent in a car free society, it doesn't have to be costly. It becomes an expected public good and instead of spending money on car ownership we'll have money to pay through taxes or fairs for transit.
Switzerland with exception of cities and towns (like Zug), is lagging with promoting EVs and helping their growth. Fortunately public transport is pretty good.
@@GTfour01 That's how I get around and I have never owned a car. Paid for out of taxes and fares. But yes not fairs, although they can be good fund raisers.
@@danielcarroll3358 So you are relatively young, you live in a large city or urban area and you do not have children. I can garantee you though, as soon as privately owned cars are banned, and the only way to move around via a system controlled by the state, you're going to be told where and when you can travel. Bye bye freedom of movement.
As always a very fair and balanced look at the subject. The naysayers never factor in the fact that pumping and refining oil, uses colossal amounts of electricity, so the emissions of internal combustion vehicles are worse in the countries that burn a lot of coal for their electricity. And as Robert Lewellyn often says, show me a recycled litre of burnt diesel
Not that balanced. I think volvo have a fairer comparison of emissions over 10 years of two of their very similar cars(one being electric and the other being ICE). From memory, it takes 3-6 years to offset the battery emissions of that volvo EV. You are already biased when you call one side naysayers. People who actually care about emissions would strive towards pedal bikes and walking where possible. Planes are top of the list of worst offenders but it's bad publicity to tell people that they should take a serious look at their overseas holidays with emissions in mind.
@@longdang2681 So you are valuing the research of one car manufacturer over an international peer reviewed body. And no it’s not biased to refer to some as naysayers. These are people that usually take the misinformation of the fossil fuel industry and repeat it as fact.
@@longdang2681 also worth pointing out that I was a very keen cyclist and runner until I nearly lost my left leg to cancer 35 years ago. Even electric assisted bikes are very difficult, as I can’t quite bend my leg enough and falling is not an option. As they tell me they can’t repair it again. So efficient alternatives are my best bet
Having owned an EV for over 6 yrs my experience has highlighted to me the lower wear on brakes , the absence of waste engine oil , air , fuel & oil filters , and cam , alternator drive belt wear. as well as gearbox oils, and clutch wear, and spark plugs. Do we class the Exhaust system as a consumable too?
The lower wear of brakes is so pronounced that I have been asked by my mechanics to actually stand on the brakes weekly in order for them not to rust. Driving energy efficient has cost me 4 new brake disks...
Also, the scaremongering about battery lifecycles is wholly inaccurate. I’m sure my EV will last a lot longer (rust permitting) than most of my previous ICE cars although I do appreciate that government policy means repairing those older cars is pointless from a cost point of view.
Thinking of all the emission soot, leaky fluids, and brake dust covering our roads and towns… also all these motors emitting uncaptureable heat… so gross
It's not only about how you travel but also how far you must travel. North American suburbia types of housing force people to travel long distances just to do their basic shopping. These wastelands could be rebuilt to accommodate local shops, parks, train- and tram stations, schools, etc. Walking and cycling would also become viable means of transport.
One other good thing about electric car is at end of life, battery can be 98% recycled (at current technology). So future electric will have much less emissions due to no need to mine and refine battery materials.
@@Thecelestial1 Colin, it's more likely the recycling pant would pay *you* some money, given the value of older tired EV batteries. Those not recycled are sought after by the energy repurposing business to use for energy storage in commercial, industrial and domestic applications. They may no longer be good enough to use in a car, but they're *more* than adequate for energy storage. A good example could be the huge sports stadium in Utrecht in Holland, powered by 200 old Nissan Leaf batteries charged via solar...... Plus you don't necessarily have to recycle a tired EV battery. You can have them refurbished, at a fraction of the cost of fully replacing it......
Well said. There are billions of investment going into what is known as ‘urban mining’. JC Straubel at Redwood Materials say they will produce 10 GWh worth of battery making materials this year, although their feedstock is mostly phones, laptops and power tool batteries. In France there is Renault/Solvay who have a pilot plant and Northvolt/Audi in Germany have already produced new batteries from old at theirs. EV represent an opportunity to develop a circular economy, something that could never be achieved with the ICE.
Bikes are a disaster for the fuel & moto industries. Trains as well. Yet those two can basically solve the transport part of climate change elegantly. Now, what about USA army which is probably as big of a polluter as global transport?
"Now, what about USA army which is probably as big of a polluter as global transport?" Move from tracked to wheeled vehicles for lower fuel usage? Higher reliance on nuclear power for naval forces (more nuclear subs, less surface ships)? Fewer attacks helicopters / close air support - they are fuel guzzling, had really bad day in any near peer conflict (manpads!) and can be replaced by artillery?
North American cities are designed badly for bikes… and cars. Zoning laws have segregated homes from work from shopping from schools and all miles apart that forces car use. They need large scale mixed-use densification, put homes and offices next to, or on top of, retail, schools, etc. And stop building parking lots, shrinking roads, stop accommodating cars.
They could if everybody lived in a city AND farming Is done by hand. Bikes are an Urban only solution the same as train. I agree with you that people shouldnt use cars in cities too freely though.
Excellent video. I bought a 6 month old EV almost two years ago and wondered if I was making the right decision having frequently read anti-EV comments? Best car I have ever had. So much more relaxing to drive and I am saving nearly £2k a year in fuel costs.
Try to keep the charge on the battery between 20 and 80%. This will sustain the life of your battery. Only charge above 80% if you're actually going on a trip that requires the extra range to reach the first charging station. Do some research to check the Optima battery charge for your particular vehicle brand. Some Tesla's battery packs have lost almost nothing after 200,000 miles. And I think there are even a few that have lost almost no range after 300,000 miles.
Good for you. The battery tech is getting better every year with some real step ups coming soon. So when you are ready for a new EV they should be even better.
Hi Dave, good food for thought, thanks. The transport comparison graph at 10:00 is quite illustrative. We’ve been trying to work out when we can practically move from our conventional ICE car to an EV or hybrid (given prices, apartment living, local recharging infrastructure etc). In the meantime, I’m cycling more and more where previously I would’ve made a one-person car journey. (Even despite distinctly unfriendly-to-bikes local conditions!) Oh, and I especially liked the bonus parenting tips at 09:00 “setting a good example etc” - nice :).
The only thing the study missed is how this only applies to EVs with a battery made from newly mined resources. Recycling batteries is cheaper than mining new materials, and we can already recycle over 90% of the materials. An EV made of these recycled batteries would have even way fewer emissions.
unfortunatly if you're trying to replace at least 50% of the worlds passenger vehicles with EV's you'll have to resort to mining new materials. There's simply net enough material to recycle to achieve this sentiment.
@@The-Cat not yet, but in a few decades it will become a closed loop, which is the long term situation you're working towards. If we need to emit some CO2 today (and still less than by driving ICE cars) to emit nothing in the future, that's a reasonable tradeoff.
@@Ehralur "few decades" we're talking about billions of batteries not just for cars and you're saying 90% recyclable. By that logic you should already know that that's not a "closed loop" A closed loop of recyling is impossible. It's just basic physics. There will always be a loss of material and there will always be a need for new material. We're producing products out of finite resources remember ?
@@The-Cat that's nonsense. We can already recycle up to 98% and there's a clear path to 100%. There's nothing in physics that prescribes that you can't reuse a refined ore 100%. Ores are not depleting during use. If anything, it's better because the refining of an already refined product will leave you with a purer material. Yes, there will be a need for new mining for the foreseeable future and maybe ever, but a closed loop is entirely possible and even economically viable.
@@Ehralur Don't you understand basic maths? 100% material and only 98% reusable equals 2% loss that 2% needs to be replenished with FRESH reources. a.ka. you will NEVER achieve a closed loop you will always be depleting a finite resource. By the way your claim of 98% reusability is a lab number (perfect circumstances) that doesnt include any deviations of reality. when a batterypack goes up in flames that 98% goes down to zero. when saltwater corrodes a battery pack that 98% goes down drastically basically like rust eating away iron that rust = useless dust. you will ALWAys ALWAYS need to replishesh the losses. basic maths, basic science!
Fantastic presentation of the subject matter. I'm a brit living in Norway where the use of electric cars is extremely widespread, the charging network is pretty good and almost all the electricity is generated using hydro power (so all in all, a pretty unique situation looking at the global picture). I've owned a VW e-golf for the last 4 years, but I also have a diesel VW Touran for practicality purposes (big loads and it has 7 seats). As the Touran is getting old and the options are getting better, I'm on the verge of buying a larger electric vehicle to replace it. Last week I rented a VW ID4 to do a long journey within Norway (as my son is starting a year at University on the other side of the country) to take the opportunity to see how it would go using an electric car for long journeys. This was the first time I've ever done a journey more than 100 km in an electric car and the first time I've ever used a public charging station. The journey was roughly 360 km (220 miles) and was a reasonable overall increase in altitude (roughly 450m), but with a rough range of 500 km, I was fairly confident the ID4 would be able to do it on a single full charge. We stopped to charge anyway while having a bite to eat (speed limits and intercity roads in Norway are not what you would call ideal, so it's roughly a 6 - 7 hour journey). The 20-25 minutes it took us to eat was enough to put an extra 200 km range in the battery, so 'range anxiety' was never an issue. On the way back, I didn't even consider charging as the battery level hardly moved in the middle of the journey because of the regen keeping the battery topped up as I came down off of the highest point on the mountain roads (I would guess I got about 100 - 150 km 'free'). The whole experience was quite honestly, fantastic, with two exceptions -1 being something with the car and the other the charging network. The thing with the car is the touch sensitive controls for just about everything in the ID4 (irritating and temperamental - as documented on numerous reviews of the ID4). The thing with the charging network is the absolute insistence of the charging companies to require a mobile phone app to use the chargers!?!?!?! There are a few apps which cover multiple charging companies, but our experience was that there are various incompatibilities with certain phones (payment methods, android versions, Ios versions) which don't present themselves until you actually try to charge the car (they install ok initially, but can be fiddly with setting up payment methods - but may not ultimately work anyway). I had numerous problems with this on my Sony android phone (which is admittedly not the newest model, but it's also not ancient either) - with both the multi-company apps and the dedicated single company apps. Why oh why can there not be standard card reader payment on these chargers - just like a petrol/diesel pump?!?!?!? This is something that the government needs to step in on and state there has to be a standard card payment option on all public chargers, in my opinion. Fortunately, when I did get one of the apps to work on my phone, there were more than enough chargers available around the major routes and towns to travel around without any concerns. So, with more and more public charging stations popping up on a regular basis, there's no reason not to take the plunge (at least here in Norway) to going fully electric now that there are a number of vehicles with over a 400 km range.
As an Asian, it boggles my mind that traveling from London to Paris by train is about 15 times more expensive than traveling by plane. This isn't a good incentive for people to take sustainable public transportation .
Personally, regarding cars, I still subscribe to keeping older cars, maintaining them well, and maximising the life of that older vehicle. I don’t own a car anymore, but if I were looking for a car and could find one I’d buy a Holden of the F, E, or H series which date from 1958 to 1984. I have a sailboat built in 1978, still with the original diesel motor and still going strong. Big part of our problems is the constant turnover in our consumption patterns, rather than buying well and keeping it long term.
I am doing fine with my solar and 226 mile rage leaf. I pay $24 a month power bill and drive over 1000 miles a month. So far my range is still great. Many say but batteries ate so expensive. True but saving $3000 a year in fuel costs the car will be paid for in fuel savings in 10 years. Then it will be trade in time.
@@frankblack7801 I think that there are a lot of exceptions, like large scale logistics farming etc. But consider this: 80% of the people who comute to office sit alone in a 4 seat car. If you have to commute about 20 km to office within a city then doing it on a bicycle has a lot of potential benefits. less congestian, cleaner air, less noise, smoother trafic, improved personal fittness.
@@poucxs9246 A 30 mile round trip on a cycle to get to work & back? 5+ × a week. Come rain, hail, high winds, thunderstorms, heat waves or freezing sub zero ice & snow . . . 😳 And possibly only for half a days work on a Saturday perhaps. Its this kind of fantasm that quite rightly destroys credibility with the green movement.
Actually not, as the very short payback period shows. In the worst possible case, ditching a brand-new ICE car and buying an EV may at worst double the CO2 payback period. The report mentions 12,000 miles. So that gives us less than 24,000 miles. Quite a low number that is easily reached by EVs in a couple of years of driving. Wasting a functional car may feel absurd, but the science is clear. The situation is comparable to replacing perfectly functional incandescent lightbulbs with LEDs.
Exactly what I'm doing. 1992 Volkswagen Polo bought in Dec 2003 for 1600€. 45HP gasoline with only 770kg, doing just about 10000-12000km per year. So far 332000km on the odometer. Would have needed the 3rd electric car by now, due to battery aging and aviability of spareparts.
@@oznerol256someone from my town bought a MINI Cooper SE, battery dead (below 70%) after 2 years, no warranty from BMW. Replacement costs more than the car is worth. Payback don't work in that case, isn't it? Or when you bought a brand new Fister Ocean a year ago, company bankrupt, no spareparts and software problems, you basicaly got a 2100kg brick. Switching from light bulbs to LEDs makes more sense.
Finally someone setting the record straight on it. I recently took the plunge & got a 2nd hand EV & have to say, I'm never going back, they are fantastic. The amount of times ive had to explain to people how EV's are better, this video is goint to make my life so much easier since i can just show them this instead. Obviously I'd love to use public transport, but that's a bit lacking where I live since Dr Beaching ripped out all the railway lines in the 1960's
I look forward to being able to afford the upfront cost of owning an EV (either a PHEV or BEV) and upgrading my garage with a charging station. I have not yet had the opportunity, but I will eventually.
In 1997 I drove in a converted car that had the shell of a LOLA performance car on it. It was fast it was simple it had one major draw back, lead acid batteries. Limited range and heavy both that hindered the explosion of electric cars. Telsa was NEVER created by Elon Musk. He was the companies third CEO to come into play. the test car was a T-zero with lithium cells..it was the worlds first lithium electric powered car.
Matty, the key to building a near driverless city is to make it compact. Many european cities share the same construction concept, built housing over retail and commercial space and then bring all core services and products to withing a block or several block range.
@@LK-pc4sq oh yeah I know that, I'm a big fan of proper urban planning but I've had to deal with that hand I've been dealt with at the moment, & as someone who needs a car, an EV was the obvious solution
EV vs ICE? As mentioned in the concluding remarks, avoiding both and using cycles is the way to go to maximise rapid reduction in emissions from vehicle use (and by extension from road construction and repair).
I've been told in multiple videos--one in a TED Talk and another in Veritasium--that about HALF of a vehicle's carbon footprint is just in the manufacture of the car. These graphs say otherwise--which is correct? The TED Talk mentioned that as the size of batteries increase for EVs, the carbon footprint is higher. With renewable energy, the EV breaks even with gas cars sooner, but may take over 400,000 miles with dirtier electricity. Is this video debunking that?
Some people will be moved by the idea that you can save the climate by using EVs rather than ICE cars. However I think that most people will only be moved if EVs are cheaper and more convenient for them personally. At the moment that's simply not the case, but I expect that it soon will be.
Good timing Dave, Although I am the worlds biggest petrol head I personally can't wait to get an EV. I've been frustrated recently by all the myopic views and posts on social media recently so I'll link this video as a great response. Thanks again, keep up the good work.
As usual, an excellent , well presented video, Dave. As I never cease to inform people these days, I have been leasing an EV since late March 2021. My only regret? I wish I had done it sooner. What a revelation it is. And I'm not able to charge at home either, but asked my company to install type 2 chargers under the government incentive. So a month before I received my car there were a pair of Zappi evses. And, as this is the UK, charging at work is free. Last year I easily saved £1200, not even taking into account the massive rise in price of fuel. I've also decided to get an e-bike soon for future HICC rain-free days. Is this all a scam? It isn't. But let's suspend fact and say it is. Well, if that's true, it is one of the better ones. There's no way I'd go back to ICE even if EVs were only as good/bad. But I know they are better for me and better for the environment that I care about.
You have saved £1200 because your company pays that does not apply to most people how much would it have cost you to charge at home with the cost of energy at the moment, and how does someone living in a terrace street who very rarely park outside their own house go on put an extension cable across the foot path and trip up every passerby, you are very fortunate it will be very difficult or almost impossible for a lot of people
@@militarymad2840 Nope. Company does not pay. It's a government grant which applies to everyone who enquires. And the £1200 was on fuel alone. There have been other savings on maintenance and servicing which have amounted to one bottle of screenwash. It would have been 2/3rds of the saving on fuel had I had to pay. We can all find negativity when we try. Let's try to find some positives in all this instead. The biggest negative is staying with an inefficient polluting vehicle.
Good it worked for you. The thing is that one may work for you or some but won’t work for others and in reality Evs has a lots of positive it also many negatives, we all are about to discover those with the time. I believe that Toyota hybrids are one of the best cars currently and cleanest too.
@@ramblerandy2397 So who pays for the government grant? Taxpayers. So somebody pays. It's not free. Another issue has surfaced in my apartment block where the basement power points used by some people with BEV's are paid for by the body corporate as they are not individually metered. So those residents with BEVs are getting their charging at the expense of others. Again not free. Road user tax is also currently paid by a levy or excise on petrol, so again BEV users are paying nothing while ICE users are paying proportionately more. Once these issues are resolved I suspect that the cost per km of BEVs will increase and make for a more balanced analysis. FWIW I believe the BEVs are they way to go.
I propose the 4 day work week and the 3 day weekend with Saturnday being a Lockdown style day where emissions are kept to a minimum... you can travel only locally by public electric transport or e-scooter or e-bike... or maybe an BEV... no planes... no ships...
Wonderful video! :D I would like to point out that the BEV batteries production CO2 costs are based on Lithium Ion batteries that use cobalt and nickel which produce 50% more CO2 per battery than Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries (LFP). LFP batteries also last 3 times longer which means for ever LFP battery produced you must produce 3 Lithium Ion batteries that use cobalt and nickel. So the Lithium Ion batteries production generates over 3 times as much CO2 than LFP batteries.
Ok, my 2 issues with EVs. 1. I am concerned with the sheer amount of electricity that will be needed to sustain cities with power stations during the phasing out of carbon and underdevelopement and nuclear when Sun doesn't shine and wind doesn't blow, where there are no dams close. 2. Will we have enough materials for batteries and won't the enviromental damage caused by their extraction (it takes a lot of water to get lithium for example) nearly cancel the reductions out?
I think a big question that’s never answered in this issue is (given the life cycle of a modern car is 10years) if I have a car that’s more than 10 years old it’s effectively in its second life, having in effect been manufactured free of any emissions. It’s recycled by its careful owner and I’d love to see an intelligent analysis of where these older cars lie in the spectrum of harm relative to other options.
They lie with outdated engine tech with emission norms that are now illegal. Fuel efficiency that is 10 year old. Stuck with fuel that is outdated (probably cant use Ethanol etc. Also they are much unsafe without so much of recent improvement in safety aspects.
I totally get driving an old car because it still works, and it is far cheaper than buying a new one... The first R of the three comes to mind, but for pollution, that argument does not hold. An EV needs to overcome the energy embedded in it's manufacturing when compared to an ICE vehicle in order to reach a "break-even point", after which it is truly very close to zero emissions. The typical "pay-back" period for this is about two years (averaging a lot of things... ) Translation: every two years of usage of a ICE car is the same as the impact on the client of getting a new EV. so if you use an old gas car for more than two years, it's worse for the climate than buying a new EV. Driving a car for 10 years, an ICE vehicle will be pollute about the same as 5 EV's. Also this two year payback is based on the power mix in place where the batteries and cars are manufactured. As the grid cleans up, the embedded carbon from manufacturing goes down, speeding up the payback further.
@@petersilva037 Not to mention the where the first comment left it. The car ICE car being 5, 10, 15, 20 years old has the emission of rules from 5-20 years ago, which is worse than a modern ICE. So its progressively worse (not just in a linear fashion of 10 year old car is worst than 5 EV combined.. it is probably more than 5... the older the car gets the further it falls behind emission standards). The original comment simply missed the fact that the ICE's main polluting part is the fuel consumption and not it's production. [well, if we ignore the VW scandal where the 'modern' car was as bad as the old ones... but on paper... :)]
In addition to the more lax regulations for efficiency of older vehicles, the efficiency drops as piston rings, valves, and seals wear down, making the already lax efficiency even worse.
'determined not to be convinced' is such a good quote. I suspect lots of these people are rejecting reality to satisfy some emotion like guilt, fear or shame. No one should feel guilty for driving a gasoline car, they should instead be angry at the oil companies who for decades pushed propaganda while millions die every year from air pollution. That anger, which would be correctly placed, is a much stronger motivator to buy an EV I think.
I have never worked for a gasoline company but I disagree with your premise that we should not feel guilty. We are all responsible and if half way intelligent have known for at least 50 years that this was coming. I remember sitting in a pub in the early 1970 agreeing with my friend that "when the Chinese get cars the Climate will be wrecked". The Chinese now have cars as well as the Indians and most of the high population countries. The idea that this was being hidden from us is ludicrous.
@@johugra1 guilt doesn't properly motivate these people.. It's why they go into denial, not why they make a positive change. Besides, most of the blame should fall squarely on the shoulders of oil companies, politicians and the investors who pushed the propaganda. Given two bits of conflicting information, you can hardly blame the average Joe for picking one side over the other.. Especially if all his friends, and all the people he respects are saying the same thing. Just because you, having the knowledge and understanding that you did came to a correct conclusion, doesn't mean other people can do the same thing. We all have different mental, educational and social resources.
@@jameshughes3014 In reality it is not a matter of "sides" . Truth is difficult and messy. Just blaming one particular part of society is easy and usually wrong.
@@johugra1 I'd agree with that, but I don't blame society.. Instead I blame oil companies. what matters is getting people to stop polluting, and that's not complicated. Just find out why they do what they do, and fix that. The solution is extra easy if you find that a significant part of their motivation is emotional.
@@jameshughes3014 James, I was thinking that the oil companies or some of them at least did get up to various rather unsavoury activities to distort the truth about climate change. However this was actually pretty insignificant as most people were perfectly aware of the problem. I do not pretend to have any definitive answers but one point was that it would have been viewed as discriminatory if we had tried to stop development in places like China and India and we would have failed anyway.
The question we should ask is why we need transportation in the first place. Because we do not live, work, produce, grow food and recreate locally enough. Solving this will save energy and also be an improvement of independance and stability.
@@grahamwilson8843 Ok, sure, but asking if we even need transportation in the first place is pretty dumb. When Joop falls off a ladder and breaks his leg, I guess he'll just ride a bicycle to the emergency room, eh?
Great as usual Dave. Good graphics, understandable and with your usual lovely style - laid back and open but authoritative and accurate. The only comment I wanted to make is on the short-haul flights being worse than any other form of transport - they are per km, but a long-haul flights uses a lot more kms, so the overall carbon is higher. Just important to point out so people don't think long-haul flights are somehow good things.
Indeed. One can easily do an entire year's worth of travel in distance terms in one long-haul flight. And if people had to drive or pedal that distance they'd think a lot harder about badly they needed to make that particular trip.
Eliminating individual motorized vehicles larger than ultralight personal transportation would cut out massive amounts of emissions. The main barrier there is producing the infrastructure to enable that form of society.
I bought an EV, what pushed me to it, I was mad at the petroleum Barrons for raising prices again. I had carbon dioxide contribution guilt. My Ice car was getting old. I have discovered chargers in the states are often free. This no cost fuel will pay for my new, to me, used EV, in three years. It drives really well and is really fun to drive. It was a win win. I drive by the gas station and snicker, the price goes up virtually every time I do. Sometimes I stop and use the window washing soap and squeegee and smell the gas smell, just to reminisce. No regrets.
I'd like an EV - once I can afford a second-hand one. That's going to be a long while unfortunately. In the meantime, I rarely use the car I have, it's small, efficient, economical and very well-maintained. Last year, we did 1,000 miles by car and it's set to do about the same this year. We're on the point of going back to using more public transport again whenever it's possible. (I used public transport right until the age of 52, when I finally had to learn to drive because of cut-backs in local bus services. Now it'll be case of frequency and just how much it costs to travel). Personally, I don't fret over the fact that I do have a 'gas-guzzler,' because I have made, and continue to make, a lot of pro-environment changes to my life: Been a vegetarian/vegan for over 40 years, my family committing to the same diet for the past 4 years. I've been a regular tree-planter for about the same amount of time. My career was as a gardener, but with elements of conservation work involved. I have only flown by plane once in my life (UK to Iceland), and that was not by choice. Although I loved being in Iceland, I vowed never to fly again, and I never have. (My family are also committed non-flyers). We are a make do and mend-type family, enjoy raiding fly-tip sites and lugging back stuff to make into other things. My son has got a new bookcase my husband has just finished making out of dumped wood. We buy most of our clothes and shoes from charity shops, sometimes furnishings as well. After the stream by my house emitted a methane 'belch,' which not only stank to high heaven, the fact this happened at all really worried me. So, over the past couple of weeks, I have begun to remove buckets of wood and leaves out of the stream and compost them aerobically to reduce the production of methane and nitrous oxide. There will be very little difference in the amount of CO2 emitted as these materials break down, but the other 2 were my primary concerns. I'm in the middle of planting a 2 acre permaculture/rewilding garden, and not only is this bringing back lots of wildlife to the area, it's encouraging species I've never seen here before. I have been picking my own home-grown fruit and vegetables every day for weeks now. Really saving money, with a fine crop of potatoes, blue and blackberries to come. I'm not just concentrating on those fruit/veg plants that are often seen in UK gardens, but planning ahead and starting to introduce those that can cope better with the new, hotter British summers. Today I began making a little activated biochar from dried out brash (thin wood collected from the stream) for the very first time. I was unsure how effective biochar would be, so I'd been doing a lot of research into it, making sure I wasn't getting into something that would have so little impact it wasn't worthwhile. It's a bit of a messy job, and rather hot work on a day like this (31C in Scotland! I think I might try and do this job the same time as cook a bit of food in future. Kill 2 birds with one stone), but it's supposed to be pretty effective at locking carbon in soil. Tomorrow, sowing more food plants.
I'm going to wait 6 years from now to get one. Just going to pay cash for one. I live in Saskatchewan, Canada, and the least expensive used Tesla available is a 2018 model 3 long range for $62,000.00 Good luck finding anything new around here and if you do, it will be around $100,000 which is out of most people's ability to pay. And I want more range since when it goes down to -30 to -40C here in the winter it cuts the range down dramatically. I'm hoping the range and outrageous costs are fixed when I'm ready to purchase.
I thought that the problem with aircraft emissions wasn't so much about how much they pollute but more, where they pollute. It is worse because of the way it interacts and changes in the upper atmosphere. Cycling needs to get more like Japan in how cycling and cyclists behave with pedestrians and cars. Its very different to riding a bike here. The attitude of both car drivers, cyclists and pedestrians is more respectful of each other.
: That would be a nice change. The behaviour between groups is symbolic for the general level of disrespect that we seem to have towards other people. Car drivers hate other car drivers, too. If you try to find cohesion and respect in a modern western world you'll have to search for a long time. And that includes every age group as far as I can tell.
The modern turbo fan jet engine is more efficient than an ice but still produces tonnes of CO2.The development of structural batteries or hydrogen/compressed air turbines could lead to zero carbon planes.
Planes are actually quite efficient per passenger per distance. Fully loaded some may be more efficient than a car with one person in it. Problem is they usually go very long distances...
@@bernardcharlesworth9860 Avation is one of those hard to abate sectors that would be perfect for E-Fuels. Everything else can be either nucleriszed or electrified. It's really on governments to start properly using modern monetary policy to properly shape behaviour, a whacking great carbon tax would be a good start.
I live and work in Ukraine. I have dedicated my last 15 years to alternative fuel applications in passenger and commercial transportation. As a technical director and a guy who manages all technical issues, diagnostics and complex projects, I see a huge problem with system that are working under the 1-15 Bar pressure. 200 Bar systems, that are Methane capable, produce a noticeably greater complexity: tank excessive weight and pricing, need for more rigorous inspections,, poor filling stations network (CNG-Methane). If we talk about HYDROGEM - this is a story of the NON EXISTING infrastructure, operational pressure of 700 BAR!!!, no technical support and I can not even imagine how much would a proper hydrogen tank would cost, its maintenance and life cycle : 3-5-10 years ? What will happen after this cycle and how much will the new tank cost (considering this item is critical to the safety). 8:10 Internal combustion engines are mostly reaching 40-45% efficiency with the potential to hit 60% soon. This numbers are discussed in professional media like SAE If we talk about BEV : I see them often to ride at near dark time with headlights off, foggy windows, making the lowest speed permitted just to save extra mileage. The story about BEV is very promising, but the technology as the infrastructure is far from being self sufficient. There is nothing bad in internal combustion engines, the technology that been refined and taken to the perfection for 150 years. We need to change the fuel , used in this engine. We convert gasoline modern engines everyday that are using direct and dual injection, turbocharged and are working on diesel solutions, where a compression ignition engine would receive a completely new and clean fuel as a substitute to diesel. Changing the fuel used in the existing vehicles (passenger and commercial) , will provide instantaneous effect. Tag: LPG, bio LPG, Dimethyl Ether (DME)... The most promising and viable technology for the future EV cars, would be te HYBRIDIZATION: a 5-15 KW battery (reduced weight and lower environmental impact) + fuel cells that use a hydrogen rich fuel to generate electricity on board of the vehicle for propulsion and battery charging. This hydrogen rich fuel can be DME, stored under 5-10 Bar in a simple tank similar to LPG.
Four years ago, I moved so I would be in walking distance from my work (I still use my car during the week-end). Not only walking is good for my health, but I am faster by foot than being blocked in the traffic jams twice a day. And beside saving on the price of gas, it is a very comforting knowledge that I am not depending on my car and if I need to let it at a garage for repair, and if the repair should last a few days, i am still not impaired.
Great to see the comments from persons - mostly in first world nations, but in Africa (where I live), a combination of rampant corruption, unreliable electricity, lack of capex for really good urban public transport networks, long distances between major cities and poverty will make mass EV adoption a pipe dream for >>98% of the population.
Most likely true. Certainly in the short term, however, as the Co2 output per capita is tiny for most African nations (except SA), this isn't necessarily an issue. Africa and many developing countries are suffering the effects of climate change caused by developed nations. Therefore the efforts to decarbonise first world countries will still have a positive effect in Africa.
Great video! For the second report, comparing types of transportation side by side, are the transportation mediums (rails, roads, etc) factored in? I was surprised to see EVs so close to trains, etc. EVs (being much heavier than traditional cars) will mean more road maintenance. We already know that suburbs are actually a money sink for cities because of the high cost of road up-keep for the relatively low number of drivers in the area so it would surprise me that their carbon cost would be almost as low as a train.
Even though electric vehicles can be somewhat heavier than equivalent gas powered cars, virtually all damage to roads is caused by trucks that create so much pressure on the asphalt skin that they actually create a wave In the roadway which is really destructive.
This might be because of the speed difference. You might imply that frontal area is the only factor that causes drag, but length and skin drag are super relevant too. This report might be based on the average rail line distance travelled, of which many are carried out by 160, 200, to 300 or some even 350 kmh trains. Drag increases by the square of the speed. It makes sense that the numbers are not much lower. If we were comparing to a 120kmh train, i bet it would be a quarter or less. Also it seems like the train not always being full was taken into consideration. Same with the bus, or it would be waaaay lower.
oh neever mind, chancese are the cars are actually implied to be full If not motorcycle numbers often would be lower. Chances are not real life numbers were used.
Current EV vehicles are just the first commercial generation. We'll get rid of the heavy and flammable lithium batteries pretty soon. Battery and capacitor science and technology already has much better options in labs and prototypes. The same goes for fuel cells and those can be used in electricity hubs in more rural areas for EV vehicles too. There are already some pretty good fuel cells for things like ethanol and butane so we don't even need to work with far more difficult hydrogen or methane.
Thanks, as always, for the factual, level-headed, and data-driven approach. Sadly, as I live in the U.S., where over 30% of our population are completely 'fact-proof,' it won't mean much here other than singing to the proverbial choir. Still, those of us that still believe in science and still want to be able to look our grandchildren in the eyes without just screaming "Freedom!" at them, spittle dripping from our contorted, angry faces, thank you. Keep up the fantastic work!!
Your commitment to independence and rational thinking is refreshing and I hope you can avoid the click-bait titles and subjects that are currently consuming others within the sustainable tech and transport sector. I will be ditching the car in August 2023 and relying on my bike for local journeys and the bus/train for longer trips. I live in rural West Wales, so I doubt this is going to be an easy ride and I may end up with a moped as a compromise, but if things were easy, they probably wouldn’t be as interesting. I’m keeping my camper van (I’m not a savage), but the small off-grid solar+battery system I’ve added to my house neutralises the CO2 emissions (about 600kg) from that luxury each year.
Ok, tomorrow taking the train from Paris to Milan instead of the cheaper and faster plane. Ideally it's a 7 hour trip and not too expensive with Inoui. If it runs with less than 2 hours delay I will be happy and have a great time to finish my book. If the report is accurate and the train is comparable to the Eurostar as opposed to a short-haul flight then this should be great for my 2022 CO2 budget.
Mazda's Skyactiv-X ICE regularly hits 40% thermal efficiency. That about puts it on par with a BEV charged from high efficiency combined cycle natural gas plant from a CO₂ perspective. I really look forward to buying a BEV that can do 600 km in -30ºC on a single charge. That would cover most of my driving without major inconvenience. Next month I'll be driving a stretch of road with 400 km between fuel stations. BEV are great in cities but aren't there yet for remote road trips or day trips in winter.
The thing I like about electric cars is that you can choose where your energy comes from, from Solar to charging it of a dirty diesel gen set. In many places, you can sign up for your household electricity (the most common way to charge an EV) for your quota of power to come from various green sources. If everyone signs up for green, then the power companies will have little choice other than investing in more green energy.
One problem with that. We have this exact problem in the Nertherlands. More people buy green energy then there is green energy produced..... Then again, I would buy exclusively nuclear power if possible so your idea has some merit but implementation is as always difficult.
People need to stop demonising nuclear power. It is the only power source that can be reliably available 24/7. Even some of the big hydro installations ae finding that water is not an everlasting source of energy. Of course we could just wait for Fusion 🤣
@@geoffhaylock6848 Yup. China is having a wee bit of a crisis. If that was the only one it wouldn't be a problem but they got a plethora of problems. Nuclear really seems to be the only viable solution at the moment.
Ooh, I probably have a halo 😇 I didn't know about! I got frustrated by Covid meaning I only drove to work each day and couldn't go anywhere else, it seemed an unnecessary expense to have a car. So I sold it and started cycling 3.5 miles to work each way daily, with the intention of buying another car when things got back to normal. A year - eighteen months later I can't think of a good reason to get a car again! I cycle everywhere, use public transport for longer journeys (trains to middle of France for - you guessed it - a cycle touring holiday!) The main exception to this is monthly or fortnightly 'big' grocery shops where I use a taxi home, and sometimes to the supermarket, too. Panniers are plenty good enough for weekly shops. Occasional days out with friends and family mean they have to pick me up in their cars or we meet in the middle near a train station. It important to point out that I am an ordinary 62yr old man - not some mega-fit, gym crazy youngster.
Lowering one's personal transportation related CO2 emissions to nearly zero is definitely a step in the right direction, but I would argue that this alone is not sufficient to "qualify for a halo". To fully reach a zero CO2 emissions lifestyle, one must not only null out their personal transportation related CO2 emissions, but also their household electricity and home heating emissions, as well as all other CO2 emissions that are occurring elsewhere in society (ex: at factories/mines/farms/commercial businesses) that are necessary in order to support your lifestyle. The average total per capita daily energy consumption by residents in the US in 2019 was roughly 250 kWh. Some of this energy comes in the form of non-CO2 emitting sources (ex: solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear), but roughly 200 kWh is due to the combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas. To "qualify for a halo" and actually live a true net zero emissions lifestyle at a moderately high standard of living (ex: "average" for the US in 2019), you therefore would need to somehow offset all ~200 kWh of combustion energy occurring in the economy, associated with your lifestyle. This is actually quite possible and it isn't even all that difficult, based on current prices of solar panels. It also does not require a reduction in quality of life or major changes to one's lifestyle. A person can produce approximately 200 kWh of electric energy per day, by purchasing around 50 kW worth of solar panels, and installing them in a grid tied configuration, in a reasonably sunny location. However, it should be noted that grid electricity, when produced by burning coal or natural gas, has a relatively low thermodynamic efficiency, which means that 200 kWh (thermal) worth of coal or natural gas many only produces around 80 kWh of electricity. Therefore, if you simply buy enough solar panels to become a net exporter of roughly 80 kWh of electricity onto the grid per day, this will cause a reduction in coal and/or natural gas consumption elsewhere in the grid, by around 200 kWh (thermal) equivalent, which will null out your effective personal CO2 emissions. Therefore, you do not actually need to buy 50 kW worth of solar panels, as somewhat less (maybe 35 kW in a reasonably sunny location) is potentially adequate, if installed in a grid tied setup. At today's prices, 35 kW worth of solar panels (by themselves, without installation, racking hardware, or inverters) can be purchased for around $21,000 USD (mid 2022 prices). When the solar panels, plus the inverters, racking hardware, and ancillary hardware are included, but excluding the non-CO2 emitting "soft costs" associated with installation (labor + profit + government overhead/permitting/inspections + insurance overhead, etc.), a grid tied system of 35 kW rating can be built for roughly $35,000. If a person does not want to personally install 35 kW worth of grid tied solar equipment, they one could instead simply buy the equipment, and then just give it away for free to anyone that wants it. If you give away free solar panels and inverters, then in all likelihood, the person accepting the "free" equipment will eventually install that equipment into a system which will in fact reduce grid electricity consumption, which will reduce required coal and natural gas consumption somewhere in the economy, by a value approximately equal to 200 kW (thermal), which will effectively null out all of your personal CO2 emissions associated with your existence. You do not need to ride a bicycle to do this. You can do this, even if you still wish to drive an electric vehicle, or even a relatively fuel efficient gasoline vehicle. If you still drive a gasoline vehicle, you will emit CO2 locally, but your gifted 35 kW worth of solar panels will still offset the production of CO2 elsewhere in an amount quite a bit larger than what your vehicle will normally emit (unless you drive a large amount of annual miles, and/or use a gas guzzling vehicle, in which case more gifted solar panels than 35 kW would be required). Minimalist living is not required. Demanding that governments and corporations do something to make changes to reduce CO2 emissions is not required. Individuals can in fact make a difference, by effectively nulling out their own CO2 emissions, simply by purchasing ~35 kW worth of solar panels (+ inverters + racking hardware) and then doing something to cause them to eventually get deployed. The amount of solar panels required however does depend somewhat upon where they will ultimately be installed. Residents of high latitude and/or cloudy regions (ex: Canada and Europe) would need to buy somewhat larger quantity of solar panels (probably closer to 70 kW), due to the lower performance of the solar panels when installed in relatively poor sun access locations, such as the UK or Germany.
Thanks for another great detailed overview. The only question I'm left with is around the idea that we can stay under 1.5°C by reducing emmissions when leading reviewers like Dr Peter Carter state clearly using the best available data sources, that there are already enough emmissions in the atmosphere to take us beyond 2°C. I know every bit saved is critical, but aren't we now in a place of fundamental system change rather than just switching individualised, in this instance, transport technology?
OK, but so what? 1.5°C isn't a "Danger! Do not enter" door we go through or not, it's a target to aim for, and as we're seeing from current environmental damage it's not "safe" below it anyway. Everything we do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions makes the future a little less awful, and some things aren't little. If warming is even greater than the models predict, then we have to work even harder to reduce emissions, which is in a sane world would mean the carbon tax would be even higher.
System changes only come when people demand it. That demand comes from masses /majority of people buying EVs, eating vegan, asking what the emissions are of all suppliers. Each individual causes systematic change to happen
@@cclambie indeed. Wynes and Nicholas 2017 rank the most effective actions for individuals in developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions as eat a plant-based diet, buy green energy and use it for transportation (i.e. EV) and heating, avoid flying, live car free, and have fewer children.
I don't have much money; I'm a 64 year old window cleaner. As an oldie, I can't earn like I used to, especially in this heat! To help the environment, I have gone vegetarian. I'd like to go vegan, but that's much more difficult (but I do have rice 'milk' instead, and use non-dairy, non-palm oil margarine - from Sainsbury's) I'm fastidious about recycling; I wash food containers 1st, and even tear the windows off envelopes. I also recycle cellophane etc at the Co-op, Tescos and Sainsbury's (in case you didn't know) I hardly ever go on holiday (sadly) and when I do, I avoid taking a plane. HOWEVER, I drive an 8 year old KIA diesel estate (as a work car) to carry ladders. I would love to drive an EV. However, the cost of a new EV is about 50% more than petrol or diesel; £35 > £40k! I'm just hoping 2nd hand EVs will become much more affordable. Of course, with skyrocketing utility bills, I wonder how much EVs will save in driving costs. Of course, the overriding reason for EVs, of course, is to help save the planet... which, ever so slightly, is important! But driving costs matter too; the cheaper it is, the more people will switch. But seeing these figures makes me feel really bad, after all my efforts. 😪 I can't really afford an EV. I just hope 2nd hand ones become much cheaper soon
@@DarrenWhittington how can they? One is much more resource intensive than the other. They don't use photosynthesis and windmills to get lithium out of the ground.
@@timhinchcliffe5372 it’s mined as an ore, like iron ore, the advantage being that it one of the most abundant chemicals in the world, the sea has unlimited amounts of it so yeah potentially a type of photosynthesis could be used to extract it from sea water if you want to look at it that way?
My confusion is the world basically shut down for 2yrs due to Covid. Personally I would have expected enormous proof points showing reduction in travel, cars, air etc, does in fact do something. However the mainstream seems to be even more alarmist now then ever. Your content is great, but something does not add up around this issue. Again really enjoy your content.
I'd love to buy an EV, it's just a shame the cost of buying one is just too high for the vast majority of people. I would like to know how long the 'life span' of the vehicles are for the findings in the studies.
@@Floorguy1000 True, but if the interest on the £30,000 loan I'd have to take out (not to mention the repayments) will cost me more than the maintenance on my 13 year old ICE car, it doesn't leave me with many options 🤷♂
@grindupBaker it's only reverting back to the old monarchy system... just instead of Lords Dukes Barons Earls etc we have Billionaires, Millionaires and reaching middle class of smallish business owners. The rest of us are just the common peasants of old just with better living conditions, and we get to chose which Billionaire we help make richer by our blood sweat and toil.
I have thought about this too and I think we should start converting ICE vehicles to electric, this way we won't have to manufacture an entire new car, then dispose of and recycle an old one, it will lower the cost of converting and should be much greener than buying a new electric car
we see that current warming is already bad, and our actions determine the rate of future warming. It's never too late to make the future less worse. Every little bit helps, and has this video explains switching to an EV (or better yet not driving) is not so little.
Yessss!!! E-bkes are the best. They use 100x less energy to make than e-cars, and they use 100x less energy to run. I have riden 1600km in 110 days on my VoltBike Yukon, a type of e-bike sold be a Vancouver, BC company.
I just hit 9000 km on my electric bike today and I have enjoyed every one of those kilometres. It’s fun, energizing, and very economical. I only use my car when taking passengers or the weather makes biking dangerous. However, in Canada we do need better biking infrastructure to make it safer.
I think the overall switch away from cars is the best way we can reduce emissions and it will have multiple other societal benefits. One question I do have, is how possible is it to build enough cars to switch all fossil fuel ones quickly? I have heard that the battery production alone makes replacing all cars next to impossible.
I don't think we want to switch quickly. Would be foolish to go all BEV today only to have hydrogen work out say in 10 years. Going at a reasonable pace also lets the grid and charging networks follow demand. If either of these get behind it will lower the demand for BEVs. Mining is also something we don't want to rush. Say in 5 years we don't need some mineral. Mining is the hardest. Political resistance red tape make the lead time to open a mine very long. The US president just canceled 2 mining permits that were issued under the last administration. Going slow also lets the existing oil companies adjust to the new market.
You raise a very serious issue. The government can legally decide that petrol or diesel fuelled ICE vehicles should cease production on any date they choose. What they cannot do is say they will be replaced by electric vehicles, because that choice is dependent on China. China controls around 80% of production of the rare earth elements that are required if you want to make an electric vehicle, a situation that isn't going to change significantly in the next 15 years. Neodinium, dypsoprisium etc. It's not planning laws that are preventing mines from being opened, it's the simple fact that the most economic methods of production of REEs is when they are a byproduct of a massive mine that produces some much less exotic element. China already has such massive mines - the USA don't, and there appears to be no way of changing that economically. And China are streets ahead in Africa in forming partnerships with governments who sit on vast reserves of any element they can't mine economically in China. It's not possible to manufacture an engine for Jet aircraft without Rhenium, because it will melt. Rhenium is essential because, along with other metals it forms an alloy that doesn't. It's worth mentioning that it isn't possible to recycle this Rhenium. Nobody has been able to come close to showing that it will possible to produce enough of the quantites required to manufacture all the EV''s that will be needed.. Recently, manufacturers discovered it was impossible to secure contacts for cobalt over a five-year period..
theres a central american country with a huge salt lake with enough lithium below but no infrastructure to exploit it, and there shouldnt be , maybe if we ban all the pointless shit jobs and sports,arts, etc etc people do, and design better, share information freely we can all work local doing only what society needs done and all live healthier more fulfilled lives.
Good vid that I will share. My biggest problem with all this EV stuff isn't that I don't believe it (I read environmental science so I damn well do), it's that I am a perfectly solvent single dad in rented accommodation, unable to get a mortgage, unable to fit things like solar panels etc., no chance whatsoever of buying an EV. I ride a 125cc motorcycle to work and so have a relatively small emission for my commute, but although things like electric scooters do exist (I'm talking about twist and go automatic motorcycles here), they are ridiculously pricey, uncommon and out of my reach, when they would be the perfect solution for me if they were obtainable. Similarly, a very small electric car for transporting my kid would be perfect, but don't exist in obtainable format. The problem for great swathes of the UK population in getting an EV is obtainable provision, and that is where policy should be heading. 35 grand motors are things that most of us will simply never buy.
I don't think it was covered in your comparison of vehicle but I quite like the idea of an ev with a small petrol powered generator. You can fit a small size battery, say 150 Mike range. In the right circumstances you do almost all you miles using the charge from the battery. But for occasional longer journey you can use the petrol generator to remove any range anxiety issues. As this does not seem a popular idea at the moment can anyone let me know if I am missing something.
It is rather ironic that in your graph a diesel vehicle has lower emissions than a gas vehicle, yet the global green movement is fighting harder to be rid of diesel vehicles than gas vehicles. In many rural areas you will not get a pure battery vehicle to work until the range can be MASSIVELY improved. I have yet to test one that can get me from home to the store 75 miles away and home again without needing to recharge along the way. Hybrids on the other hand do reasonably well, and may be a much needed middle point for several decades.
Thank you for a great video. The problem is a lot of people don't think. It's becoming more and more important to change to all electric vehicles. The flooding here in Australia has been the worst ever. We had the flood once in 100 years then once in 1000 years all within months of each other. We are now talking about having to shift complete towns. Yes it not a good outlook if we do nothing.
Thanks for including the idea at the end, that personal motorized transport like cars is probably alltogether a dead end. People tend to forget that we probably will not be solving anything, no matter the engine type, if we stick to 1-2 tons of metals for one, maybe two, passengers. It will most likely just not work.
I've had an ICE Rav4 car, and now a Hybrid Rav4. (Not the plug in type). The ICE averaged about 10 L of gas/100 km with a combo of city and highway driving. The Hybrid averages 5.6 L/100 km. That's almost a 45 percent reduction in fuel use. Seems to me that the potential benefits of HEV are better than the report states. Combine that with the significantly lower battery size and lower cost of acquisition over a BEV of the same size.
@@geon2k2 Thanks you've made a good point, and I agree that ultimately BEV will be the way to go. For me the HEV advantages (speed and convenience of filling up at gas stations, and lower acquisition cost) were important. I felt the report undersold the advantages of HEV and PHEV as an interim steps until BEVs get more practical as highway cars, and charging infrastructure improves.
One of the most important videos that I have watched in a long time! I’ll be sharing this video far and wide every time I get caught up in an ev-ice debate.
Great video! Love the way you approach the issue. It's a shame it wasn't done in the 70's when it could have made a differene. We are now so far beyond so many points-of-no-return in so many positive feedback loops that all these efforts seem moot.
Not so for a number of reasons. Primarily of course that these efforts are not moot, and they do make a large difference over time. This is a very long run, we haven't passed the halfway mark. Also the battery tech was not ready yet in the 1970s, we are hardly there in the 2020s. Transport will gradually take a smaller proportion of emissions.
@@jonnyaxelsson9940 Even way before the 70s, if public transit wasn't killed so every person has to buy a car for oil company wallets, we probably could have only half the problem today.
It makes intuitive sense once you learn two factors: - electric motors are incredibly efficient compared to internal combustion engines. it's eye-opening when you look at the maximum theoretical efficiency of ICEs and the real-world efficiencies of electric motors. electric motors are so much more efficient that it even makes sense (though the impact is less) to carry around a gas-powered generator to power those motors instead of powering a mechanical drive train, so hybrids get better MPG than gas cars. - bigger power plants (e.g. a giant coal-fired plant) are more efficient than smaller power plants (a tiny portable gasoline-powered engine) And then two more things that are just icing on the cake: - electrification makes it easier to switch over to green energy sources. you can't get gasoline from a windmill. - while battery storage doesn't make a lot of sense for grid storage, its portability makes sense for EVs. but once you have those batteries distributed all over the grid, you might as well offer rebates to EV users to let the grid rebalance itself with a portion (user-controllable) of that distributed battery.
I agree that in future using electric vehicles to rebalance the grid is a really good idea. In the city that I live in electricity is $.25 per kilowatt hour but at least two utility providers give three free hours at night because they literally have no place to put the power and are happy for someone to take it away for nothing. If you look up the $90 million Hornesdale battery in Australia you’ll see that it creates a profit of around $45 million per year which is a heck of a good investment. Utility scale batteries help the grit out in a number of ways not the least of which is preventing dangerous power spikes or power dips that can damage equipment. Reading report of the Hornsdale battery there was times when they were getting power off the grid and getting paid to take it away at a dollar per kilowatt hour. And now the policy in Australia has changed completely so that batteries are becoming a much more normal Part of every grid.
Batteries did not make sense for the grid just a decade ago, but a lot has happened and more is at the pipeline. Look up Ambri, flow batteries and iron air batteries. There is even a promising energy storage using compressed CO2. That makes sense as CO2 is a lot easier to liquefy than air. Sand and rock batteries storing energy as 800 K heat is also a thing. The question is _which_ technology will become dominant for MWh grid batteries, not _if_ they will become important :-D
@@colingenge9999 Exactly. All these people who keep telling us ‘the grid will melt if we are all driving EVs’....have no idea how the grid actually works. In the UK the National Grid have a ‘Six myths busted about EVs’....they’re the people who run the UK grid and they say a switch over to EVs will not be a problem. Most EV charging is done at night when there’s nowhere for the power to go..as you say. In the UK Octopus energy offer £0.05/kWh between midnight and 6 am. It’s a no brainer to have an EV but people still keep filling their tanks at £100 a fill....fools burning money.
@@madshorn5826 for decades pumped Hydro has been used to store electrical energy. Excess power from California is sent all the way up to British Columbia where it pumps water back into the dam reservoirs which is then released in peak demand situations and the power sent all the way back to California. Clearly some losses along the way but the dams are there already and that time as you suggested large scale batteries weren’t much of a thing. I’d rather like compressed air storage where they’ve developed some sophisticated but efficient equipment to do the job. I believe there’s a large scale experiment in Ontario going on which shows a lot of promise. I wasn’t aware that they were using carbon dioxide but why not? I do know from my experience in fire suppression that liquid carbon dioxide requires a refrigeration system to keep it liquid. I I’ve seen gravity towers above ground but I think that using all mine shafts would be a much better idea from a safety standpoint. I like all the new developments in batteries. I also like the high temperature underground storage that’s being pioneered in Finland which is capable of storing power over the entire winter. Clearly there are a lot of applications and profits to be made when you look at the first Tesla battery in Australia that cost 90 million but pays back $45 million per year; there’s clearly an opportunity there. Storage is required short term from second to second and longer-term hour to hour, day-to-day, week to week and month to month. Each one of those applications will have its favorite energy storage medium with geographic availability of materials and sites being a consideration as well.
@@Swindonboy56 Agreed. Just say nothing of the joy I still experience in driving my electric vehicle after four years. It’s still exciting which amazes me. I also appreciate the quiet and freedom from vibration which is something that annoys me neurologically. thanks for your response. It’s so nice to read from people who are talking sense and not spewing fossil fuel company propaganda. It’s amazing how often I’ve heard the same half dozen arguments over and over such as it cost more fossil fuels to build a windmill than you would ever get out of it over its lifetime which of course is a total financial impossibility but yet it’s amazing how many people believe this notion that on the face of it makes absolutely no sense. It’s like they haven’t spent more than five minutes thinking about it or reading more than one article and getting all up in arms about how we’re being screwed over by the renewable energy industry. Much the same as politics I guess.
I’ve driven an EV for nearly 4 years, so often have conversations with all sorts of folks about the merits of ownership. I usually tell them that EV’s aren’t really “green” as no manufactured product can really be green. However, modern society has managed to build a reliance on the car that would be almost impossible to completely reverse, in that respect EV’s are a much better option than using a fossil fuelled vehicle. I started installing solar panels to supplement our energy use some ten years ago, an effort to reduce costs with the knowledge that electricity can only get more expensive. Over the years I’ve added hot water heating and later an EV to the equation. For our normal day to day driving all our charging is covered by the excess solar production, a significant saving over fossil fuels, especially now the price has risen so sharply. I appreciate that not everyone can afford an EV and solar setup, but this didn’t happen over night, it was gradually built up over a decade. We recently sold our Kona EV after 3.5 years of ownership and 67500km, only 1500 euro less than we paid new. We have completed several European road trips, at roughly a third of the cost of running an efficient (4km/100km) diesel. If you can charge at home an EV makes a lot of sense, for those that don’t have that opportunity I’d suggest an EV with a long range and checkout very carefully the local charging facilities, or ask if it’s possible to charge at work if you commute by car. Hopefully governments will take more seriously the need for charging facilities to allow the rest the opportunity to own and charge an EV, waiting for fossil fuel companies to provide this seems a bit stupid to me, where is their incentive!?
@@guitarbackingtracks4386 Tesla is doing the best at being greener from sourcing raw materials shipping manufacturing recycling to how the EV drives their constant innovation pace is amazing for this.
I think an important missed point about private passenger vehicles is cargo capacity. A private passenger car is also a cargo carrying vehicle and, when not moving, a weather-tight storage shed. I store my camping gear. Haven't even put up my tent, but I want to be able to get up and go in a hurry if I must. Others store their rec gear in vehicle as well. Saves time and effort in the pursuit of fun. This is important. Unless the electric bike revolution enables the transport of bulky and heavy items, there is no way that the vast majority of people in our automotive culture will give up their private pleasure machines. For many, giving up their private vehicle is another step closer to an early death. I am an owner of an E-bike and I love it. Opens up all sorts of possible short trip adventures. However, in order to keep up with the rest of the world and for the sake of the future well-being of US Citizens much more investment in public electrified public transportation as well as bike-able and walk-able towns and cities must be made. Consider the concept of those least attractive features of our infrastructure landscapes, the multi-lane each direction high speed stroud, not a street, not a road, but an ugly chimera of the two. First, let's kill the stroads.
I think this is well researched! A viable way I take is to go to work on an e-scooter each day that costs 4c of electricity each trip to work, and take an electric train between the main stations on my route. Granted it takes an extra 10-20 minutes sometimes, but if we all thought like that in my city (1.65 million) then such a large difference could be made! I think the problem is convincing those tied in their ways (Cars over shared transport) As is normal for human history. People prefer to accept comfort and ignore the consequence rather than accept the downfall of others through their actions ='(
Great content! I’m on my 2nd EV (handed down 1st on to one of our kids). I’m never getting another ICE car. My 2nd 2019 Bolt is used. Used EVs are available but admittedly several months of searching was required.
yes, supply is still limited. that sadly keeps the prices up. will take quite some time that car manufacturers scale up enough. those who scale up now will make insane profits, those who wait until 2026 will go bankrupt.
I did ditch my petrol motorbike (well it ditched me) for an Ebike (in my 60s I do need a little assistance). I love it. I went from a motorcar to a 100CC (90MPG +) Honda in 1979 but ditched that for touring bikes. My 1983/4 tour around Europe by a Guzzi 1000CC still in my mind and heart. The trick is to always look forward to what is coming next and not to live in the past. Love your optimistic look into the future. Can't wait to see what is around the corner in the next step of technology change and improvement.
One needs to look past one's own needs. Sharing will have a place but not as much as people may think. Just how do you build a MODERN city not dominated by car design. Again I can't take sheetrock or a new mattress home on mass transit. Not saying it is impossible but it would need a lot of work to get there from here. And it may not.
Perhaps we can see other options. Rent or share a truck when needed. If you need to haul building supplies every day, then an electric truck might be justified (which could be shared, again another option). It is not an 'either/or' choice.
Absolutely. The negative impact of cars goes way beyond what fuel they use. If anyone doubts this, just walk round your neighborhood - cars parked everywhere. And every one of those cars needs roads to travel on and at least one other parking place. Environmental damage is more than just pollution and global warming.
Unless you live and work in a place that enables you to travel everywhere by pedal cycle, local public transport and national rail, then EVs are a total no-brainer. Not just for the environment, but simply as a vehicle to drive. They are a joy to use: quiet, smooth and fun. It is unbeleivable that we are prepared to keeping buying both the fuel and the bullshit the fossil fuel companies sell.
you're forgetting the up front cost of an EV. currently they're way too expensive for many people. you can buy a decent used gas car to get you to work for 2-3k.. how much is the cheapest reliable used electric car? how about if you need a work truck or contractors van? in the coming decades EVs will be more widely adopted but right now they're still financially out of reach for many.
a no-brainer when you live in a privileged normal country, where I live people would have to work around around 50 years for a EV but they have to eat so saving money for a EV actually takes from 300 to 500 years.... and when that thing brakes there's no way a normal joe will fix it, you have to go to a dealership and pay with your kidney, meanwhile old petrol cars are easy to fix in your shed
I have bought my last ICE vehicle. But as the carbon emissions from manufacture is a sunk cost. I drive only about 2500 km a year in retirement so I am in no hurry to replace it. But it does use 20% less fuel than my previous one. It will likely last me until they take away my drivers license. But if someone runs a light and totals my Honda I have my eyes on a VW Buzz as I expect it to be easy for getting my wheelchair in and out. I just hope no one runs into me before I can buy one. Still, I live in British Columbia on a 10 acre plot with loads of trees to make a good carbon offset. Of the 3 cars here, one is an EV already. And great video.
As usual, the nay sayer will point out that the ICCT is biased towards EV and renewable. Always the same story. I've just given up trying to convince them. I personally ride an EV, charged with a photovoltaic installation. And I'm very happy like that.
So why not use numbers of someone who is not biased (and yes, even I take ICCTs statistics with a ... salt mine)? Volvo (as a company who makes ICEs and EVs) released it's own numbers and while it certainly shows that EVs are generally beneficial, it was nowhere near >60%. US statistics for example show, that EVs are beneficial in California, but detrimental in some states with dirty grid. From statistics I've seen EVs are overall cleaner, but ICCT numbers are an extreme outlier.
@@petrkubena One of the big problems with the ICCT report is that by not taking into account emissions from building factories and recycling plants and moving the vehicles to point of distribution, they are ignoring some of the biggest sources of Carbon pollutants in the value chain. The power grid in Texas, for example, is far dirtier than in other states, and it is also far less stable. Factories built where the power grids are dirty can increase CO2 production by orders of magnitude because the additional electric capacity isn't being supplied by Renewables, but by new fossil fuel facilities. The ICCT report is a total outlier from all the other analysis being done in both academic and industry studies. They are a trade association, not an Environmental Advocacy Group. The information they offer on Plug-In Hybrids is not backed by real-world data, such as the ICCT suggests. Their analysis does not reflect the difficulties in establishing mileage comparisons in all driving conditions. For example, an EV driving with the A/C in Southern California traffic will NOT achieve maximum range, regenerative breaking or not. Similarly, EVs that operate in extremely cold environments not only lose battery reliability and efficiency to cold, they also lose range due to the use of interior heating and adaptations for poor driving. There are holes big enough to sail an aircraft carrier through in the ICCT report. It has established a false set of ceteris paribus assumptions that come nowhere near reflecting real-time driving or use case conditions. The problems related to the exclusion of emissions from building factories and recycling plants for batteries adds a layer of deception so enormous it would take pages to address. The ICCT report is total nonsense.
@@jpcolindesign517 you mentioned the emissions created by building factories but are you feeling to acknowledge that gas powered vehicles need to be built in a factory as well? Even the General Motors bolt factory has 40% of its power supplied by its own solar panel Netwerk. Tesla with its efforts in solar and energy storage has reduced its overall emissions such that it is emission negative taking all of its factories into account, the extraction of all the materials and the power needed to operate the vehicles. We have known for 50 years that burning fossil fuels was unsustainable and the argument was that there was no economic solution but now there is.
Regeneration adds more parts, weight, upfront cost, and possible maintenance costs. However greater range, probable less power use, and reduced wear and tear on brakes make it worthwhile for most.
@@mikedavison3400 Are you sure regen adds that much? Isn't the majority of the hardware already there? I love one-pedal driving. By timing the point at which I lift off the throttle, I can drive around town and hardly ever use the brakes. It's great.
@@mikedavison3400 Which extra parts are you referring to? As far as I'm aware, the BMS takes the output PWM to zero, then allows the return DC from the motor to filter back through the diodes, and into the cells, roughly 70-100A at 60-70mph. The resistive load from the battery is then usually tiered into soft, medium, heavy options.
I have a Prius Plug-in. I love the fact that the much larger battery (that, unfortunately, takes up most of the trunk) than what's in the standard Prius means that regen is great in hilly territory. Gravity is a thing.
What a relief! From the title, I was thinking, "Oh NO! There is some technical reason that EV'S are NOT going to pollute less!" ~ I am very proud of the company that I put my 30 into and retired from General Motors. They are all in to have E.V. only cars by (I think) 2030. The other new hope is about 5 huge companies, and many little startups are working on more efficient, or longer-lasting batteries. That would be a WONDERFUL improvement over the Lithium/Ion ones. Thank you from the States for another great mini-movie, Dave! ❤🤍💙
The only thing GM excels in is PR. There will be no GM as we know it today by 2030. Of course, they will spin off the highly profitable 'defense' section of their business because the Pentagon will buy anything at any price.
Cobalt is also used to make airbags in automobiles; catalysts for the petroleum and chemical industries; cemented carbides (also called hardmetals) etc.
So far there aren’t good pure electric options for wheelchair users, especially those of us that require power wheelchairs. I have a hybrid minivan which seems to be the best option at the moment.
I've got to admit, I was wondering where you got a gas powered wheel chair for a minute 😁 but yeah that is a problem. I'm hopeful though, all the development for delivery vans for amazon and shipping companies might lead to economies of scale for producing cheap electric vans for everyone.
@@danharold3087 I can charge my chair from the van using a high-capacity inverter installed for that purpose. It's not been needed yet as I haven't taken long trips. But eventually I will need the inverter to power additional medical equipment along with my powerchair
@@H4N5O1O I think I see where you’re coming from. But it also sounds very very out of touch. Consider that the device you are using to read this only exists due to globalized shipping and trade. Also, it’s impossible for 100% of the population to live in an urban environment with walkable access to everything they need. Food doesn’t come from a grocery store. It comes from farms. Presently it’s only the smallest percentage of the world’s population that is affluent and privileged enough to have everything brought to them rather than the other way around. And the former are merely outsourcing their long trips to the less affluent. Please describe a means of creating a world where this kind of inequality doesn’t exist. I’d really like to know.
Quite a good report, but a few things have been missed: Firstly is the extra weight of EVs. They are probably on average at least 20% (probably more) heavier than equivalent ICEs. This will give the same percentage increase in wear on the roads, bridges, etc. which will require a lot more maintenance, and hence pollution to fix. At least 20% more road and bridge maintenance, I'm guessing is a lot of energy. Secondly, the tyres will require changing more often, along with other wearing parts, due to the increased stresses from the weight. What is the cost of this in increased pollution? Thirdly, how have the recycling figures been calculated? Does the energy required to recycle an EV leave out the parts that can't yet be recycled? What happens to those parts? Landfill? It would be nice to see a comparison of the percentages recyclable in EVs and ICEs. Fourth was the arguement about building new petrol stations and new charging points is about equal. This is ignoring the fact that we already have the petrol stations. The charging infrastructure will need to be comparable to the existing fossil fuel setup, which will take a lot of energy. I would also argue that a petrol station apart from a small electricity supply, is an independent thing, whereas charging stations need larger supplies of cables and infrastructure leading all the way to them. This is probably more pollution up front, at least. Fifth: there is the environmental cost of charging stations with regards to the space they require. I calculated that to serve the same amount of EVs (charged to about 80% capacity) as ICEs, charging stations will need about seven times the land area. Sixth is the drop off of efficiency with age, of both types of vehicle. An EV will need ot charge more often, after a while, which will affect the fifth point. I can never trust a report from people who have a vested, and possibly ideological interest in pushing an agenda. I don't mean you, Dave. Just the facts, Ma'am.😀
@@dimav.4713 Yes, that's one option. There are plenty of other ways to reduce emissions without forcing people to buy new cars. Making car-sharing compulsory a few times per month (fining drivers who drive alone, maybe., maximum mileage per week. No short journeys, etc. Other alternative fuels. Cutting down on flights. One big point is making air-conditioning illegal. We never died from it before. Apparetly 10-15% of all energy goes to this. That's a big instant saving for the planet. I never use air-con, even when it gets to the high 30s Centigrade and above.
Good points to analyse, but if you take away the dependency of using coal and switch to renewables as an electricity source (which is necessary and inevetible) & once you have an infrastructure of recycling and chargers in place & consider battery and EV tech are rapidly and will rapidly improve in terms of environmental impact (which will reduce cost and weight of the car); EV's will always have a dramatic positive impact on the reduction of carbon footprint compared to ICE cars in the future.
They are a bit heavier by not 20%. I bought a 2014 Ford Focus Electric, which allows for a direct comparison to an ICE vehicle. The Electric is around 3600 lbs while an equivalent styled ICE is around 3400 lbs. This means an electric is around 6% heavier. Yes, heavier but probably not 20%.
@@davidhanson8728 i just had a look, and they appear to be between 200 and 800lbs lighter than the electric versions. It will make a difference. It would be good to see a comparison of equivalent ICEs and EVs to get a more general picture. The good thing is that you can more or less calculate the environmental impact fairly accurately.
If only there would be affordable cars that you could easily get like you can with ICE. I'm okay with paying a bit more for a decent hatchback, but all electrical EVs have to offer is overpriced SUVs and luxury stuff that no regular human being can afford.
I’m an EV / VW id.3 owner since it first was available two years back now and apart from being a little like a part of a test fleet of the VW MEB-platform, it’s been a blessing now in times of war and pandemic. The superior drivetrain make driving easier. Fuel prices are no longer a problem especially now charging 80% at home at off-peak prices. Adding PV panels for daytime charging or selling the surplus expensively at daytime is actually a no-brainier. Adding V2G/L- bidirectional charging and discharging will make the car a house battery on wheels. It’s so clever!
It is a sad state of affairs that we will more than likely never reach those targets …… one thing that is never mentioned is people and the amount of co2 we produce … a study done in Spain states on average we produce 2 ton of co2 per year from food (from point of food produced to point of we excrete it…….and since 1980 till 2020 world population has increased by 3.6 billion …. And all governments don’t want to hurt the economical growth if others won’t do the same …… so we’ll have to wait and see for the proverbial to hit the fan
Doing nothing at all is definitely not the best option, and yet a great deal of effort is going into protecting the investments of those committed to doing nothing.
Likewise, a great deal of effort is going into protecting the investments of those looking to cash in on the global warming scam! Billions upon billions of dollars are out there waiting for those who have the capital to take advantage of the hysteria!
If you can replace the battery in a Tesla - what is stopping someone from having the same car for 20 years? Governments should encourage the standardisation of EV parts where possible, without compromising the underlaying technology. This would massively swing the argument in the favour of EVs
If we are not already there we are very close. It looks like the latest Tesla cars will last 20 years. 300K miles on the motor and battery. The longevity of cars has been going up. My dad talked about a Star being worn out at 20K. When I was a kid we traded them in at 60K and if they made it to 100K they were rolling junk. Now we are seeing better ICE cars making it past 200K. For an EV to go past 300K should be a no brainer. And 20 years X 15K miles a year is 300K.
Great video. Something that I never see discussed is the mining industry and the fact that they are slowly converting to BEV mining equipment including some mines coming on line that are 100% electric.
I think the biggest point which was covered and I come across time and again is that when anti-ev people compare emissions they almost always look at mining of lithium, cobalt etc but then only include tailpipe emissions from ICE and totally ignore the oil extraction, processing and transport.
yep, they take an extreme and generalize from it.
However, no one accounts for recyling or the significantly increased wear on roads. Laying new roads is insanely polluting. And heavier EVs damage roads on average over two times as quickly.
@@Hello_there_obi EV are not heavier than ICE cars. Do not forget they do not have a 300kg petrol engine and a 100kg tank with petrol, + 30kg exhaust pipe. Road wear caused by 40 tonnes truck not by 1.7 tonnes evs.
@@buscseik ahahahahah no. Just no. You could have googles this and spared the embarrassment. Why didn’t you?! You googled one side and not the other I just don’t understand why you’d do that 😅
Well for a start you've just plucked the 'two times as quickly' figure out of thin air. EV’s aren’t twice the weight of another comparable model so how do they cause twice the road wear? The the BMW 3 Series vs the Tesla Model 3 - 1800kg vs 2100kg which is about 16% more. Yet you claim 100% more road wear?
Secondly, many of the heaviest cars on the roads currently are large ICE SUV's such as Range Rovers, Large Audi’s, Large Mercs etc. Modern cars have been getting heavier and larger consistently for at least the last 20 years and I didn’t hear anyone complaining about road wear whilst that was happening but now that EVs are on the scene and are a bit heavier suddenly its an issue.
Loads of cobalt is used to remove sulphur from oil in the production of petrol/diesel and is also used in batteries in consumer electrics like mobile phones. No one has cared about that for the last 20 years but suddenly when EV’s came along, cobalt use was a big problem. Oil refineries use massive amounts of electricity. No on cares how thats produced but if an EV has any fossil fuel produced electricity in it suddenly its an issue.
Bottom line is that whatever metrics you choose to use, EV’s are over all cleaner and more environmentally friendly. They are more efficient and do more with less resources and almost all of them can be recycled which isn’t true about oil being burned in an engine. They are certainly not perfect but cherry picking the odd little statistic here or there doesn’t change the fact that oil extraction, transportation, refinery, more transportation and then burning in ICE that are at best 35% efficiency and pump out poisonous fumes in the towns and cities we all live in is worse for the environment and worst for us than using EVs.
Answered a lot of questions perfectly. One of my pet peeves in Australia is the running down of public transport, back in the day we all caught busses or trains to work. What happened, they were the original self driving vehicle.
Get involved politically to change this situation? In London I'm OK for public transport but lots of the countryside places far less well. Hopefully we'll have a change of Government in the UK at the next election.
@@peterdollins3610 The UK is way ahead of the USA. It's funny to me when you folks complain about your public transport, I was there for two weeks and took the train all over the place. Your trains work very well compared to whatever we have in the USA.
I've been catching public transport to work since 1980 and haven't had an issue with it. I've seen the public transport system improved a lot since then in Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane. What city are you talking about?
What happened was USA imperialist economics and adoption of the American way of transportation. Look at the USA now and it's trains and local public transport. Everything there is haywire as in NZ, same thing. We're on the road to hell in a handcart.
It was planned and bribed away here in the states. Look at Philadelphia, where the houses don’t even have drive ways. The politicians allowed Rockefeller, Ford, and Goodyear to buy up most all the trolley systems in the country and get rid of them!
this channel is totally underrated for what it delivers...quality content 100%
I road a bicycle (non-electric) to work 15 years ago when I lived in Denver which has amazing cycle paths. My coworkers thought I was crazy but after a while when they saw me slim down and very fit, they changed their tune. Now I ride a bike and a scooter in Malaysia (I can't wait until they get electric motorbikes here). Thank you for the great videos!
Counter argument to Just Have a Think biased argument... ua-cam.com/video/TUx8yIlKVpU/v-deo.html
rode*
@@Goreuncle lol
And you're still slimm ...
I appreciate this so much. I keep seeing people argue with me that lithium mining or dirty grids mean that EVS aren't any better than gasoline vehicles and I'm glad I have such a comprehensive study to point them towards now
Exactly, Peter. This is hard evidence that EVs are better, even in countries like India where most of the electricity comes from coal.
you should basically ignore those people, but EV's are catastrophically bad for the environment compared to public transport, we should be aiming to get rid of cars entirely
@@afgor1088 yes you are right brother
@@afgor1088 there is definitely something to be gained there too. Make remote work the default, perhaps even something of a policy to give people some advantage if they decide to live closer to work (if remote work is not an option). Giving everybody a restrictive flight budget. Improving international rail connectivity (Europe tends to have great national rail, but quite poor internationally). We have to do all those things and more really to make a difference. For everything we do there will be developing economies that can’t afford to think in those terms and have individuals that simply do whatever they can to get by
@@mr-boo dude, stop getting all your oppinion from youtubers
I've had an EV for 2 years now and apart from the obvious savings on fuel (I've got PV panels and a domestic battery; at the moment my electricity bill, including the car, is around £25.) even though it's only got a 100 mile range, I would NEVER go back to an ICE car, they are a joy to drive and as my son says, even mine will go 'like s***t off a shovel'. The charging infrastructure in the UK needs work and govmnt support, but thats another story. (See EVman's rants on the subject!) These figures simply confirm what I've been trying to tell people. Cars cost about the same to manufacture whether they're ICE or EV, and once you've taken this into account, there's no comparison! Thank you Dave for your always informative and unbiased work, you are the best on UA-cam! Cheers Kate
Ditto here
I have an electric velomobile. There is an article on the internet entitled "Electric velomobiles: as fast and comfortable as automobiles but 80 times more efficient"
I've had a 2nd hand Nissan Leaf now for only 2 weeks & completely agree with what you've said! Never going back to ICE's
I ride a bike, which makes EVs seem downright filthy and wasteful by comparison. Fortunately for our environment, only the wealthy will be able to afford anything beyond the simplicity of bicycles in the future anyway.
Thanks for your contribution to the environment.Infrastructure in Australia hasn't caught up to the point that owning an EV is completely practical yet, particularly for people that live in areas where long distance travel is normal. It seems like Evs really make sense in high population areas like cities where short trips and good infrastructure are the norm. Lots of people live in cities in Australia too, don't get me wrong but if for example, one day I decided to travel 900km from Melbourne to Sydney, I'd have to think very carefully before driving a currently luxury price tagged EV. If I did own an EV, to achieve the same outcome, I'd probably need to either a) fly then hire a car which is terrible for the environment or b) keep a petrol car as well as an EV, equally terrible.
I love my car but recently on a visit to Basel Switzerland I was seriously impressed by the tram network. Many people use bikes and walk, and Basel is also part of the huge European rail network. Trains are expensive but if you don't have a car they are reasonable. If occasionally I need a car I can just hire one!
Given that transit will be prevalent in a car free society, it doesn't have to be costly. It becomes an expected public good and instead of spending money on car ownership we'll have money to pay through taxes or fairs for transit.
Switzerland with exception of cities and towns (like Zug), is lagging with promoting EVs and helping their growth. Fortunately public transport is pretty good.
@@karlInSanDiego "we'll have money to spend to pay through taxes or faires for transit"
No you won't.
@@GTfour01 That's how I get around and I have never owned a car. Paid for out of taxes and fares. But yes not fairs, although they can be good fund raisers.
@@danielcarroll3358 So you are relatively young, you live in a large city or urban area and you do not have children.
I can garantee you though, as soon as privately owned cars are banned, and the only way to move around via a system controlled by the state, you're going to be told where and when you can travel. Bye bye freedom of movement.
As always a very fair and balanced look at the subject. The naysayers never factor in the fact that pumping and refining oil, uses colossal amounts of electricity, so the emissions of internal combustion vehicles are worse in the countries that burn a lot of coal for their electricity. And as Robert Lewellyn often says, show me a recycled litre of burnt diesel
Not that balanced. I think volvo have a fairer comparison of emissions over 10 years of two of their very similar cars(one being electric and the other being ICE). From memory, it takes 3-6 years to offset the battery emissions of that volvo EV. You are already biased when you call one side naysayers. People who actually care about emissions would strive towards pedal bikes and walking where possible. Planes are top of the list of worst offenders but it's bad publicity to tell people that they should take a serious look at their overseas holidays with emissions in mind.
@@longdang2681 ride a bike or walk in 100°f weather? The naysayer is the biased one.
Not to mention fracking which uses tons of water we don't have
@@longdang2681 So you are valuing the research of one car manufacturer over an international peer reviewed body. And no it’s not biased to refer to some as naysayers. These are people that usually take the misinformation of the fossil fuel industry and repeat it as fact.
@@longdang2681 also worth pointing out that I was a very keen cyclist and runner until I nearly lost my left leg to cancer 35 years ago. Even electric assisted bikes are very difficult, as I can’t quite bend my leg enough and falling is not an option. As they tell me they can’t repair it again. So efficient alternatives are my best bet
Having owned an EV for over 6 yrs my experience has highlighted to me the lower wear on brakes , the absence of waste engine oil , air , fuel & oil filters , and cam , alternator drive belt wear. as well as gearbox oils, and clutch wear, and spark plugs. Do we class the Exhaust system as a consumable too?
The lower wear of brakes is so pronounced that I have been asked by my mechanics to actually stand on the brakes weekly in order for them not to rust.
Driving energy efficient has cost me 4 new brake disks...
Also, the scaremongering about battery lifecycles is wholly inaccurate. I’m sure my EV will last a lot longer (rust permitting) than most of my previous ICE cars although I do appreciate that government policy means repairing those older cars is pointless from a cost point of view.
Is the battery still running !
@@baasittantray007 it's 8yrs old done 56k miles and has full 12 battery bars
Thinking of all the emission soot, leaky fluids, and brake dust covering our roads and towns… also all these motors emitting uncaptureable heat… so gross
It's not only about how you travel but also how far you must travel. North American suburbia types of housing force people to travel long distances just to do their basic shopping. These wastelands could be rebuilt to accommodate local shops, parks, train- and tram stations, schools, etc. Walking and cycling would also become viable means of transport.
People will prefer larger, cheaper houses though.
@@Hello_there_obistill there can be some basic shops around this bigger, cheaper houses but law forbids shops
One other good thing about electric car is at end of life, battery can be 98% recycled (at current technology). So future electric will have much less emissions due to no need to mine and refine battery materials.
How much does it cost to recycle a vehicle like that? Are there any toxic substances that would need special treatment?
@@Thecelestial1 it's cheaper then mine an ore.
@@Thecelestial1 Colin, it's more likely the recycling pant would pay *you* some money, given the value of older tired EV batteries. Those not recycled are sought after by the energy repurposing business to use for energy storage in commercial, industrial and domestic applications. They may no longer be good enough to use in a car, but they're *more* than adequate for energy storage. A good example could be the huge sports stadium in Utrecht in Holland, powered by 200 old Nissan Leaf batteries charged via solar...... Plus you don't necessarily have to recycle a tired EV battery. You can have them refurbished, at a fraction of the cost of fully replacing it......
we can recycle plastic but we dont ,same as battery...
Well said. There are billions of investment going into what is known as ‘urban mining’. JC Straubel at Redwood Materials say they will produce 10 GWh worth of battery making materials this year, although their feedstock is mostly phones, laptops and power tool batteries. In France there is Renault/Solvay who have a pilot plant and Northvolt/Audi in Germany have already produced new batteries from old at theirs. EV represent an opportunity to develop a circular economy, something that could never be achieved with the ICE.
Bikes are a disaster for the fuel & moto industries. Trains as well. Yet those two can basically solve the transport part of climate change elegantly. Now, what about USA army which is probably as big of a polluter as global transport?
Yes! 🙌
"Now, what about USA army which is probably as big of a polluter as global transport?"
Move from tracked to wheeled vehicles for lower fuel usage? Higher reliance on nuclear power for naval forces (more nuclear subs, less surface ships)? Fewer attacks helicopters / close air support - they are fuel guzzling, had really bad day in any near peer conflict (manpads!) and can be replaced by artillery?
North American cities are designed badly for bikes… and cars. Zoning laws have segregated homes from work from shopping from schools and all miles apart that forces car use. They need large scale mixed-use densification, put homes and offices next to, or on top of, retail, schools, etc. And stop building parking lots, shrinking roads, stop accommodating cars.
They could if everybody lived in a city AND farming Is done by hand. Bikes are an Urban only solution the same as train. I agree with you that people shouldnt use cars in cities too freely though.
How about an army of bicycle-riding soldiers equipped with Javelins? Not trying to be funny but trying to think outside the box.
Excellent video. I bought a 6 month old EV almost two years ago and wondered if I was making the right decision having frequently read anti-EV comments?
Best car I have ever had. So much more relaxing to drive and I am saving nearly £2k a year in fuel costs.
Try to keep the charge on the battery between 20 and 80%. This will sustain the life of your battery. Only charge above 80% if you're actually going on a trip that requires the extra range to reach the first charging station. Do some research to check the Optima battery charge for your particular vehicle brand.
Some Tesla's battery packs have lost almost nothing after 200,000 miles. And I think there are even a few that have lost almost no range after 300,000 miles.
@@macmcleod1188 The LFP batteries that will soon be standard don't give a shit what the charge of the battery is.
Good for you. The battery tech is getting better every year with some real step ups coming soon. So when you are ready for a new EV they should be even better.
@@viperswhip it's a great technology but this car owner doesn't have it yet.
Counter argument to Just Have a Think biased argument... ua-cam.com/video/TUx8yIlKVpU/v-deo.html
Hi Dave, good food for thought, thanks.
The transport comparison graph at 10:00 is quite illustrative. We’ve been trying to work out when we can practically move from our conventional ICE car to an EV or hybrid (given prices, apartment living, local recharging infrastructure etc). In the meantime, I’m cycling more and more where previously I would’ve made a one-person car journey. (Even despite distinctly unfriendly-to-bikes local conditions!)
Oh, and I especially liked the bonus parenting tips at 09:00 “setting a good example etc” - nice :).
The only thing the study missed is how this only applies to EVs with a battery made from newly mined resources. Recycling batteries is cheaper than mining new materials, and we can already recycle over 90% of the materials. An EV made of these recycled batteries would have even way fewer emissions.
unfortunatly if you're trying to replace at least 50% of the worlds passenger vehicles with EV's you'll have to resort to mining new materials. There's simply net enough material to recycle to achieve this sentiment.
@@The-Cat not yet, but in a few decades it will become a closed loop, which is the long term situation you're working towards. If we need to emit some CO2 today (and still less than by driving ICE cars) to emit nothing in the future, that's a reasonable tradeoff.
@@Ehralur "few decades" we're talking about billions of batteries not just for cars and you're saying 90% recyclable. By that logic you should already know that that's not a "closed loop"
A closed loop of recyling is impossible. It's just basic physics.
There will always be a loss of material and there will always be a need for new material.
We're producing products out of finite resources remember ?
@@The-Cat that's nonsense. We can already recycle up to 98% and there's a clear path to 100%. There's nothing in physics that prescribes that you can't reuse a refined ore 100%. Ores are not depleting during use.
If anything, it's better because the refining of an already refined product will leave you with a purer material.
Yes, there will be a need for new mining for the foreseeable future and maybe ever, but a closed loop is entirely possible and even economically viable.
@@Ehralur Don't you understand basic maths?
100% material and only 98% reusable equals 2% loss
that 2% needs to be replenished with FRESH reources.
a.ka. you will NEVER achieve a closed loop you will always be depleting a finite resource.
By the way your claim of 98% reusability is a lab number (perfect circumstances) that doesnt include any deviations of reality.
when a batterypack goes up in flames that 98% goes down to zero.
when saltwater corrodes a battery pack that 98% goes down drastically basically like rust eating away iron that rust = useless dust.
you will ALWAys ALWAYS need to replishesh the losses.
basic maths, basic science!
Electric motorcycle (Zero DSR) and solar panels, sorted.
Just need to get rid of the ICE car.
Excellent content as usual. Thank you.
Fantastic presentation of the subject matter. I'm a brit living in Norway where the use of electric cars is extremely widespread, the charging network is pretty good and almost all the electricity is generated using hydro power (so all in all, a pretty unique situation looking at the global picture). I've owned a VW e-golf for the last 4 years, but I also have a diesel VW Touran for practicality purposes (big loads and it has 7 seats). As the Touran is getting old and the options are getting better, I'm on the verge of buying a larger electric vehicle to replace it. Last week I rented a VW ID4 to do a long journey within Norway (as my son is starting a year at University on the other side of the country) to take the opportunity to see how it would go using an electric car for long journeys. This was the first time I've ever done a journey more than 100 km in an electric car and the first time I've ever used a public charging station. The journey was roughly 360 km (220 miles) and was a reasonable overall increase in altitude (roughly 450m), but with a rough range of 500 km, I was fairly confident the ID4 would be able to do it on a single full charge. We stopped to charge anyway while having a bite to eat (speed limits and intercity roads in Norway are not what you would call ideal, so it's roughly a 6 - 7 hour journey). The 20-25 minutes it took us to eat was enough to put an extra 200 km range in the battery, so 'range anxiety' was never an issue. On the way back, I didn't even consider charging as the battery level hardly moved in the middle of the journey because of the regen keeping the battery topped up as I came down off of the highest point on the mountain roads (I would guess I got about 100 - 150 km 'free'). The whole experience was quite honestly, fantastic, with two exceptions -1 being something with the car and the other the charging network. The thing with the car is the touch sensitive controls for just about everything in the ID4 (irritating and temperamental - as documented on numerous reviews of the ID4). The thing with the charging network is the absolute insistence of the charging companies to require a mobile phone app to use the chargers!?!?!?! There are a few apps which cover multiple charging companies, but our experience was that there are various incompatibilities with certain phones (payment methods, android versions, Ios versions) which don't present themselves until you actually try to charge the car (they install ok initially, but can be fiddly with setting up payment methods - but may not ultimately work anyway). I had numerous problems with this on my Sony android phone (which is admittedly not the newest model, but it's also not ancient either) - with both the multi-company apps and the dedicated single company apps. Why oh why can there not be standard card reader payment on these chargers - just like a petrol/diesel pump?!?!?!? This is something that the government needs to step in on and state there has to be a standard card payment option on all public chargers, in my opinion. Fortunately, when I did get one of the apps to work on my phone, there were more than enough chargers available around the major routes and towns to travel around without any concerns. So, with more and more public charging stations popping up on a regular basis, there's no reason not to take the plunge (at least here in Norway) to going fully electric now that there are a number of vehicles with over a 400 km range.
Thank you for your informative comment🎉👍
I ain’t reading allat bro😂
As an Asian, it boggles my mind that traveling from London to Paris by train is about 15 times more expensive than traveling by plane. This isn't a good incentive for people to take sustainable public transportation .
Personally, regarding cars, I still subscribe to keeping older cars, maintaining them well, and maximising the life of that older vehicle. I don’t own a car anymore, but if I were looking for a car and could find one I’d buy a Holden of the F, E, or H series which date from 1958 to 1984. I have a sailboat built in 1978, still with the original diesel motor and still going strong. Big part of our problems is the constant turnover in our consumption patterns, rather than buying well and keeping it long term.
I am doing fine with my solar and 226 mile rage leaf. I pay $24 a month power bill and drive over 1000 miles a month. So far my range is still great. Many say but batteries ate so expensive. True but saving $3000 a year in fuel costs the car will be paid for in fuel savings in 10 years. Then it will be trade in time.
We need to encourage public officials to redesign cities to be more efficient for public transit.
Just add bikelanes everywhere ( Dutch city planning colonization world wide)
@@poucxs9246
How do I carry a cement mixer, cement and tools to a construction site on a bicycle or public transport?
@@frankblack7801 I think that there are a lot of exceptions, like large scale logistics farming etc. But consider this: 80% of the people who comute to office sit alone in a 4 seat car. If you have to commute about 20 km to office within a city then doing it on a bicycle has a lot of potential benefits. less congestian, cleaner air, less noise, smoother trafic, improved personal fittness.
@@frankblack7801 Or you could take them all, on a 1 by one basis and have stamina like a horse :-P
@@poucxs9246
A 30 mile round trip on a cycle to get to work & back?
5+ × a week.
Come rain, hail, high winds, thunderstorms, heat waves or freezing sub zero ice & snow . . . 😳
And possibly only for half a days work on a Saturday perhaps.
Its this kind of fantasm that quite rightly destroys credibility with the green movement.
Keep you current car as long as you can and drive it as little as you can. That's the best thing for the climate.
Actually not, as the very short payback period shows. In the worst possible case, ditching a brand-new ICE car and buying an EV may at worst double the CO2 payback period. The report mentions 12,000 miles. So that gives us less than 24,000 miles. Quite a low number that is easily reached by EVs in a couple of years of driving.
Wasting a functional car may feel absurd, but the science is clear. The situation is comparable to replacing perfectly functional incandescent lightbulbs with LEDs.
Exactly what I'm doing. 1992 Volkswagen Polo bought in Dec 2003 for 1600€. 45HP gasoline with only 770kg, doing just about 10000-12000km per year. So far 332000km on the odometer. Would have needed the 3rd electric car by now, due to battery aging and aviability of spareparts.
@@oznerol256someone from my town bought a MINI Cooper SE, battery dead (below 70%) after 2 years, no warranty from BMW. Replacement costs more than the car is worth. Payback don't work in that case, isn't it? Or when you bought a brand new Fister Ocean a year ago, company bankrupt, no spareparts and software problems, you basicaly got a 2100kg brick. Switching from light bulbs to LEDs makes more sense.
@@franzbernhard301 That's BMW for you. Proper EVs have 8+ years of battery warranty.
@@franzbernhard301 How much gasoline does it use per 100km?
Finally someone setting the record straight on it. I recently took the plunge & got a 2nd hand EV & have to say, I'm never going back, they are fantastic. The amount of times ive had to explain to people how EV's are better, this video is goint to make my life so much easier since i can just show them this instead. Obviously I'd love to use public transport, but that's a bit lacking where I live since Dr Beaching ripped out all the railway lines in the 1960's
Not Judge Doom?
I look forward to being able to afford the upfront cost of owning an EV (either a PHEV or BEV) and upgrading my garage with a charging station. I have not yet had the opportunity, but I will eventually.
In 1997 I drove in a converted car that had the shell of a LOLA performance car on it. It was fast it was simple it had one major draw back, lead acid batteries. Limited range and heavy both that hindered the explosion of electric cars. Telsa was NEVER created by Elon Musk. He was the companies third CEO to come into play. the test car was a T-zero with lithium cells..it was the worlds first lithium electric powered car.
Matty, the key to building a near driverless city is to make it compact. Many european cities share the same construction concept, built housing over retail and commercial space and then bring all core services and products to withing a block or several block range.
@@LK-pc4sq oh yeah I know that, I'm a big fan of proper urban planning but I've had to deal with that hand I've been dealt with at the moment, & as someone who needs a car, an EV was the obvious solution
EV vs ICE? As mentioned in the concluding remarks, avoiding both and using cycles is the way to go to maximise rapid reduction in emissions from vehicle use (and by extension from road construction and repair).
I've been told in multiple videos--one in a TED Talk and another in Veritasium--that about HALF of a vehicle's carbon footprint is just in the manufacture of the car. These graphs say otherwise--which is correct? The TED Talk mentioned that as the size of batteries increase for EVs, the carbon footprint is higher. With renewable energy, the EV breaks even with gas cars sooner, but may take over 400,000 miles with dirtier electricity. Is this video debunking that?
Some people will be moved by the idea that you can save the climate by using EVs rather than ICE cars. However I think that most people will only be moved if EVs are cheaper and more convenient for them personally. At the moment that's simply not the case, but I expect that it soon will be.
Good timing Dave, Although I am the worlds biggest petrol head I personally can't wait to get an EV. I've been frustrated recently by all the myopic views and posts on social media recently so I'll link this video as a great response. Thanks again, keep up the good work.
Best vehicle for environment is hybrid. Second best petrol and last EV, sadly.
Better not have a car at all. Lithium mining is also not the most environmentally friendly activity
@@vladimirsak you just admitted that you don't know how to read a chart
@@vladimirsak You didn't watch the video, did you?
@@casperhansen826 Compare with Ted talk: Contradictions of battery operated vehicles.
Much better in my opinion than this video.
As usual, an excellent , well presented video, Dave.
As I never cease to inform people these days, I have been leasing an EV since late March 2021. My only regret? I wish I had done it sooner. What a revelation it is.
And I'm not able to charge at home either, but asked my company to install type 2 chargers under the government incentive. So a month before I received my car there were a pair of Zappi evses. And, as this is the UK, charging at work is free. Last year I easily saved £1200, not even taking into account the massive rise in price of fuel. I've also decided to get an e-bike soon for future HICC rain-free days.
Is this all a scam? It isn't. But let's suspend fact and say it is. Well, if that's true, it is one of the better ones. There's no way I'd go back to ICE even if EVs were only as good/bad. But I know they are better for me and better for the environment that I care about.
You have saved £1200 because your company pays that does not apply to most people how much would it have cost you to charge at home with the cost of energy at the moment, and how does someone living in a terrace street who very rarely park outside their own house go on put an extension cable across the foot path and trip up every passerby, you are very fortunate it will be very difficult or almost impossible for a lot of people
@@militarymad2840 Nope. Company does not pay. It's a government grant which applies to everyone who enquires. And the £1200 was on fuel alone. There have been other savings on maintenance and servicing which have amounted to one bottle of screenwash. It would have been 2/3rds of the saving on fuel had I had to pay.
We can all find negativity when we try. Let's try to find some positives in all this instead. The biggest negative is staying with an inefficient polluting vehicle.
Cheers Andy. Good on you mate.
Good it worked for you. The thing is that one may work for you or some but won’t work for others and in reality Evs has a lots of positive it also many negatives, we all are about to discover those with the time. I believe that Toyota hybrids are one of the best cars currently and cleanest too.
@@ramblerandy2397 So who pays for the government grant? Taxpayers. So somebody pays. It's not free.
Another issue has surfaced in my apartment block where the basement power points used by some people with BEV's are paid for by the body corporate as they are not individually metered. So those residents with BEVs are getting their charging at the expense of others. Again not free. Road user tax is also currently paid by a levy or excise on petrol, so again BEV users are paying nothing while ICE users are paying proportionately more. Once these issues are resolved I suspect that the cost per km of BEVs will increase and make for a more balanced analysis. FWIW I believe the BEVs are they way to go.
Cobalt is heavily used in the refining of diesel.
I propose the 4 day work week and the 3 day weekend with Saturnday being a Lockdown style day where emissions are kept to a minimum... you can travel only locally by public electric transport or e-scooter or e-bike... or maybe an BEV... no planes... no ships...
Wonderful video! :D I would like to point out that the BEV batteries production CO2 costs are based on Lithium Ion batteries that use cobalt and nickel which produce 50% more CO2 per battery than Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries (LFP). LFP batteries also last 3 times longer which means for ever LFP battery produced you must produce 3 Lithium Ion batteries that use cobalt and nickel. So the Lithium Ion batteries production generates over 3 times as much CO2 than LFP batteries.
Even it you ignore the emissions EV is are still more eco friendly by no creating air and noise pollution
Thanks for your well thought out informative videos and your calm pleasant demeanor.
Thanks. I appreciate that!
@@JustHaveaThink you’re great, thank you for all your work. Strangely soothing, cunning & informative.
Yet this guy won't EVER talk about nuclear or liquid fuels made from atmospheric CO2.
Winder why not? Getting paid by 'greenies'???
@@scottslotterbeck3796 Probably not. But I think you should start your own channel and talk about nuclear and liquid fuels made from CO2.
Ok, my 2 issues with EVs.
1. I am concerned with the sheer amount of electricity that will be needed to sustain cities with power stations during the phasing out of carbon and underdevelopement and nuclear when Sun doesn't shine and wind doesn't blow, where there are no dams close.
2. Will we have enough materials for batteries and won't the enviromental damage caused by their extraction (it takes a lot of water to get lithium for example) nearly cancel the reductions out?
I think a big question that’s never answered in this issue is (given the life cycle of a modern car is 10years) if I have a car that’s more than 10 years old it’s effectively in its second life, having in effect been manufactured free of any emissions. It’s recycled by its careful owner and I’d love to see an intelligent analysis of where these older cars lie in the spectrum of harm relative to other options.
They lie with outdated engine tech with emission norms that are now illegal. Fuel efficiency that is 10 year old. Stuck with fuel that is outdated (probably cant use Ethanol etc. Also they are much unsafe without so much of recent improvement in safety aspects.
My van is 20 years old but faily low kilometres for it's age. And it's a Toyota (reliable).
I totally get driving an old car because it still works, and it is far cheaper than buying a new one... The first R of the three comes to mind, but for pollution, that argument does not hold. An EV needs to overcome the energy embedded in it's manufacturing when compared to an ICE vehicle in order to reach a "break-even point", after which it is truly very close to zero emissions. The typical "pay-back" period for this is about two years (averaging a lot of things... ) Translation: every two years of usage of a ICE car is the same as the impact on the client of getting a new EV. so if you use an old gas car for more than two years, it's worse for the climate than buying a new EV.
Driving a car for 10 years, an ICE vehicle will be pollute about the same as 5 EV's. Also this two year payback is based on the power mix in place where the batteries and cars are manufactured. As the grid cleans up, the embedded carbon from manufacturing goes down, speeding up the payback further.
@@petersilva037 Not to mention the where the first comment left it. The car ICE car being 5, 10, 15, 20 years old has the emission of rules from 5-20 years ago, which is worse than a modern ICE. So its progressively worse (not just in a linear fashion of 10 year old car is worst than 5 EV combined.. it is probably more than 5... the older the car gets the further it falls behind emission standards). The original comment simply missed the fact that the ICE's main polluting part is the fuel consumption and not it's production.
[well, if we ignore the VW scandal where the 'modern' car was as bad as the old ones... but on paper... :)]
In addition to the more lax regulations for efficiency of older vehicles, the efficiency drops as piston rings, valves, and seals wear down, making the already lax efficiency even worse.
'determined not to be convinced' is such a good quote. I suspect lots of these people are rejecting reality to satisfy some emotion like guilt, fear or shame. No one should feel guilty for driving a gasoline car, they should instead be angry at the oil companies who for decades pushed propaganda while millions die every year from air pollution. That anger, which would be correctly placed, is a much stronger motivator to buy an EV I think.
I have never worked for a gasoline company but I disagree with your premise that we should not feel guilty. We are all responsible and if half way intelligent have known for at least 50 years that this was coming. I remember sitting in a pub in the early 1970 agreeing with my friend that "when the Chinese get cars the Climate will be wrecked". The Chinese now have cars as well as the Indians and most of the high population countries. The idea that this was being hidden from us is ludicrous.
@@johugra1 guilt doesn't properly motivate these people.. It's why they go into denial, not why they make a positive change. Besides, most of the blame should fall squarely on the shoulders of oil companies, politicians and the investors who pushed the propaganda. Given two bits of conflicting information, you can hardly blame the average Joe for picking one side over the other.. Especially if all his friends, and all the people he respects are saying the same thing. Just because you, having the knowledge and understanding that you did came to a correct conclusion, doesn't mean other people can do the same thing. We all have different mental, educational and social resources.
@@jameshughes3014 In reality it is not a matter of "sides" . Truth is difficult and messy. Just blaming one particular part of society is easy and usually wrong.
@@johugra1 I'd agree with that, but I don't blame society.. Instead I blame oil companies. what matters is getting people to stop polluting, and that's not complicated. Just find out why they do what they do, and fix that. The solution is extra easy if you find that a significant part of their motivation is emotional.
@@jameshughes3014 James, I was thinking that the oil companies or some of them at least did get up to various rather unsavoury activities to distort the truth about climate change. However this was actually pretty insignificant as most people were perfectly aware of the problem. I do not pretend to have any definitive answers but one point was that it would have been viewed as discriminatory if we had tried to stop development in places like China and India and we would have failed anyway.
The question we should ask is why we need transportation in the first place. Because we do not live, work, produce, grow food and recreate locally enough. Solving this will save energy and also be an improvement of independance and stability.
I’ll go for that. Who will shoot/gas/drown all the worthless, non-productive people in cities?
What you describe is what Chairman Mao tired in China. People starved.
Quite a good point we need to get shops and jobs local and food going to our towns not Asda 40miles away
@@danharold3087 just because some selfish, corrupt, dictator failed doesn't mean that investing in local communities isn't a good idea.
@@grahamwilson8843 Ok, sure, but asking if we even need transportation in the first place is pretty dumb. When Joop falls off a ladder and breaks his leg, I guess he'll just ride a bicycle to the emergency room, eh?
Great as usual Dave. Good graphics, understandable and with your usual lovely style - laid back and open but authoritative and accurate. The only comment I wanted to make is on the short-haul flights being worse than any other form of transport - they are per km, but a long-haul flights uses a lot more kms, so the overall carbon is higher. Just important to point out so people don't think long-haul flights are somehow good things.
Indeed. One can easily do an entire year's worth of travel in distance terms in one long-haul flight. And if people had to drive or pedal that distance they'd think a lot harder about badly they needed to make that particular trip.
Eliminating individual motorized vehicles larger than ultralight personal transportation would cut out massive amounts of emissions. The main barrier there is producing the infrastructure to enable that form of society.
I bought an EV, what pushed me to it, I was mad at the petroleum Barrons for raising prices again. I had carbon dioxide contribution guilt. My Ice car was getting old. I have discovered chargers in the states are often free. This no cost fuel will pay for my new, to me, used EV, in three years. It drives really well and is really fun to drive. It was a win win. I drive by the gas station and snicker, the price goes up virtually every time I do. Sometimes I stop and use the window washing soap and squeegee and smell the gas smell, just to reminisce. No regrets.
I bought an EV(2018 Chevy Bolt) last October purely for financial reasons. We went from
I'd like an EV - once I can afford a second-hand one. That's going to be a long while unfortunately. In the meantime, I rarely use the car I have, it's small, efficient, economical and very well-maintained.
Last year, we did 1,000 miles by car and it's set to do about the same this year. We're on the point of going back to using more public transport again whenever it's possible.
(I used public transport right until the age of 52, when I finally had to learn to drive because of cut-backs in local bus services. Now it'll be case of frequency and just how much it costs to travel).
Personally, I don't fret over the fact that I do have a 'gas-guzzler,' because I have made, and continue to make, a lot of pro-environment changes to my life:
Been a vegetarian/vegan for over 40 years, my family committing to the same diet for the past 4 years.
I've been a regular tree-planter for about the same amount of time.
My career was as a gardener, but with elements of conservation work involved.
I have only flown by plane once in my life (UK to Iceland), and that was not by choice. Although I loved being in Iceland, I vowed never to fly again, and I never have. (My family are also committed non-flyers).
We are a make do and mend-type family, enjoy raiding fly-tip sites and lugging back stuff to make into other things. My son has got a new bookcase my husband has just finished making out of dumped wood.
We buy most of our clothes and shoes from charity shops, sometimes furnishings as well.
After the stream by my house emitted a methane 'belch,' which not only stank to high heaven, the fact this happened at all really worried me. So, over the past couple of weeks, I have begun to remove buckets of wood and leaves out of the stream and compost them aerobically to reduce the production of methane and nitrous oxide. There will be very little difference in the amount of CO2 emitted as these materials break down, but the other 2 were my primary concerns.
I'm in the middle of planting a 2 acre permaculture/rewilding garden, and not only is this bringing back lots of wildlife to the area, it's encouraging species I've never seen here before.
I have been picking my own home-grown fruit and vegetables every day for weeks now. Really saving money, with a fine crop of potatoes, blue and blackberries to come.
I'm not just concentrating on those fruit/veg plants that are often seen in UK gardens, but planning ahead and starting to introduce those that can cope better with the new, hotter British summers.
Today I began making a little activated biochar from dried out brash (thin wood collected from the stream) for the very first time.
I was unsure how effective biochar would be, so I'd been doing a lot of research into it, making sure I wasn't getting into something that would have so little impact it wasn't worthwhile.
It's a bit of a messy job, and rather hot work on a day like this (31C in Scotland! I think I might try and do this job the same time as cook a bit of food in future. Kill 2 birds with one stone), but it's supposed to be pretty effective at locking carbon in soil.
Tomorrow, sowing more food plants.
Legend and an inspiration.
I have an MG ev on a lease and it saves me money.
Buying a 2nd hand 1 will cost you a lot of money. But suit yourself.
@@nozirohhh buying a second hand gas car will, EVs (the right ones at least) don't have the same issues.
I'm going to wait 6 years from now to get one. Just going to pay cash for one. I live in Saskatchewan, Canada, and the least expensive used Tesla available is a 2018 model 3 long range for $62,000.00
Good luck finding anything new around here and if you do, it will be around $100,000 which is out of most people's ability to pay.
And I want more range since when it goes down to -30 to -40C here in the winter it cuts the range down dramatically. I'm hoping the range and outrageous costs are fixed when I'm ready to purchase.
I thought that the problem with aircraft emissions wasn't so much about how much they pollute but more, where they pollute. It is worse because of the way it interacts and changes in the upper atmosphere. Cycling needs to get more like Japan in how cycling and cyclists behave with pedestrians and cars. Its very different to riding a bike here. The attitude of both car drivers, cyclists and pedestrians is more respectful of each other.
: That would be a nice change. The behaviour between groups is symbolic for the general level of disrespect that we seem to have towards other people. Car drivers hate other car drivers, too. If you try to find cohesion and respect in a modern western world you'll have to search for a long time. And that includes every age group as far as I can tell.
The modern turbo fan jet engine is more efficient than an ice but still produces tonnes of CO2.The development of structural batteries or hydrogen/compressed air turbines could lead to zero carbon planes.
Planes are actually quite efficient per passenger per distance. Fully loaded some may be more efficient than a car with one person in it. Problem is they usually go very long distances...
@@jfolz good point ,A very difficult problem to solve if we want net zero.
@@bernardcharlesworth9860 Avation is one of those hard to abate sectors that would be perfect for E-Fuels. Everything else can be either nucleriszed or electrified. It's really on governments to start properly using modern monetary policy to properly shape behaviour, a whacking great carbon tax would be a good start.
I live and work in Ukraine. I have dedicated my last 15 years to alternative fuel applications in passenger and commercial transportation. As a technical director and a guy who manages all technical issues, diagnostics and complex projects, I see a huge problem with system that are working under the 1-15 Bar pressure. 200 Bar systems, that are Methane capable, produce a noticeably greater complexity: tank excessive weight and pricing, need for more rigorous inspections,, poor filling stations network (CNG-Methane).
If we talk about HYDROGEM - this is a story of the NON EXISTING infrastructure, operational pressure of 700 BAR!!!, no technical support and I can not even imagine how much would a proper hydrogen tank would cost, its maintenance and life cycle : 3-5-10 years ? What will happen after this cycle and how much will the new tank cost (considering this item is critical to the safety).
8:10 Internal combustion engines are mostly reaching 40-45% efficiency with the potential to hit 60% soon. This numbers are discussed in professional media like SAE
If we talk about BEV : I see them often to ride at near dark time with headlights off, foggy windows, making the lowest speed permitted just to save extra mileage. The story about BEV is very promising, but the technology as the infrastructure is far from being self sufficient.
There is nothing bad in internal combustion engines, the technology that been refined and taken to the perfection for 150 years. We need to change the fuel , used in this engine. We convert gasoline modern engines everyday that are using direct and dual injection, turbocharged and are working on diesel solutions, where a compression ignition engine would receive a completely new and clean fuel as a substitute to diesel.
Changing the fuel used in the existing vehicles (passenger and commercial) , will provide instantaneous effect. Tag: LPG, bio LPG, Dimethyl Ether (DME)...
The most promising and viable technology for the future EV cars, would be te HYBRIDIZATION: a 5-15 KW battery (reduced weight and lower environmental impact) + fuel cells that use a hydrogen rich fuel to generate electricity on board of the vehicle for propulsion and battery charging. This hydrogen rich fuel can be DME, stored under 5-10 Bar in a simple tank similar to LPG.
Four years ago, I moved so I would be in walking distance from my work (I still use my car during the week-end). Not only walking is good for my health, but I am faster by foot than being blocked in the traffic jams twice a day.
And beside saving on the price of gas, it is a very comforting knowledge that I am not depending on my car and if I need to let it at a garage for repair, and if the repair should last a few days, i am still not impaired.
Great to see the comments from persons - mostly in first world nations, but in Africa (where I live), a combination of rampant corruption, unreliable electricity, lack of capex for really good urban public transport networks, long distances between major cities and poverty will make mass EV adoption a pipe dream for >>98% of the population.
Most likely true. Certainly in the short term, however, as the Co2 output per capita is tiny for most African nations (except SA), this isn't necessarily an issue. Africa and many developing countries are suffering the effects of climate change caused by developed nations. Therefore the efforts to decarbonise first world countries will still have a positive effect in Africa.
Great video! For the second report, comparing types of transportation side by side, are the transportation mediums (rails, roads, etc) factored in? I was surprised to see EVs so close to trains, etc.
EVs (being much heavier than traditional cars) will mean more road maintenance. We already know that suburbs are actually a money sink for cities because of the high cost of road up-keep for the relatively low number of drivers in the area so it would surprise me that their carbon cost would be almost as low as a train.
Even though electric vehicles can be somewhat heavier than equivalent gas powered cars, virtually all damage to roads is caused by trucks that create so much pressure on the asphalt skin that they actually create a wave In the roadway which is really destructive.
This might be because of the speed difference.
You might imply that frontal area is the only factor that causes drag, but length and skin drag are super relevant too.
This report might be based on the average rail line distance travelled, of which many are carried out by 160, 200, to 300 or some even 350 kmh trains.
Drag increases by the square of the speed. It makes sense that the numbers are not much lower.
If we were comparing to a 120kmh train, i bet it would be a quarter or less.
Also it seems like the train not always being full was taken into consideration. Same with the bus, or it would be waaaay lower.
oh neever mind, chancese are the cars are actually implied to be full
If not motorcycle numbers often would be lower.
Chances are not real life numbers were used.
A Tesla model 3 weight is 1 725 - 1 819 kg and the BMW series 3 is between 1,565kg - 1,965kg.
Current EV vehicles are just the first commercial generation. We'll get rid of the heavy and flammable lithium batteries pretty soon. Battery and capacitor science and technology already has much better options in labs and prototypes. The same goes for fuel cells and those can be used in electricity hubs in more rural areas for EV vehicles too. There are already some pretty good fuel cells for things like ethanol and butane so we don't even need to work with far more difficult hydrogen or methane.
Thanks, as always, for the factual, level-headed, and data-driven approach.
Sadly, as I live in the U.S., where over 30% of our population are completely 'fact-proof,' it won't mean much here other than singing to the proverbial choir.
Still, those of us that still believe in science and still want to be able to look our grandchildren in the eyes without just screaming "Freedom!" at them, spittle dripping from our contorted, angry faces, thank you.
Keep up the fantastic work!!
Your commitment to independence and rational thinking is refreshing and I hope you can avoid the click-bait titles and subjects that are currently consuming others within the sustainable tech and transport sector. I will be ditching the car in August 2023 and relying on my bike for local journeys and the bus/train for longer trips. I live in rural West Wales, so I doubt this is going to be an easy ride and I may end up with a moped as a compromise, but if things were easy, they probably wouldn’t be as interesting. I’m keeping my camper van (I’m not a savage), but the small off-grid solar+battery system I’ve added to my house neutralises the CO2 emissions (about 600kg) from that luxury each year.
This guy refuses to talk nuclear and carbon-neutral liquid fuels frim solar or nuclear.
@@scottslotterbeck3796 have you seen the huge amount of resources needed and time frames for nuclear waste storage ??? Ban that shit right now.
I’m keeping my camper van - missing the point, along with billions of other ignorant people.
@@H4N5O1O Presumably you think I should scrap a perfectly working vehicle and replace it with…? What? A Tesla? Some other EV?
Ok, tomorrow taking the train from Paris to Milan instead of the cheaper and faster plane. Ideally it's a 7 hour trip and not too expensive with Inoui. If it runs with less than 2 hours delay I will be happy and have a great time to finish my book. If the report is accurate and the train is comparable to the Eurostar as opposed to a short-haul flight then this should be great for my 2022 CO2 budget.
Mazda's Skyactiv-X ICE regularly hits 40% thermal efficiency. That about puts it on par with a BEV charged from high efficiency combined cycle natural gas plant from a CO₂ perspective.
I really look forward to buying a BEV that can do 600 km in -30ºC on a single charge. That would cover most of my driving without major inconvenience.
Next month I'll be driving a stretch of road with 400 km between fuel stations. BEV are great in cities but aren't there yet for remote road trips or day trips in winter.
Use carbon-neutral liquid fuels from nuclear
The thing I like about electric cars is that you can choose where your energy comes from, from Solar to charging it of a dirty diesel gen set.
In many places, you can sign up for your household electricity (the most common way to charge an EV) for your quota of power to come from various green sources.
If everyone signs up for green, then the power companies will have little choice other than investing in more green energy.
One problem with that. We have this exact problem in the Nertherlands. More people buy green energy then there is green energy produced..... Then again, I would buy exclusively nuclear power if possible so your idea has some merit but implementation is as always difficult.
Counter argument to Just Have a Think biased argument... ua-cam.com/video/TUx8yIlKVpU/v-deo.html
People need to stop demonising nuclear power. It is the only power source that can be reliably available 24/7. Even some of the big hydro installations ae finding that water is not an everlasting source of energy. Of course we could just wait for Fusion 🤣
@@geoffhaylock6848 Yup. China is having a wee bit of a crisis. If that was the only one it wouldn't be a problem but they got a plethora of problems. Nuclear really seems to be the only viable solution at the moment.
Ooh, I probably have a halo 😇 I didn't know about! I got frustrated by Covid meaning I only drove to work each day and couldn't go anywhere else, it seemed an unnecessary expense to have a car. So I sold it and started cycling 3.5 miles to work each way daily, with the intention of buying another car when things got back to normal. A year - eighteen months later I can't think of a good reason to get a car again! I cycle everywhere, use public transport for longer journeys (trains to middle of France for - you guessed it - a cycle touring holiday!)
The main exception to this is monthly or fortnightly 'big' grocery shops where I use a taxi home, and sometimes to the supermarket, too. Panniers are plenty good enough for weekly shops.
Occasional days out with friends and family mean they have to pick me up in their cars or we meet in the middle near a train station.
It important to point out that I am an ordinary 62yr old man - not some mega-fit, gym crazy youngster.
Good on you, I also cycle everywhere at the moment and have done for a long time, ebike, but I will have to get to EV soon cart my new family around
Works for some and not for others. Great when it does.
Lowering one's personal transportation related CO2 emissions to nearly zero is definitely a step in the right direction, but I would argue that this alone is not sufficient to "qualify for a halo". To fully reach a zero CO2 emissions lifestyle, one must not only null out their personal transportation related CO2 emissions, but also their household electricity and home heating emissions, as well as all other CO2 emissions that are occurring elsewhere in society (ex: at factories/mines/farms/commercial businesses) that are necessary in order to support your lifestyle.
The average total per capita daily energy consumption by residents in the US in 2019 was roughly 250 kWh. Some of this energy comes in the form of non-CO2 emitting sources (ex: solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear), but roughly 200 kWh is due to the combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas. To "qualify for a halo" and actually live a true net zero emissions lifestyle at a moderately high standard of living (ex: "average" for the US in 2019), you therefore would need to somehow offset all ~200 kWh of combustion energy occurring in the economy, associated with your lifestyle.
This is actually quite possible and it isn't even all that difficult, based on current prices of solar panels. It also does not require a reduction in quality of life or major changes to one's lifestyle. A person can produce approximately 200 kWh of electric energy per day, by purchasing around 50 kW worth of solar panels, and installing them in a grid tied configuration, in a reasonably sunny location. However, it should be noted that grid electricity, when produced by burning coal or natural gas, has a relatively low thermodynamic efficiency, which means that 200 kWh (thermal) worth of coal or natural gas many only produces around 80 kWh of electricity. Therefore, if you simply buy enough solar panels to become a net exporter of roughly 80 kWh of electricity onto the grid per day, this will cause a reduction in coal and/or natural gas consumption elsewhere in the grid, by around 200 kWh (thermal) equivalent, which will null out your effective personal CO2 emissions. Therefore, you do not actually need to buy 50 kW worth of solar panels, as somewhat less (maybe 35 kW in a reasonably sunny location) is potentially adequate, if installed in a grid tied setup.
At today's prices, 35 kW worth of solar panels (by themselves, without installation, racking hardware, or inverters) can be purchased for around $21,000 USD (mid 2022 prices). When the solar panels, plus the inverters, racking hardware, and ancillary hardware are included, but excluding the non-CO2 emitting "soft costs" associated with installation (labor + profit + government overhead/permitting/inspections + insurance overhead, etc.), a grid tied system of 35 kW rating can be built for roughly $35,000.
If a person does not want to personally install 35 kW worth of grid tied solar equipment, they one could instead simply buy the equipment, and then just give it away for free to anyone that wants it. If you give away free solar panels and inverters, then in all likelihood, the person accepting the "free" equipment will eventually install that equipment into a system which will in fact reduce grid electricity consumption, which will reduce required coal and natural gas consumption somewhere in the economy, by a value approximately equal to 200 kW (thermal), which will effectively null out all of your personal CO2 emissions associated with your existence.
You do not need to ride a bicycle to do this. You can do this, even if you still wish to drive an electric vehicle, or even a relatively fuel efficient gasoline vehicle. If you still drive a gasoline vehicle, you will emit CO2 locally, but your gifted 35 kW worth of solar panels will still offset the production of CO2 elsewhere in an amount quite a bit larger than what your vehicle will normally emit (unless you drive a large amount of annual miles, and/or use a gas guzzling vehicle, in which case more gifted solar panels than 35 kW would be required).
Minimalist living is not required. Demanding that governments and corporations do something to make changes to reduce CO2 emissions is not required. Individuals can in fact make a difference, by effectively nulling out their own CO2 emissions, simply by purchasing ~35 kW worth of solar panels (+ inverters + racking hardware) and then doing something to cause them to eventually get deployed.
The amount of solar panels required however does depend somewhat upon where they will ultimately be installed. Residents of high latitude and/or cloudy regions (ex: Canada and Europe) would need to buy somewhat larger quantity of solar panels (probably closer to 70 kW), due to the lower performance of the solar panels when installed in relatively poor sun access locations, such as the UK or Germany.
Thanks for another great detailed overview. The only question I'm left with is around the idea that we can stay under 1.5°C by reducing emmissions when leading reviewers like Dr Peter Carter state clearly using the best available data sources, that there are already enough emmissions in the atmosphere to take us beyond 2°C. I know every bit saved is critical, but aren't we now in a place of fundamental system change rather than just switching individualised, in this instance, transport technology?
OK, but so what? 1.5°C isn't a "Danger! Do not enter" door we go through or not, it's a target to aim for, and as we're seeing from current environmental damage it's not "safe" below it anyway. Everything we do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions makes the future a little less awful, and some things aren't little. If warming is even greater than the models predict, then we have to work even harder to reduce emissions, which is in a sane world would mean the carbon tax would be even higher.
System changes only come when people demand it. That demand comes from masses /majority of people buying EVs, eating vegan, asking what the emissions are of all suppliers. Each individual causes systematic change to happen
@@cclambie indeed. Wynes and Nicholas 2017 rank the most effective actions for individuals in developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions as eat a plant-based diet, buy green energy and use it for transportation (i.e. EV) and heating, avoid flying, live car free, and have fewer children.
I don't have much money; I'm a 64 year old window cleaner. As an oldie, I can't earn like I used to, especially in this heat!
To help the environment, I have gone vegetarian.
I'd like to go vegan, but that's much more difficult (but I do have rice 'milk' instead, and use non-dairy, non-palm oil margarine - from Sainsbury's)
I'm fastidious about recycling; I wash food containers 1st, and even tear the windows off envelopes.
I also recycle cellophane etc at the Co-op, Tescos and Sainsbury's (in case you didn't know)
I hardly ever go on holiday (sadly) and when I do, I avoid taking a plane.
HOWEVER, I drive an 8 year old KIA diesel estate (as a work car) to carry ladders.
I would love to drive an EV.
However, the cost of a new EV is about 50% more than petrol or diesel; £35 > £40k!
I'm just hoping 2nd hand EVs will become much more affordable.
Of course, with skyrocketing utility bills, I wonder how much EVs will save in driving costs.
Of course, the overriding reason for EVs, of course, is to help save the planet... which, ever so slightly, is important!
But driving costs matter too; the cheaper it is, the more people will switch.
But seeing these figures makes me feel really bad, after all my efforts. 😪
I can't really afford an EV.
I just hope 2nd hand ones become much cheaper soon
Did carbon emissions of the manufacturing of all vehicles include the extraction and processing of the resources used?
They cancelled each other out so we’re omitted from calculations
@@DarrenWhittington how can they? One is much more resource intensive than the other. They don't use photosynthesis and windmills to get lithium out of the ground.
@@timhinchcliffe5372 it’s mined as an ore, like iron ore, the advantage being that it one of the most abundant chemicals in the world, the sea has unlimited amounts of it so yeah potentially a type of photosynthesis could be used to extract it from sea water if you want to look at it that way?
My confusion is the world basically shut down for 2yrs due to Covid. Personally I would have expected enormous proof points showing reduction in travel, cars, air etc, does in fact do something. However the mainstream seems to be even more alarmist now then ever. Your content is great, but something does not add up around this issue. Again really enjoy your content.
El nino. El nino is causing the already bad pre-pandemic situation to get bad enough to warrant alarmism.
I'd love to buy an EV, it's just a shame the cost of buying one is just too high for the vast majority of people.
I would like to know how long the 'life span' of the vehicles are for the findings in the studies.
Well, your cost to run the EV however will be much lower. Also, the EV has hundreds of less parts to go wrong....needs much less maintenance.
@@Floorguy1000 True, but if the interest on the £30,000 loan I'd have to take out (not to mention the repayments) will cost me more than the maintenance on my 13 year old ICE car, it doesn't leave me with many options 🤷♂
@grindupBaker it's only reverting back to the old monarchy system... just instead of Lords Dukes Barons Earls etc we have Billionaires, Millionaires and reaching middle class of smallish business owners. The rest of us are just the common peasants of old just with better living conditions, and we get to chose which Billionaire we help make richer by our blood sweat and toil.
There are some Teslas with over 400,000 miles on them and many with over 100,000 miles. They all have the original HV battery.
I have thought about this too and I think we should start converting ICE vehicles to electric, this way we won't have to manufacture an entire new car, then dispose of and recycle an old one, it will lower the cost of converting and should be much greener than buying a new electric car
The big question on my mind is this, can we as a species fix it, or is it simply too late?
we see that current warming is already bad, and our actions determine the rate of future warming. It's never too late to make the future less worse. Every little bit helps, and has this video explains switching to an EV (or better yet not driving) is not so little.
Yessss!!! E-bkes are the best. They use 100x less energy to make than e-cars, and they use 100x less energy to run. I have riden 1600km in 110 days on my VoltBike Yukon, a type of e-bike sold be a Vancouver, BC company.
I just hit 9000 km on my electric bike today and I have enjoyed every one of those kilometres. It’s fun, energizing, and very economical. I only use my car when taking passengers or the weather makes biking dangerous. However, in Canada we do need better biking infrastructure to make it safer.
I think the overall switch away from cars is the best way we can reduce emissions and it will have multiple other societal benefits.
One question I do have, is how possible is it to build enough cars to switch all fossil fuel ones quickly? I have heard that the battery production alone makes replacing all cars next to impossible.
I don't think we want to switch quickly. Would be foolish to go all BEV today only to have hydrogen work out say in 10 years. Going at a reasonable pace also lets the grid and charging networks follow demand. If either of these get behind it will lower the demand for BEVs. Mining is also something we don't want to rush. Say in 5 years we don't need some mineral. Mining is the hardest. Political resistance red tape make the lead time to open a mine very long. The US president just canceled 2 mining permits that were issued under the last administration.
Going slow also lets the existing oil companies adjust to the new market.
@@danharold3087 Does the cancelling of the 2 mining permits mean very much? What's to stop the next administration re-issuing them?
You raise a very serious issue. The government can legally decide that petrol or diesel fuelled ICE vehicles should cease production on any date they choose. What they cannot do is say they will be replaced by electric vehicles, because that choice is dependent on China. China controls around 80% of production of the rare earth elements that are required if you want to make an electric vehicle, a situation that isn't going to change significantly in the next 15 years. Neodinium, dypsoprisium etc.
It's not planning laws that are preventing mines from being opened, it's the simple fact that the most economic methods of production of REEs is when they are a byproduct of a massive mine that produces some much less exotic element. China already has such massive mines - the USA don't, and there appears to be no way of changing that economically. And China are streets ahead in Africa in forming partnerships with governments who sit on vast reserves of any element they can't mine economically in China.
It's not possible to manufacture an engine for Jet aircraft without Rhenium, because it will melt. Rhenium is essential because, along with other metals it forms an alloy that doesn't. It's worth mentioning that it isn't possible to recycle this Rhenium.
Nobody has been able to come close to showing that it will possible to produce enough of the quantites required to manufacture all the EV''s that will be needed.. Recently, manufacturers discovered it was impossible to secure contacts for cobalt over a five-year period..
Don't worry, they'll just take your car away from you. You know, 'climate emergency'
theres a central american country with a huge salt lake with enough lithium below but no infrastructure to exploit it, and there shouldnt be , maybe if we ban all the pointless shit jobs and sports,arts, etc etc people do, and design better, share information freely we can all work local doing only what society needs done and all live healthier more fulfilled lives.
Good vid that I will share. My biggest problem with all this EV stuff isn't that I don't believe it (I read environmental science so I damn well do), it's that I am a perfectly solvent single dad in rented accommodation, unable to get a mortgage, unable to fit things like solar panels etc., no chance whatsoever of buying an EV. I ride a 125cc motorcycle to work and so have a relatively small emission for my commute, but although things like electric scooters do exist (I'm talking about twist and go automatic motorcycles here), they are ridiculously pricey, uncommon and out of my reach, when they would be the perfect solution for me if they were obtainable. Similarly, a very small electric car for transporting my kid would be perfect, but don't exist in obtainable format. The problem for great swathes of the UK population in getting an EV is obtainable provision, and that is where policy should be heading. 35 grand motors are things that most of us will simply never buy.
Prices will come down eventually as production rises and technology advances.
You hit the nail on the head , most adults do have the mind of six year olds, go Biden.
I don't think it was covered in your comparison of vehicle but I quite like the idea of an ev with a small petrol powered generator. You can fit a small size battery, say 150 Mike range. In the right circumstances you do almost all you miles using the charge from the battery. But for occasional longer journey you can use the petrol generator to remove any range anxiety issues. As this does not seem a popular idea at the moment can anyone let me know if I am missing something.
It is rather ironic that in your graph a diesel vehicle has lower emissions than a gas vehicle, yet the global green movement is fighting harder to be rid of diesel vehicles than gas vehicles. In many rural areas you will not get a pure battery vehicle to work until the range can be MASSIVELY improved. I have yet to test one that can get me from home to the store 75 miles away and home again without needing to recharge along the way. Hybrids on the other hand do reasonably well, and may be a much needed middle point for several decades.
Thank you for a great video. The problem is a lot of people don't think. It's becoming more and more important to change to all electric vehicles. The flooding here in Australia has been the worst ever. We had the flood once in 100 years then once in 1000 years all within months of each other. We are now talking about having to shift complete towns. Yes it not a good outlook if we do nothing.
Thanks for including the idea at the end, that personal motorized transport like cars is probably alltogether a dead end. People tend to forget that we probably will not be solving anything, no matter the engine type, if we stick to 1-2 tons of metals for one, maybe two, passengers. It will most likely just not work.
I've had an ICE Rav4 car, and now a Hybrid Rav4. (Not the plug in type). The ICE averaged about 10 L of gas/100 km with a combo of city and highway driving. The Hybrid averages 5.6 L/100 km. That's almost a 45 percent reduction in fuel use. Seems to me that the potential benefits of HEV are better than the report states. Combine that with the significantly lower battery size and lower cost of acquisition over a BEV of the same size.
@@geon2k2 Thanks you've made a good point, and I agree that ultimately BEV will be the way to go. For me the HEV advantages (speed and convenience of filling up at gas stations, and lower acquisition cost) were important. I felt the report undersold the advantages of HEV and PHEV as an interim steps until BEVs get more practical as highway cars, and charging infrastructure improves.
One of the most important videos that I have watched in a long time! I’ll be sharing this video far and wide every time I get caught up in an ev-ice debate.
Why isn’t this more popular
Great video! Love the way you approach the issue. It's a shame it wasn't done in the 70's when it could have made a differene. We are now so far beyond so many points-of-no-return in so many positive feedback loops that all these efforts seem moot.
Never give up.
Maybe they "seem" moot, but they aren't. We can and will decarbonize.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Not so for a number of reasons. Primarily of course that these efforts are not moot, and they do make a large difference over time. This is a very long run, we haven't passed the halfway mark. Also the battery tech was not ready yet in the 1970s, we are hardly there in the 2020s. Transport will gradually take a smaller proportion of emissions.
@@jonnyaxelsson9940 Even way before the 70s, if public transit wasn't killed so every person has to buy a car for oil company wallets, we probably could have only half the problem today.
It makes intuitive sense once you learn two factors:
- electric motors are incredibly efficient compared to internal combustion engines. it's eye-opening when you look at the maximum theoretical efficiency of ICEs and the real-world efficiencies of electric motors. electric motors are so much more efficient that it even makes sense (though the impact is less) to carry around a gas-powered generator to power those motors instead of powering a mechanical drive train, so hybrids get better MPG than gas cars.
- bigger power plants (e.g. a giant coal-fired plant) are more efficient than smaller power plants (a tiny portable gasoline-powered engine)
And then two more things that are just icing on the cake:
- electrification makes it easier to switch over to green energy sources. you can't get gasoline from a windmill.
- while battery storage doesn't make a lot of sense for grid storage, its portability makes sense for EVs. but once you have those batteries distributed all over the grid, you might as well offer rebates to EV users to let the grid rebalance itself with a portion (user-controllable) of that distributed battery.
I agree that in future using electric vehicles to rebalance the grid is a really good idea. In the city that I live in electricity is $.25 per kilowatt hour but at least two utility providers give three free hours at night because they literally have no place to put the power and are happy for someone to take it away for nothing.
If you look up the $90 million Hornesdale battery in Australia you’ll see that it creates a profit of around $45 million per year which is a heck of a good investment. Utility scale batteries help the grit out in a number of ways not the least of which is preventing dangerous power spikes or power dips that can damage equipment. Reading report of the Hornsdale battery there was times when they were getting power off the grid and getting paid to take it away at a dollar per kilowatt hour. And now the policy in Australia has changed completely so that batteries are becoming a much more normal Part of every grid.
Batteries did not make sense for the grid just a decade ago, but a lot has happened and more is at the pipeline.
Look up Ambri, flow batteries and iron air batteries.
There is even a promising energy storage using compressed CO2. That makes sense as CO2 is a lot easier to liquefy than air.
Sand and rock batteries storing energy as 800 K heat is also a thing.
The question is _which_ technology will become dominant for MWh grid batteries, not _if_ they will become important :-D
@@colingenge9999 Exactly. All these people who keep telling us ‘the grid will melt if we are all driving EVs’....have no idea how the grid actually works. In the UK the National Grid have a ‘Six myths busted about EVs’....they’re the people who run the UK grid and they say a switch over to EVs will not be a problem. Most EV charging is done at night when there’s nowhere for the power to go..as you say. In the UK Octopus energy offer £0.05/kWh between midnight and 6 am. It’s a no brainer to have an EV but people still keep filling their tanks at £100 a fill....fools burning money.
@@madshorn5826 for decades pumped Hydro has been used to store electrical energy. Excess power from California is sent all the way up to British Columbia where it pumps water back into the dam reservoirs which is then released in peak demand situations and the power sent all the way back to California. Clearly some losses along the way but the dams are there already and that time as you suggested large scale batteries weren’t much of a thing.
I’d rather like compressed air storage where they’ve developed some sophisticated but efficient equipment to do the job. I believe there’s a large scale experiment in Ontario going on which shows a lot of promise. I wasn’t aware that they were using carbon dioxide but why not? I do know from my experience in fire suppression that liquid carbon dioxide requires a refrigeration system to keep it liquid. I
I’ve seen gravity towers above ground but I think that using all mine shafts would be a much better idea from a safety standpoint. I like all the new developments in batteries. I also like the high temperature underground storage that’s being pioneered in Finland which is capable of storing power over the entire winter.
Clearly there are a lot of applications and profits to be made when you look at the first Tesla battery in Australia that cost 90 million but pays back $45 million per year; there’s clearly an opportunity there. Storage is required short term from second to second and longer-term hour to hour, day-to-day, week to week and month to month. Each one of those applications will have its favorite energy storage medium with geographic availability of materials and sites being a consideration as well.
@@Swindonboy56 Agreed. Just say nothing of the joy I still experience in driving my electric vehicle after four years. It’s still exciting which amazes me. I also appreciate the quiet and freedom from vibration which is something that annoys me neurologically.
thanks for your response. It’s so nice to read from people who are talking sense and not spewing fossil fuel company propaganda. It’s amazing how often I’ve heard the same half dozen arguments over and over such as it cost more fossil fuels to build a windmill than you would ever get out of it over its lifetime which of course is a total financial impossibility but yet it’s amazing how many people believe this notion that on the face of it makes absolutely no sense. It’s like they haven’t spent more than five minutes thinking about it or reading more than one article and getting all up in arms about how we’re being screwed over by the renewable energy industry. Much the same as politics I guess.
I’ve driven an EV for nearly 4 years, so often have conversations with all sorts of folks about the merits of ownership. I usually tell them that EV’s aren’t really “green” as no manufactured product can really be green.
However, modern society has managed to build a reliance on the car that would be almost impossible to completely reverse, in that respect EV’s are a much better option than using a fossil fuelled vehicle. I started installing solar panels to supplement our energy use some ten years ago, an effort to reduce costs with the knowledge that electricity can only get more expensive. Over the years I’ve added hot water heating and later an EV to the equation. For our normal day to day driving all our charging is covered by the excess solar production, a significant saving over fossil fuels, especially now the price has risen so sharply. I appreciate that not everyone can afford an EV and solar setup, but this didn’t happen over night, it was gradually built up over a decade. We recently sold our Kona EV after 3.5 years of ownership and 67500km, only 1500 euro less than we paid new. We have completed several European road trips, at roughly a third of the cost of running an efficient (4km/100km) diesel.
If you can charge at home an EV makes a lot of sense, for those that don’t have that opportunity I’d suggest an EV with a long range and checkout very carefully the local charging facilities, or ask if it’s possible to charge at work if you commute by car. Hopefully governments will take more seriously the need for charging facilities to allow the rest the opportunity to own and charge an EV, waiting for fossil fuel companies to provide this seems a bit stupid to me, where is their incentive!?
Tesla
@@Barskor1 ?
Being "green" isn't a state, it's a comparison with alternatives. If you're going to drive, then get an EV because it's greenER.
@@skierpage yes, my point exactly.
@@guitarbackingtracks4386 Tesla is doing the best at being greener from sourcing raw materials shipping manufacturing recycling to how the EV drives their constant innovation pace is amazing for this.
A nice velomobile even with electric assistance puts almost all autos to shame :)
I think an important missed point about private passenger vehicles is cargo capacity.
A private passenger car is also a cargo carrying vehicle and, when not moving, a weather-tight storage shed.
I store my camping gear. Haven't even put up my tent, but I want to be able to get up and go in a hurry if I must.
Others store their rec gear in vehicle as well. Saves time and effort in the pursuit of fun.
This is important. Unless the electric bike revolution enables the transport of bulky and heavy items, there is no way that the vast majority of people in our automotive culture will give up their private pleasure machines.
For many, giving up their private vehicle is another step closer to an early death.
I am an owner of an E-bike and I love it. Opens up all sorts of possible short trip adventures.
However, in order to keep up with the rest of the world and for the sake of the future well-being of US Citizens much more investment in public electrified public transportation as well as bike-able and walk-able towns and cities must be made.
Consider the concept of those least attractive features of our infrastructure landscapes, the multi-lane each direction high speed stroud, not a street, not a road, but an ugly chimera of the two.
First, let's kill the stroads.
Absolutely fabulous work, as usual. Thank you!
I think this is well researched! A viable way I take is to go to work on an e-scooter each day that costs 4c of electricity each trip to work, and take an electric train between the main stations on my route. Granted it takes an extra 10-20 minutes sometimes, but if we all thought like that in my city (1.65 million) then such a large difference could be made! I think the problem is convincing those tied in their ways (Cars over shared transport) As is normal for human history. People prefer to accept comfort and ignore the consequence rather than accept the downfall of others through their actions ='(
My commute is 11km, and it's faster by bicycle than virtually any other method. E-scooter would probably have similar advantages.
I'm 60. I was car free for 30 years - big savings.
Counter argument to Just Have a Think biased argument... ua-cam.com/video/TUx8yIlKVpU/v-deo.html
Great content! I’m on my 2nd EV (handed down 1st on to one of our kids). I’m never getting another ICE car. My 2nd 2019 Bolt is used. Used EVs are available but admittedly several months of searching was required.
Drive Green is the largest EV dealership in the UK - just south of Bath and Bristol. Huge choice. They deliver.
yes, supply is still limited. that sadly keeps the prices up. will take quite some time that car manufacturers scale up enough. those who scale up now will make insane profits, those who wait until 2026 will go bankrupt.
No one cares
Counter argument to Just Have a Think biased argument... ua-cam.com/video/TUx8yIlKVpU/v-deo.html
This video is great! Answered most of my questions regarding this in probably the best way to do so. Great job
I did ditch my petrol motorbike (well it ditched me) for an Ebike (in my 60s I do need a little assistance). I love it. I went from a motorcar to a 100CC (90MPG +) Honda in 1979 but ditched that for touring bikes. My 1983/4 tour around Europe by a Guzzi 1000CC still in my mind and heart. The trick is to always look forward to what is coming next and not to live in the past. Love your optimistic look into the future. Can't wait to see what is around the corner in the next step of technology change and improvement.
have not driven in the past year. bicycle only. lowered my cholesterol to 135 from 196. i'm 70. need the exercise.
We still need to change to sharing vehicles for when we need them, and our built environments need to stop being dominated by cars in their design.
One needs to look past one's own needs. Sharing will have a place but not as much as people may think.
Just how do you build a MODERN city not dominated by car design. Again I can't take sheetrock or a new mattress home on mass transit. Not saying it is impossible but it would need a lot of work to get there from here. And it may not.
Agreed
Perhaps we can see other options. Rent or share a truck when needed. If you need to haul building supplies every day, then an electric truck might be justified (which could be shared, again another option). It is not an 'either/or' choice.
Absolutely. The negative impact of cars goes way beyond what fuel they use. If anyone doubts this, just walk round your neighborhood - cars parked everywhere. And every one of those cars needs roads to travel on and at least one other parking place. Environmental damage is more than just pollution and global warming.
Cant wait to share my car with someone who likes to f*ck in them, the smell and sticky seats will be lovely..
Unless you live and work in a place that enables you to travel everywhere by pedal cycle, local public transport and national rail, then EVs are a total no-brainer. Not just for the environment, but simply as a vehicle to drive. They are a joy to use: quiet, smooth and fun. It is unbeleivable that we are prepared to keeping buying both the fuel and the bullshit the fossil fuel companies sell.
I walk or run everywhere I go. Once you learn to quit driving, you learn to save money. Cars enable you to spend money.
you're forgetting the up front cost of an EV. currently they're way too expensive for many people. you can buy a decent used gas car to get you to work for 2-3k.. how much is the cheapest reliable used electric car? how about if you need a work truck or contractors van? in the coming decades EVs will be more widely adopted but right now they're still financially out of reach for many.
a no-brainer when you live in a privileged normal country, where I live people would have to work around around 50 years for a EV but they have to eat so saving money for a EV actually takes from 300 to 500 years.... and when that thing brakes there's no way a normal joe will fix it, you have to go to a dealership and pay with your kidney, meanwhile old petrol cars are easy to fix in your shed
I've been paying deep attention to this subject for a couple of years now. I think you've got this exactly right. I'll be sharing this. Thank you.
I have bought my last ICE vehicle. But as the carbon emissions from manufacture is a sunk cost. I drive only about 2500 km a year in retirement so I am in no hurry to replace it. But it does use 20% less fuel than my previous one. It will likely last me until they take away my drivers license. But if someone runs a light and totals my Honda I have my eyes on a VW Buzz as I expect it to be easy for getting my wheelchair in and out. I just hope no one runs into me before I can buy one. Still, I live in British Columbia on a 10 acre plot with loads of trees to make a good carbon offset. Of the 3 cars here, one is an EV already.
And great video.
As usual, the nay sayer will point out that the ICCT is biased towards EV and renewable. Always the same story. I've just given up trying to convince them. I personally ride an EV, charged with a photovoltaic installation. And I'm very happy like that.
So why not use numbers of someone who is not biased (and yes, even I take ICCTs statistics with a ... salt mine)?
Volvo (as a company who makes ICEs and EVs) released it's own numbers and while it certainly shows that EVs are generally beneficial, it was nowhere near >60%. US statistics for example show, that EVs are beneficial in California, but detrimental in some states with dirty grid.
From statistics I've seen EVs are overall cleaner, but ICCT numbers are an extreme outlier.
@@petrkubena One of the big problems with the ICCT report is that by not taking into account emissions from building factories and recycling plants and moving the vehicles to point of distribution, they are ignoring some of the biggest sources of Carbon pollutants in the value chain. The power grid in Texas, for example, is far dirtier than in other states, and it is also far less stable. Factories built where the power grids are dirty can increase CO2 production by orders of magnitude because the additional electric capacity isn't being supplied by Renewables, but by new fossil fuel facilities. The ICCT report is a total outlier from all the other analysis being done in both academic and industry studies. They are a trade association, not an Environmental Advocacy Group. The information they offer on Plug-In Hybrids is not backed by real-world data, such as the ICCT suggests. Their analysis does not reflect the difficulties in establishing mileage comparisons in all driving conditions. For example, an EV driving with the A/C in Southern California traffic will NOT achieve maximum range, regenerative breaking or not. Similarly, EVs that operate in extremely cold environments not only lose battery reliability and efficiency to cold, they also lose range due to the use of interior heating and adaptations for poor driving. There are holes big enough to sail an aircraft carrier through in the ICCT report. It has established a false set of ceteris paribus assumptions that come nowhere near reflecting real-time driving or use case conditions. The problems related to the exclusion of emissions from building factories and recycling plants for batteries adds a layer of deception so enormous it would take pages to address. The ICCT report is total nonsense.
So you ride a bicycle?
Wait so they are bias, you know they are bias and that makes people who say it is...wrong? Kind of backwards there champ.
@@jpcolindesign517 you mentioned the emissions created by building factories but are you feeling to acknowledge that gas powered vehicles need to be built in a factory as well? Even the General Motors bolt factory has 40% of its power supplied by its own solar panel Netwerk. Tesla with its efforts in solar and energy storage has reduced its overall emissions such that it is emission negative taking all of its factories into account, the extraction of all the materials and the power needed to operate the vehicles.
We have known for 50 years that burning fossil fuels was unsustainable and the argument was that there was no economic solution but now there is.
Kindly review solar thermal cooling, its very important as the majority of energy will be spent on air conditioning due to raising tempreture.
I feel like he has made a video on this before
@@MrMineHeads. Yeah, pretty sure he did.
So, please reference it.
I love regeneration ! It's so fun arriving down hill with more range capability than at start ! Eager for solar of course !
And it makes the brakes last longer.. It's a rare thing when something works so well.
Regeneration adds more parts, weight, upfront cost, and possible maintenance costs. However greater range, probable less power use, and reduced wear and tear on brakes make it worthwhile for most.
@@mikedavison3400 Are you sure regen adds that much? Isn't the majority of the hardware already there? I love one-pedal driving. By timing the point at which I lift off the throttle, I can drive around town and hardly ever use the brakes. It's great.
@@mikedavison3400 Which extra parts are you referring to? As far as I'm aware, the BMS takes the output PWM to zero, then allows the return DC from the motor to filter back through the diodes, and into the cells, roughly 70-100A at 60-70mph.
The resistive load from the battery is then usually tiered into soft, medium, heavy options.
I have a Prius Plug-in. I love the fact that the much larger battery (that, unfortunately, takes up most of the trunk) than what's in the standard Prius means that regen is great in hilly territory. Gravity is a thing.
What a relief! From the title, I was thinking, "Oh NO! There is some technical reason that EV'S are NOT going to pollute less!" ~ I am very proud of the company that I put my 30 into and retired from General Motors. They are all in to have E.V. only cars by (I think) 2030. The other new hope is about 5 huge companies, and many little startups are working on more efficient, or longer-lasting batteries. That would be a WONDERFUL improvement over the Lithium/Ion ones. Thank you from the States for another great mini-movie, Dave! ❤🤍💙
The only thing GM excels in is PR. There will be no GM as we know it today by 2030. Of course, they will spin off the highly profitable 'defense' section of their business because the Pentagon will buy anything at any price.
GM will probably not be around in 2030
Cobalt is also used to make airbags in automobiles; catalysts for the petroleum and chemical industries; cemented carbides (also called hardmetals) etc.
So far there aren’t good pure electric options for wheelchair users, especially those of us that require power wheelchairs. I have a hybrid minivan which seems to be the best option at the moment.
I've got to admit, I was wondering where you got a gas powered wheel chair for a minute 😁 but yeah that is a problem. I'm hopeful though, all the development for delivery vans for amazon and shipping companies might lead to economies of scale for producing cheap electric vans for everyone.
Can you charge your chair from the van yet ?
@@danharold3087 I can charge my chair from the van using a high-capacity inverter installed for that purpose. It's not been needed yet as I haven't taken long trips. But eventually I will need the inverter to power additional medical equipment along with my powerchair
@@MinkePDX when are people going to see that long trips should not be done ever.
@@H4N5O1O I think I see where you’re coming from. But it also sounds very very out of touch. Consider that the device you are using to read this only exists due to globalized shipping and trade. Also, it’s impossible for 100% of the population to live in an urban environment with walkable access to everything they need. Food doesn’t come from a grocery store. It comes from farms. Presently it’s only the smallest percentage of the world’s population that is affluent and privileged enough to have everything brought to them rather than the other way around. And the former are merely outsourcing their long trips to the less affluent. Please describe a means of creating a world where this kind of inequality doesn’t exist. I’d really like to know.
Quite a good report, but a few things have been missed:
Firstly is the extra weight of EVs. They are probably on average at least 20% (probably more) heavier than equivalent ICEs. This will give the same percentage increase in wear on the roads, bridges, etc. which will require a lot more maintenance, and hence pollution to fix. At least 20% more road and bridge maintenance, I'm guessing is a lot of energy.
Secondly, the tyres will require changing more often, along with other wearing parts, due to the increased stresses from the weight. What is the cost of this in increased pollution?
Thirdly, how have the recycling figures been calculated? Does the energy required to recycle an EV leave out the parts that can't yet be recycled? What happens to those parts? Landfill? It would be nice to see a comparison of the percentages recyclable in EVs and ICEs.
Fourth was the arguement about building new petrol stations and new charging points is about equal. This is ignoring the fact that we already have the petrol stations. The charging infrastructure will need to be comparable to the existing fossil fuel setup, which will take a lot of energy. I would also argue that a petrol station apart from a small electricity supply, is an independent thing, whereas charging stations need larger supplies of cables and infrastructure leading all the way to them. This is probably more pollution up front, at least.
Fifth: there is the environmental cost of charging stations with regards to the space they require. I calculated that to serve the same amount of EVs (charged to about 80% capacity) as ICEs, charging stations will need about seven times the land area.
Sixth is the drop off of efficiency with age, of both types of vehicle. An EV will need ot charge more often, after a while, which will affect the fifth point.
I can never trust a report from people who have a vested, and possibly ideological interest in pushing an agenda. I don't mean you, Dave.
Just the facts, Ma'am.😀
I suppose they miss the most simplest mid term solution - switch from gasoline to LNG which is much much more eco friendly.
@@dimav.4713 Yes, that's one option. There are plenty of other ways to reduce emissions without forcing people to buy new cars.
Making car-sharing compulsory a few times per month (fining drivers who drive alone, maybe., maximum mileage per week. No short journeys, etc. Other alternative fuels. Cutting down on flights. One big point is making air-conditioning illegal. We never died from it before. Apparetly 10-15% of all energy goes to this. That's a big instant saving for the planet. I never use air-con, even when it gets to the high 30s Centigrade and above.
Good points to analyse, but if you take away the dependency of using coal and switch to renewables as an electricity source (which is necessary and inevetible) & once you have an infrastructure of recycling and chargers in place & consider battery and EV tech are rapidly and will rapidly improve in terms of environmental impact (which will reduce cost and weight of the car); EV's will always have a dramatic positive impact on the reduction of carbon footprint compared to ICE cars in the future.
They are a bit heavier by not 20%. I bought a 2014 Ford Focus Electric, which allows for a direct comparison to an ICE vehicle. The Electric is around 3600 lbs while an equivalent styled ICE is around 3400 lbs. This means an electric is around 6% heavier. Yes, heavier but probably not 20%.
@@davidhanson8728 i just had a look, and they appear to be between 200 and 800lbs lighter than the electric versions. It will make a difference. It would be good to see a comparison of equivalent ICEs and EVs to get a more general picture. The good thing is that you can more or less calculate the environmental impact fairly accurately.
If only there would be affordable cars that you could easily get like you can with ICE. I'm okay with paying a bit more for a decent hatchback, but all electrical EVs have to offer is overpriced SUVs and luxury stuff that no regular human being can afford.
I’m an EV / VW id.3 owner since it first was available two years back now and apart from being a little like a part of a test fleet of the VW MEB-platform, it’s been a blessing now in times of war and pandemic. The superior drivetrain make driving easier. Fuel prices are no longer a problem especially now charging 80% at home at off-peak prices. Adding PV panels for daytime charging or selling the surplus expensively at daytime is actually a no-brainier. Adding V2G/L- bidirectional charging and discharging will make the car a house battery on wheels. It’s so clever!
It is a sad state of affairs that we will more than likely never reach those targets …… one thing that is never mentioned is people and the amount of co2 we produce … a study done in Spain states on average we produce 2 ton of co2 per year from food (from point of food produced to point of we excrete it…….and since 1980 till 2020 world population has increased by 3.6 billion …. And all governments don’t want to hurt the economical growth if others won’t do the same …… so we’ll have to wait and see for the proverbial to hit the fan
Doing nothing at all is definitely not the best option, and yet a great deal of effort is going into protecting the investments of those committed to doing nothing.
Likewise, a great deal of effort is going into protecting the investments of those looking to cash in on the global warming scam! Billions upon billions of dollars are out there waiting for those who have the capital to take advantage of the hysteria!
@@glasslinger Excellent. We believe in opposing scams. The universe remains balanced.😉
Counter argument to Just Have a Think biased argument... ua-cam.com/video/TUx8yIlKVpU/v-deo.html
Our 1964 GTO is still running great. If EVs can run that long without new batteries or new motors then they would be better for the climate.
If you can replace the battery in a Tesla - what is stopping someone from having the same car for 20 years?
Governments should encourage the standardisation of EV parts where possible, without compromising the underlaying technology. This would massively swing the argument in the favour of EVs
100% agree
Definitely.
You can`t make money from 20yo car
If we are not already there we are very close. It looks like the latest Tesla cars will last 20 years. 300K miles on the motor and battery. The longevity of cars has been going up. My dad talked about a Star being worn out at 20K. When I was a kid we traded them in at 60K and if they made it to 100K they were rolling junk. Now we are seeing better ICE cars making it past 200K. For an EV to go past 300K should be a no brainer. And 20 years X 15K miles a year is 300K.
@@theoneshot236 They can just less often.
This is really great. I read about this stuff all the time in various media outlets and no one has so succinctly answered this exact question.
Great video. Something that I never see discussed is the mining industry and the fact that they are slowly converting to BEV mining equipment including some mines coming on line that are 100% electric.