Are Electric Cars REALLY That Green? [New 2022 Data]
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 жов 2024
- Most of us assume electric cars are better for the environment than petrol or diesel, but new figure published by Volvo seem too suggest electric vehicles may not be as green as their internal combustion engine counterparts in the short term.
Volvo Report [updated]: group.volvocar...
www.volvocars....
Looking for your next car? Auto Trader will help make finding your next vehicle easier than ever. Compare expert car reviews and recommendations, and find your perfect car through our official UA-cam channel.
Auto Trader: www.autotrader...
Check back for the latest new car reviews on everything from SUVs to supercars, plus
✅ the latest car news
✅ top tips and car advice
✅ used and new car guides
✅ best-ofs
Subscribe for more from Auto Trader UK: bit.ly/1AqiIny
Want to be the first to see our new videos? Enable notifications
Looking for more inspiration? 🚗
• Auto Trader: www.autotrader...
• Facebook: / autotraderuk
• Twitter: / autotrader_uk
• Instagram: / autotraderuk
• Pinterest: www.pinterest....
If you really care about the environment, keep your current car and drive it untill it falls apart. Every time you buy a new car, the cost of emissions, materials, minerals are huge.
Actually scrapping your car and buying and running a brand new EV can be greener.
@@therealjpster riding bicycle is the greenest
@@jianyangkoh6386 of course it is. I don't feel this needs saying.
@@therealjpster Actually, you don't know anything what you're talking about. One person in a developed country can spend 100x more emissions/energy CO2, CO, HCx, NOx, etc, kJ, kCal, kWh in his lifetime than a poor person in a developing country. It's not just emissions from your car, it's your entire lifestyle, your house, your heating/cooling activity in your home, all your modern appliances, your vehicles, your travels, all your purchases including constantly buying new thing is a human activity measured in emission/energy.
So if you think you are "green" driving an EV, you're like many millions brainwashed to the modern consumerism. As I said if you really mean being green, move to Amazonas or Pacific islands living off the ground, using minimal modern amenities. Wake the f up.
@@TrumanBurbankFE I didn't say green, I said greener. But I agree anyway.
Reminds me of Luxembourg where 35 years ago we were told that diesel cars were the only way to go and where we even received subsidies to buy diesel engined cars. Fast foreward to around 2010 and suddenly we were being told that diesel was bad and to be avoided at all costs. The moral of the story is don't believe all the things that politicians say to you!
You can however, always trust politicians to lie.
The same mindset as global warming (which I hope gets here soon because I don’t like being cold). In the late 60s and into the 70s, we were told that the next ice age would come within the next 20 years. I only had ice in my drinks. Let’s Go Brandon.
Yes, the EU forced this directive upon everybody. Diesel drivers have been paying next to nothing for road tax here in the UK, £30/yr, whereas petrol drivers have been paying up to £400/yr - it’s a joke. Yet the diesel cars were pumping nastier stuff into our local atmosphere - diesel was cleaner overall, but only cleaner at source, much dirtier at use (where we live). My grandfather was from Luxembourg 👍😊
@@dannyboywhaa3146 my 1.9 TDI £30 Road tax :D
Don’t believe anything not even the date
It's great that an EVangelist, like yourself, Rory can be open and balanced when it comes to discussions like these - big respect for such fabulous content, dude 😎
Good thing jeff bezos built a 420 foot yacht and drives a private jet every day, goes to fuckin "space" for no reason, but I have to worry about my cars co2 lmao life isnt a tragedy, its a fucking comedy
I saw a reaport that said 60000 miles but muy 1liter Suzuki celerio skods city go use far les Lan a model 3 some thing like 240000 miles before you you equal you brake eaven
not sure that he is
@@davidwillims2004 why? Please explain
@@gingernutpreacher no sign to speak of that he is an evangelist. why do you think he is?
Rory talks a lot of sense. Well-balanced and properly thought-out views put forward. Respect.
The comments are gonna be interesting to check back on for this one 😅
🤣🤣🤣
Get the popcorn 🍿
They delete any opposing comments, ask me how I know!
@@ChromeFlakes go on then
@@ChromeFlakes You mean like 'The Guardian' - 'Facts are disposable and comments not free'?
Would be interesting to see a comparison to replacing an engine in a 15 year old car (or other major repairs) to keep it going compared to having a new car manufactured, and what sort of 'break even' number there would be. That would keep it out of the land fill, as well as reduce a lot of mining, manufacturing etc.
Spot on. Unfortunately we live in a disposable society.
I would also be interested in seeing a comparison with the impacts of getting a new battery in EV's to contrast that with engines in gas cars.
They will never allow that because if wouldn't fit in with their green ( brainwashing)agenda.
@@ShiningSakura A battery refurb, rather than a complete replacement, is usually way cheaper.
Even if you want to do an engine swap by yourself it's very hard to get the car road legal in many parts of Europe, for example, in Sweden it has been completely illegal, but quite recently it became possible but still just something enthusiasts do, and then it's usually with bigger engines..
low income individuals cannot afford to buy an EV. i'm concerned that gasoline will be a tax on the poor in the near future.
It already is 😂
@@PedroKing99 And you think the cost of petrol and diesel won't? How about when the huge taxpayer funded subsidies currently offered to the oil industry on an annual basis finally come to an end? Expect your fossil fuelled car to cost 4 or 5 times as much to run when that happens...... driving an EV will always cost less in "fuel" than an ICE car.
Volvo released the study in the name of transparency. It gives the numbers that people can actually refer to, and does so in an impartial way. This is what we need more of.
Volvo is moving towards full electric. It’s foolish to believe they’d be entirely impartial.
@@paulwilliams667 and yet their report was actually quite critical of going full electric, showing that a balance is required as BEVs aren't inherently greener than ICEs; it depends a lot on how long you plan on keeping it, how many miles/km you intend to run, and how green the energy matrix of your country is. If your country generates most of its energy by coal or oil, the time needed for your BEV to become greener is much longer.
@@ikemotosystems1434 That's my point! They ARE biased towards green energy and their report still isn't conclusively EV>ICE.
Once you take into account the mining processes, lack of recyclability and energy expenditure to transport raw materials, EV tech is absolutely awful for the environment. There shouldn't even be a debate on this subject. EVs won't be viable until solid state batteries or similarly efficient tech is widely available.
@@paulwilliams667 Ah gotcha! Thought you were referring to the report being biased! Completely agree. I do believe EVs will be the future of mass individual transportation, but only when we can actually solve the issues of making them having a huge impact on the environment.
Ironically, Toyota is the one who is experimenting and developing solid state battery tech. The one company Tesla fans love to shit on and predict the doom of, are likely positioning themselves to eclipse Tesla in the fight for the BEV future.
You're absolutely right that efficiency of EVs is a key to reducing overall impact. My 2017 Hyundai Ioniq Electric gets 5 miles/kWh, where the new Hyundai Ioniq 5 only gets around 2.5 miles/kWh, because it's huge, heavy and not aerodynamic! That's going backwards...
Totally agree. My i3 was much more effecient, interesting and clever but flopped due to high manufacturing costs, put BMW off the efficiency route. Hopefully manufactures will soon wake up and rid us of the horrible SUV trend. Mercedes vision eqxx looks much more like the way to go
As an Ioniq 5 owner I can confirm that is less power efficient then the OG ioniq. But my energy consumption hovers somewhere around 3.2 miles per kWh. And it's winter here so it will increase as temperature will rise.
@@Levdbas Pleased to hear that your consumption figure is better than the one I've heard. Still room for improvement though.
But on the other hand. More people are likely to take notice of and get the new Ioniq because, they actually look pleasant and let's face it, aesthetic does influence interest and consumption.
yes, but thats the same as comparing a 1.2L car with a 3L ICE car. Ionic 5 is luxury in comparison and therefore a lot bigger and heavier.
In Soviet Union, when I was a child, I remember that there were no junkyards for cars. As Cars were deficit, they always got repaired and put into use again and again, and again. When the Soviet Union collapsed, we started to import 15 to 25 year old cars from the West and drove them happily, since those cars were much better than Lada and Moskvitch, which we were accustomed to. Where I am heading with this? Well, now I wanted to remember my youth and recently bought a 35 years old Volvo 740 and realised two things: 1) It is simply impossible that 35 years old electric car cold be operational, while Volvo of the same age can be used daly with no problem nicely. 2) It is much more greener to buy used car, then to buy a new electric car, since, utilising any car and especially an electric car, it pollutes. So, if we want to pollute less with our cars, buy used, fix old, make manufacturers produce less and at the same time more durable and long lasting cars.
There is a local company near me that takes those 10 year old Nissan leafs (still run but have shorter range) and replaces the batteries from newer wrecked cars which ends up giving the older cars further range than when they were new.
EVs can be put back on the road too.
Plus you get it all cheaper. But so called "desiders" don't or don't want to understand it.
Pepole call this "green transformation" greenwash.
I’m sure exhaust from that 35-years old car is lovely, fresh air.
And all fuel that was burned is also green and all flowery.
I owned 740 and 940 Volvos and I know what you mean BUT Teslas are going further , with far less maintenance, than those cars . . Another thing that ICE does not count is the carbon foot print of the Oil Chance, Muffler, Brakes and the thousands of other ICE parts . .
So many wrong conclusions, my friend... :) That volvo already polluted >3 lifecycles of an electric car, and I don't see why a 35y old 740 would be more reliable than a 35y old electric car. All this is coming from a volvo fan who had 7 volvos, so I can hardly be called an EVangelist :)
I’m glad you identified that electricity production is getting greener & battery production will too. On the flip side, crude oil is becoming dirtier to obtain. Here in the U.S. we’re using off-shore drilling which has had massive spills & fracking which decimates the environment.
China just built, the largest coal plant ever. They promised to “start reducing” coal burning, by 2025.
At the current rate, it won’t matter.
@@billpetersen298 Maybe its needed for a stable wind turbine and solar cell production :)
@@bingoberra18 It’s not needed, by any measure. Once the pollution is out there, it’s not going away. China had a rural agrarian economy. (Low impact). They could have learned from the mistakes of developed nations. And developed, I a manner, that was slower, but more thoughtful. Especially, including ethnic, and religious diversity.
Windmills and solar panels are also not green, or good for the environment. They add another layer, to what was done before. Polluting less, is good, but not after you’ve wrecked the place.
@@billpetersen298 China absolutely needs to be taking more action, but we should not forget countries like Australia or Canada that produce 2.5x as much CO2 per population.
Try not to worry the oil is slightly radio active and the water in it is put back in the ground under pressure and just like in a engine block it cracks the surrounding material thus creating earthquakes and the water can an does seep into your water supply....
I'm not overly concerned about the green-ness honestly. Instant torque is fun and easy to use. I have ample solar on my roof so it's free to drive. When I subtract gas and maintenance costs from my truck to my EV, I come out ahead.
Great presentation on this. One thing I didn't hear mentioned unless I just missed it is about what happens once an EV's battery has reached it's life cycle. If it becomes another thing that that has to be disposed of them that comes with additional environmental and cost impact. If they can somehow be recycled then there likely is still environmental and cost impact but in a different way.
Lithium batteries can actually be recycled, it's just not easy and thus expensive so you don't see much of it. This is absolutely something governments need to invest in significantly since it's obvious corporations will not due to it not being very cost effective for them.
@@Enclave. This is part of my point of how that needs to be factored in to any comparison of an EV being 'greener' than other options.
@@dieselmutt8865 Well of course, I didn't say it wouldn't. In fact I commented earlier on this video this: "I've been saying for years that an EV making sense depends largely on where you live. Where I live? Over 90% of my electricity is "clean" as it's from hydro power instead of burning fossil fuels. An EV makes a LOT of sense for where I live, a hell of a lot of sense. But you head somewhere that gets most of their energy from say coal burning? Becomes a lot more murky."
Regarding the recycling of li-ion batteries though, it's a bit ridiculous that governments aren't going hard on the recycling of them, it's a limited resource and it's a resource that we use in so many industries that goes FAR beyond just EVs. Government investment into the recycling of lithium batteries is something that should have been going on for decades now once they started becoming the dominant form of energy storage in the consumer market.
@@Enclave. Governments do not have to go after recycling of batteries... Companies are emerging that take up the recycling of batteries, tons of valuable materials in batteries, and when done properly the recycled materials are more pure then from new mining, so battery manufacturers are happy to buy it from them for a good price.
Redwood materials and Umicore are growing battery recycling companies and making good money out of this, no need for subsidies. Tesla and VW are so big they can take up the recycling of batteries by themselves, both Telsa and VW are investing in this.
EDIT 21-04-2022: Actually we learned during the Q1 earnings call, that Tesla is ALREADY using *50 tons per day in recycled materials* for production of their cars (not only batteries but a lot of Aluminium scraps too)
Panasonic making the 2170 battery cells in the Tesla Gigafactory in Nevada, is also already using recycled battery materials, delivered from Redwood, so it is already happening! (just google Panasonic and redwood recycling, and you will see a bunch of articles about this)
They also need to make the batteries cheaper, as the used buyers will not be able to afford a new one and the car will end up in the junkyard.
It would be great if there was also a conversation about the environmental impacts not directly related to CO2, such as the ecological impact of mining for the raw materials and the real world battery disposal/recyclability. Dealing with damaged batteries such as in crashes are also a major issue which we don't seem to want to talk about.
Been saying this for years.
I also have a question as to why so little investment in comparison is put into clean energy through water seeing as we live on a water based planet.
There have been numerous water powered cars over the years using frequencies to separate the hydrogen and oxygen. But quite strangely the creators always seem to die under mysterious circumstances and their work just disappears. 🤫
@@78KRS really interesting what you wrote, going to check this out… see what I can find 😉 thank you
@@AgnesVivarelli1966 Are you talking about Stanley Meyer? I watched a UA-cam video "5 inventers who died mysteriously". A Russian guy invented a plasma battery that powered his house for a year, he disappeared without a trace and men in black confiscated his devices
Germany's Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) has created the Grimmer-Saravia process, enabling a highly eco-friendly way of mining from lithium in geothermal plants; existing facilities. No need to take months and months and millions of square kilometers and destroying fresh water supply and polluting the land. We will discover new methods in the future, whereas ICE is a dead end. We know that. We've put in trillions over the last one and a half century.
Also, as for recycling Redwood Materials is doing great.
"It would be great if there was also a conversation about the environmental impacts..." you said. You could have found these solutions being worked on by simply Googling it, and discussing it here down in the comments, or writing your own blog, shooting your own UA-cam vlog or even shouting it off your rooftop.
@@keithmarshall7715 yeah he's one of the water car guys probably the most well known.
That 90,000 mile figure just shows how terrible Volvo is at producing BEVs. They need to design a BEV from a clean sheet. The Tesla Model 3 break even point is 5,340 miles on average in 2020 and will get better over time.
Two observations - don't always believe the data Tesla put out. Often it's fake news, or there is asterix which you need to read to get the real information. e.g. Their '0-60' * for their Performance models includes a one foot roll out, so it's actually about 6-60mph.
Secondly, the break even point for the TM3 is only 5k miles if you include all the trees and carbon credits Tesla plant and sell. Just the car takes much longer, around 30k miles, the real figure depends on how green the electric is which the owner is putting into it.
@@SDK2006b That 5k miles is real hard data based on reality, not some random figure of a youtube comment. Go read Tesla's 94 page 2020 Impact Report. The only people calling it fake news are those being disrupted by Tesla, namely TeslaQ's disinformation campaign.
@@alsmith358 - ALERT Tesla Fanboy spotted 🤣
I read that document and am entirely familiar with the numbers. You need to look at what Tesla include in the calculation to get to that 5k miles.
Please step away from the Tesla brainwash !
@@SDK2006b ALERT Science denier spotted! You clearly didn't read it. Have fun in your polluted world.
As a result, it is not uncommon for the carbon footprint of the use phase to be
underreported by up to 50%.
Analysis of sustainability reports by auto OEMs shows unrealistic assumptions for both vehicle life and annual
mileage. For those that disclose their methodology we have found that vehicle life is often estimated to be as low
as 10 years and annual distance traveled by vehicles as low as 6,200 miles. This compares to an average life of 17
years in the U.S. (20 years in Europe) and 12,000 annual miles in the U.S. (and 7,450 in Europe). When taken
together, even before considering the impacts of using real-world MPG instead of NEDC, WLTP or EPA ratings, this
leads to a drastic under-reporting of Scope 3 emissions.
5.0 million metric tons of CO2e savings
To estimate CO2e savings, we first measured the amount of miles driven and kWh of electricity generated at the
state, province, and country level for 2020. We then applied an emissions savings factor (in gCO2e/mi for miles
driven and gCO2e/kWh for electricity generated), for each state, province, and country. For miles driven, the
emissions savings factor is the net of estimated emissions from our vehicles and an ICE with a real-world fuel
efficiency rating of 25 mpg. The emissions savings factor is based on grid emissions intensity in each respective
location and includes upstream emissions from the production and transport of fuels.
We modeled vehicle emissions savings for the U.S., E.U. + EFTA and China, which account for ~90% of miles driven
globally. We then scaled the savings to account for 100% of miles driven by dividing by ~90% and arriving at a
global estimate for 2020.
Global Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions by Economic Sector
For simplicity, select categories were combined based on similarity of emissions source. Emissions from Agriculture
were combined with emissions from Land-Use Change and Forestry under the label “Agriculture, Land-Use Change
and Forestry.” Emissions from Industrial Processes were combined with emissions from
Manufacturing/Construction under the label “Industry.” Emissions from Waste, Fugitive Emissions, Other Fuel
Combustion and Bunker Fuels (U.S.-only) were combined under the label “Other Energy.”
Scope 1, 2 and 3 Emissions Definition
Scope 1 emissions are direct emissions from owned or controlled sources.
Scope 2 emissions are indirect emissions from the generation of purchased energy.
Scope 3 emissions are all indirect emissions (not included in scope 2) that occur in the value chain of the reporting
company, including both upstream and downstream emissions. Emissions from the use of a company’s products are
included in Scope 3.
5,340 miles
At the moment, the manufacturing process of a Model 3 results in slightly higher
GHG emissions than an equivalent combustion engine vehicle. However, based on
the global weighted average grid mix, a Model 3 has lower lifetime emissions than an
equivalent ICE after driving 5,340 miles.
Estimate is based on the difference in CO2e emissions from the manufacturing phase on a Fremont-made Model 3
and an equivalent ICE which is then divided by the net CO2e savings per mile from a Model 3 versus an equivalent
ICE. Net CO2e savings are based on delivery-weighted global grid mix.
69 tons: Lifetime CO2 emitted by an average combustion engine vehicle (model year
2020) sold in the U.S. through its use phase, excluding CO2 emitted during the oil
refining phase.
Figure based on EPA's real-world (5-cycle) testing result of 25.7 MPG across all manufacturers for model year 2020,
which equates to 344gCO2/mi, and 200,000 lifetime miles. Excludes CO2 emitted during fuel production and
transportation.
Note: the EPA's real-world testing cycle is not the same as owner-reported MPG sourced from Consumer Reports.
The best option at the moment i think is to keep using existing cars and to try and keep them going for as long as possible. Maybe try and make it easier a cheaper to repair existing cars aswell.
Having your car today would be worse in 10 years than if you bought an EV. This is also true when the battery is replaced, according to another video by Engineering Explained who considers the worst case scenarios for EV's and battery replacement.
@@Jimsimi Buying a new EV is way worse for your average consumers wallet.
If you have an existing car that's running fine, passes emission inspections and is not a completely absurd gas-guzzler, I don't think it's environmentally good to scrap it in favor of a hybrid or EV. Keep that thing running and put off the lifecycle costs of producing a new car for as long as possible. But it's more a question of what to get for your next vehicle when the time eventually comes.
Unfortunately we live in a world where NEW rules and its sooo easy to get loans credit pcp etc to enable stupid people to have everything lastest thing TODAY and in 6 months when they have ragged it about on cheap tyres and crap fuel trade it in for the next punter who can actually afford a decent car... They do it all over again along with the lastest i phone blah blah.
Hence why the planet is in such a pickle.
This EV fad is just another short term plaster to fix the issues and line the big player's and governments pockets.
By definition existing ICE cars will become more and more expensive to repair. It's the nature of such vehicles to suffer wear and tear in any number of important components. Having owned ICE cars for 20 years and an EV for six years I can attest to the MASSIVE savings in maintaining a car and fuelling it. ICEs just can't compete.
Interesting but it’s also important to work out how often that original owner will drive that EV long enough to reach that offset point? What if they need to replace the battery pack before that point? The clock gets pushed back since the batteries make up most of the negative impact. Or if they sell it after a couple years and buy a new model and so on. I’m glad Volvo did this report but there are numerous secondary effects that I think aren’t fully accounted and the true cost is a bit more. I hope more great advancements are made and this was a very good presentation.
Totally agree with you on the battery replacement part. Not so much on the trading the car off early part because if the original owner isn't driving it hopefully someone else is and possibly that's someone who can't afford a brand new one or simply chooses not to buy new, or a first time EV owner that wants to try electric without that new car cost. So the miles on that car will still counting. I agree with his point and it's the one that i think is possibly the most important one... How the electricity is produced is to me the most important part of all of this. Along with much better batteries
@@heavenleigh111: Components age. LIke my parents 30 years ago, I don't drive much in retirement. Especially with the desire to be greener and with the Covid-19 pandemic recently (and maybe long term for those of us lacking youthful immune systems).
So If I keep my 2017 Camry for 15 years but only drive it 45,000 miles it won't be dead, but I wouldn't count on it lasting as long at 12K miles a year with a new owner as I would a car only 3 to 4 years old.
This is good info to have. I just assumed "BEV is better" re CO2, but since I live in coal country for electricity (dark red state and local electric utility runs purely on coal), it might make more sense for me to be patient, and to buy a good, efficient, HEV next time, or maybe a PHEV with a moderate sized battery. Because it's seldom I drive much over 50 miles in a day anyway.
Very good point, was thinking the same thing regarding the battery replacement, not to mention the toxic gases given off by decomposing batteries
@@rogergeyer9851 2 other major points this video mentioned a bit, but did not evaluate. Firstly, the study claimed a "life" for the vehicle of only 124k miles, but only compared the emissions across 90k miles. 124k seems dreadfully short to assume for a battery life or any other life of the vehicle, and it brings up point 2. Secondly, he notes that the vast majority of the carbon footprint for the BEV is in manufacture of the battery, so this brings up a HUGE uncounted carbon cost which would set the EV way back, and perhaps below the ice once again. The Ice may keep steadily climbing as the mileage goes up, but the BEV adds huge stepping stones every time a battery needs to be replaced. OR, its valuable life simply ends, and you are assumed to replace the entire car with brand new manufacture. Where the ice just keeps going for the carbon cost of fuel and maintenance.
It also brings up what q mentions... what is the carbon cost for disposal and/or recycling of the batteries? Should that not be added? The ice engine simply gets melted down with the rest of the vehicles metals, but the rare earth materials in the batteries need to be recovered.
I was to make my comment, but you already said it. So, I too think one thing missing here is the battery longevity. Petrol cars can run for decades until the body starts literally rusting off. I'm not convinced any battery can go over ca. 7 years without needing an expensive replacement, hitting the green graph to new low again. EDIT: And I know there are people saying it's okay to lease a car for 5 years anyway. But if you look at the used car market, there are LOADS of petrol cars 10-15 years of age that look fairly modern by all design standards and based on climate run well. Mostly only lacking in digital monitoring-controlling screens etc. I remember someone reviewing a used semi-luxury car and saying all good, but no USB charger plug...
As someone who made the switch from ICE to EV 3,5 months ago and advocated for EVs for a while now I was a bit miffed at first seeing this video. But if I take off my EV glasses for a moment I once again have to agree: EVs have still a way to go to become as green as they are advertised to be. But depending on where you live and how much you drive this break even point isn't that far away. I personally estimate that by the time the initial lease (3 years) for my Corsa E is over I should have reached or maybe even passed the break even point, considering the electricity mix here and my average mileage per year. Thanks for this excellent report, keep them coming.
it can take as little as 3 months in the UK to break even
I also enjoy listening to Rory Reid as I rate him as a fair and balanced journalist. My Fiat 500e will receive around 60% of its charging from my solar PV system and it has a much smaller battery than a large SUV, so I'm not sure how it would compare with (say) an ICE Fiat 500 hybrid bearing in mind that over half of grid electricity here in Scotland comes from renewables.
@@briangriffiths114 Fair to say (as pointed out in the video) that a lighter EV with appropriate battery size/range is more beneficial - and a 500 vs 500e would be a similar comparison to what Volvo have done. The kicker here would be:
A) What are the realistic lifetime emissions for YOUR particular 500e vs if YOU would've been driving a 500?
B) Where did the "Italians" source the materials for YOUR 500e, and to what extent did they seek to protect the environment in that particular geographic area in order to protect (and benefit) the locals long-term?
Fair?
@@wahaha6961 All very good points. I do not get the current trend for large and very powerful cars (whether ICE or BEV) that can usually do 0-60 in under 6 seconds but I seem to be in the minority. Having never driven a BEV prior to the Fiat 500e, I am impressed with it and intend to keep it for a very long time.
@@briangriffiths114 In 2020 97.4% of electricity consumption was from green sources in Scotland. I think your 50% is all energy consumption, including gas etc… for EV’s in our country we are are doing well from a green electricity generation standpoint.
A nuanced and reasonable discussion on a contentious topic? Tell me it isn't so!
Seriously though, this was an enlightening video and hats off to Volvo for the study, even if people don't like its conclusion. Volvo has identified room for improvement and it's important to note how quickly technology and industry changes the equation.
What I don't like is people claiming Volvo had some agenda and that they want to keep their ICE vehicles around. That's not the case. Volvo has very specific plans of phasing out their ICE cars and it is more aggressive and quicker than most so-called legacy companies. No, Volvo did a study to get information out. And people can accept it or not. But there's nothing wrong with others studies being done as well.
@@benjaminsmith2287 I think they're just studying for the sake of studying. it's not for determining their future or anything, just sharing some info yknow
Listening to your report was a joy, as you were obviously not taught English at an American school. Your wording was concise, with brevity in mind, and pronounced properly. American students are not even taught to write in script anymore.
I’ll be sticking with ICE until it’s no longer an option. Loving my M2 CS.
goeingdriver29: Your ilk is why I'd like to see the government make the CO2 taxes on gasoline and diesel about 20 bucks a gallon. If you're going to be the biggest part of the problem as long as legally possible, you might as well pay to help clean up the mess you insist on making.
Every thing in a grocery store is there thanks to oil!
@@rogergeyer9851 did you even watch the video?
@@keithmueller1448 and it all used to be there due to horses and wagons too, so does that mean we should not move on?
I applaud Volvo for being open about this issue, a lot more than anyone can say for other mainstream manufacturers. The lifespan of an EV and how it's charged are really what's important: ICE cars, for their entire lives, pollute, after already polluting in the manufacturing stage, whereas EVs at least have a break-even point, and a Chinese-made EV operated in Poland may take near 100K miles to hit that point, whereas a Swedish-built EV driven in Norway could hit that point with its first owner and then every owner after that is getting places with minimal to no impact on the environment. These studies also take a look at the data from EVs that already exist and have been on the road for years as opposed to what's being produced now. Let's face it, Tesla isn't a super green company, and their battery tech has improved, so disappointing stats from 10-year-old Model S cars can be discounted as the vehicles being produced today are more efficient, use better tech, and will have longer lifespans, *especially* if their battery is replaced somewhere around the 100K mile mark.
How many miles are batteries rated for. Do they include figures for any gradual degradation? What about the point when it's time to change the battery. Before I heard it was every 10-15 years or so but perhaps it's longer now.
Totally, and I think this also shows that to really improve the greener-ness of EVs, manufacturers need to focus on reliability and lifespan. Batteries should last longer, as they'll be the biggest replacement and the one that hurts the environment the most. But mostly make EVs that can go half a million kilometers +. Not to continue the trend where it seems like all cars are made for the first buyer, and then no one cares if they go to the scrap yard after 200k kilometers. Who cares if the second owner drives with an eco benefit if they have headache after headache with all the electrical faults or rust.
Small sample size but all the Teslas I have checked for degradation seem to have lost less than 10% range over 150-200,000 km. Leafs much more of course, I have a 190,000 km gen 1 leaf and it has dropped to 59%
I also tested a 300,000 km electric taxi that had 98% battery remaining on a fairly odd and heavy battery chemistry.
@@integralhighspeedusb what is the price difference between your leaf and a similar generation Tesla ?
No impact on the environment means the electricity and the tires are all green. Do they come from a recyclable source yet?
Volvo did it because they genuinely care about the environment as a whole. That's commendable.
If Volvo really cared about the environment maybe they would make efficient cars rather than great big SUVs that require a 100kwh battery to get sufficient range.
@@paulheelis4798 that is a pretty silly remark.
@@Nnomadd really? Can you explain why please?
If they cared they would stop making cars
Greta told them to.
I would like to see the impact of the battery replacement at the 5-year & 7-year points. Given that most ICE engines last well over 200,000 miles, that makes for 2-4 battery replacements if driven 10,000 miles a year, 20 years. Most people won't go for the cost of a battery, so the car gets scrapped. The ICE car just keeps rolling, or sold, and still keeps rolling. Environmental impact changes dramatically.
Current batteries nominally last at least 100K miles (and 8 years), but that means the degradation is about 20%-10% after 100k miles driven. (measured on high mileage Tesla Model 3 cars, degradation is closer to 10%, but it would be a little bigger if the same distance was driven under 10 years)
So only one battery replacement is necessary if you want to keep high mileage. But probably it could last for 15 years, or 150K miles, if you are fine with a range of 200 miles (for lowest mileage Model 3)
@@adamrak7560 I know over 8 EV (Chevy & Tesla) owners in this area (Knoxville TN). Three have had to have battery replacement in less than 6 years. I am talking about the cars range being seriously degraded, unable to make it even 100 miles. Others are pretty happy but only drive 20-40 miles most days (to and from work).
@@raybergeron2999 there are a few percent outliers, but that is not the norm. I have looked at large statistics collected from many cars, and there are some with significant degradation, but the majority is following a nice curve, which points to about 10% degradation after 100K miles.
I have looked at only Tesla data, they seem to have fewer battery problems nowadays than others. I expect the other manufacturers to quickly get up that level too.
(also I have not looked at anything which is older than Model 3 because those are too few to be relevant. So the statistics would be worse if we include the oldest Model S-es. Battery tech improved a lot in the last 10 years.)
(40 miles a day is more than 100K miles after 8 years, so that is close to the expected values)
one thing to keep in mind, as it stands, comparing ICE with BEV as equals with similar footing is wrong, more like comparing a senior, that had literally a 100 years to get its act together and develop infrastructure pitted against a student, that that has far more promise, but has some hicups to address, before going trully toe to toe. For example, battery tech grows so rapidly, that every year there is a need to re-check the progress, as previous faults are either lessened or solved entierly, ICE cars have just gotten increasingly more complicated to gain a few percent of efficiency (still @ just ~30%, against 90-95% efficient BEV motors). Every year electricity becomes greener, gas doesnt, infact gass gets more increasingly difficult to obtain and gass leaks pose serious additional environmental threats along the calculated ones. Also, gass can not be manufactured by anyone like electricity and that poses a threat to be as a bargaining chip in a trade war or an actual war, like with Russia. Every year new developments on battery recycling in large scale are developed and well financed and it is a known fact that 97% of the battery can be recycled, the tech is in scaling phase, not long before it is mandatory by law for manufacturers to have a recycling program in place. Infrastructure also is developing at a rapid pace, from 0 to now in just 10 years. By the way, battery packs consist of cells, if there is a bad cell, the whole battery pack doesnt need to be scraped, it is possible to change out the bad cells and mount the battery back into a car.
@@atistiltins6163 Wrong, and wrong bud. Just wrong. You have no idea, maybe do a little more research on battery packs, and if you look into things a little more you'll find clean energy isn't really all that clean.
A good discussion at the end. As pointed out in the video, what this study shows me is 1) Battery production needs to get cleaner and cheaper - which is something everyone is working on already and 2) our energy grid needs to move more towards renewables and away from coal. Unfortunately in my area, the local power companies have managed to get legislation passed over the years that really strangles the ability of consumers to put in things like solar panels on their homes. That needs to change.
"Unfortunately in my area, the local power companies have managed to get legislation passed over the years that really strangles the ability of consumers to put in things like solar panels on their homes. " Wow!!
Wow? What country is it?
@@jonasweber9408 The good old USA. Laws governing things like solar panels on your home vary wildly from state to state. Some, like mine, have very anti-consumer focused laws courtesy of the power company and their lobbyists.
@@JookySeaCpt damm that’s not cool
@@JookySeaCpt the US government is in general anti-consumer tbh
I'd like to see the additional cost of replacing batteries and their disposal added to this figure as well.
Didn't even look at the report, did you. Not that it's very detailed it's in their page 42.
@@michaelthomas7898 Its the artificial life-time mileage limit used in the report that is the biased problem to support electric vehicles. That's why they released the report as it just favours electric cars. If they were honest about vehicle lingevity and ownership of petrol cars then the curve swings the other way again.
@@captaincrash12 You're not even close. Nothing gets better with age except whisky and wine.
@@michaelthomas7898 Steel Chrome bumper cars will be around long after our plastic cars are waste. You know it. Maybe drink your wine on your steel car picnics and run whisky in the boot for profit. :)
@@captaincrash12 Cars haven't been built with chrome bumpers for almost 50 years now. Think about it.
65'000 miles from even a small high efficiency ICE car like a Ford Focus releases 14 metric tonnes of CO2, the same range on a similar sized electric car like a Nissan Leaf releases barely 4 metric tonnes, it takes some incredible torture of the numbers to get such a large difference in manufacturing carbon footprint.
The "trick" Volvo is pulling is using an extremely large battery manufactured in the most environmentally damaging way possible but without the equivalent for the ICE car they use for comparison. Like an aluminium engine block could be made in the same country as the battery (where most electricity comes from coal power stations) and get similarly massive carbon footprint costs.
Always good to see a real discussion, that takes into account arguments on both side and doesn’t downplay the reality of a complex issue. I’m curious, does anyone know any data on power/mileage loss for EVs over time? All batteries wear out, with diminishing returns especially after many uses and recharges. I’m assuming an EV must get significantly worse “mileage” at 75K miles compared to when it rolls of the line.
So Tesla's have gone past 500k (miles) and only been diminished to 80% battery density. Thats 800,000km... so not that much at all. Kind of crazy to realize that we are at a time where the battery and drivetrain last that long without any maintenance. Bear in mind that this is early on battery tech, its only been 13 years since Tesla was created and the whole auto industry started switching over only a few years ago. ICE has had 100 years and the best it can do is tons of maintenance, maybe 400,000km with some major maintenance and only 30% efficiency from the tank to the wheels. In 10 years it'll be an embarrassing comparison between electric and ICE when you factor in all the competition that will be ramped up in that time.
What they don't tell you is the battery replacement cost which is 2/3 of the original car price & costs in very rare metals mining are high!!
Not to mention we only have a certain amount of rare earth metals hence the name rare earth, the EV dream is exactly that "A DREAM" it's not practical for the long term a bit like "GREEN ENERGY" actually
Great material as ever, and I love the future forward slant at the end! Thanks for being one of the few reviewers who publish thought provoking content like this.
Interesting and enlightening. I wish he could have spent some time on the other pollution factors besides only CO2 that effect the balance, such as the materials and methods used to gather raw materials and the environmental costs of those. Battery manufacturing is a pretty dirty business, as is oil extraction and refining. Also, what long term effect is there on recycling/retiring these batteries. All of this needs to be compared to get a balanced look. These are huge decisions that affect us all in long term ways. We need to make our decisions on data and logic, not emotion.
Thats part of the report.
I guess that's on thing that I didn't here addressed is when the batteries need to be replaced then the EV cars would take another big hit as far as pollution! Didn't here that factored in !
and solar cells use coal in the process ......
Need better mass transit
C02 is a natural gas that plants feed off and can be offset by fast growing trees, renewable energy and electric vehicles produce toxic by product far worse than C02 like you mentioned with batteries etc.
Most of the world’s renewables are made in China by Uyghur slave labour and coal power plants are used to power those factories there made in. Than there is the toxic by product produced during manufacturing, repairing and disposing of renewables.
Alongside EV’s having the exact same toxic by product from manufacturing, repairing and disposing of EV’s themselves.
Than there is the growing cost of disposing of EV’s, batteries and renewables which will cost tens of millions annually.
I wonder if they took into consideration the average lifespan of the batteries?
It is generally considered to be just under 65,000 miles before they need to be replaced.
Then you have the cost to get the batteries replaced, and a huge spike in the carbon footprint to make the new batteries. Not to mention disposing of the old batteries.
That's bogus, the expectation of short battery life were entirely speculative and the speculation has proven to be wrong.
The drive to get new batteries is because better batteries are invented that give an improvement, not that there is substantial loss.
@@Treblaine Source?
@@conceptobject everything has a life cycle, just its nowhere near as short for car batteries as people assumed.
It depends on the environmental conditions
@@Nobere The warranty period for the batteries is typically 100'000 miles.
To offer a warranty like that and not be ruined by claims the typical lifespan must be much much more than 100'000 miles.
Something to also consider, when the batteries are at the end of their useful life, replacement batteries will be needed. So the footprint will massively increase again over I.c.e. cars.
Cold climate areas will have higher degradation on batteries further diminishing e.v. vehicles useful life span.
True but one thing that wasn't clear in this video is if the "lifetime" figure was taking into account electric energy production only using fossil fuels, or renewables, or both. And one thing that I'm also curious about is if we're taking macro things into account like battery production, are we also taking into account things like oil production and transportation into the figure?
Who said all cars have to be electric?
@@Tron08 Good point i always wondered if those figures are put into it. Fossil fuels definitely have an infrastructure that has to be taken into account.
Probably the most important thing i think of all the time is the efficiency aspect of it. ICE are only 1/3 efficient of a steam turbine. Which makes an electric vehicle charged with fossil fuels just about 3 times as efficient. So for ever mile you drive in an ICE you could drive 3 in an electric car on the same amount of fossil fuels. Basically we could triple fossil fuel reservers if everything was electric. If we need to use fossil fuels then steam is the best option all around.
@@Tron08 If you watched the video, that was all calculated in. Try watching from 5:25
EV cars are dangerous, if you get a car crash they cough fire in seconds (i saw one myself) and also could kill you by high voltage discharge even when stopped
The 'Well to Tank' comparison between the two is one of the most persuasive arguments. Oil rig to oil refinery to oil tanker (ship) to oil tanker (road) causes massive polution every step of the way. Compared to wind or solar generated electricity distributed at the spped of light down a cable!
this
Yeah sure if you live in europe. In my country, South Africa, our power mix is like 80% coal, in that case a EV will never match an ICE.
Its not that simple at all. What are solar panels and wind mills made out of, and where did that material come from, and what maintains those green systems? Fossil fuels. Again, it reduces local pollution, but it doesn't delete pollution as it has to be manufactured in the first place to produce green energy.
@@uni4rm Yes it actually is that simple. Because if you wanna play that game you also have to ask, where does the steel for the oil platform, the oil tankers and the trucks comes from? All creation pollutes, but we have the choice between creating something that only pollutes when created, or something that keeps polluting even after it is created.
It's actually that simple.
@@TheSaltyAdmiral Good point.
Have you factored in battery replacement? I have a 26 year old car and 41 year old motorbike. Both have their original engines. Both are well maintained. Will a 2022 EV Volvo still be going in 2048?
I doubt it.
Where are all these millions of EV battery packs going to go?
100% correct
Great point. More CO2. Does a battery last 90,000 miles before it needs replacing? And the cost. EV wokness is about feelings, not science.
Your car is 26, well maintained. What electric motors do you have in your house that are equally old? I have several fans, an electric shaver, light bulbs and more. You're falling into a classic logical fallacy. What parts on your somewhat unique 26 year old motor have you replaced? Is really the same car you bought all those years ago? Especially that "original" engine. How many miles do you drive, in what sort of weather / climate? How do you drive? In short, your personal experience has nothing to tell anyone about the effectiveness, suitability of EV vehicles. As to battery replacement: consider that it will be possible to simply drop in a new battery, perhaps one with 5 - 10 years of scientific and engineering progress, in it. Essentially keeping your car current and viable for decades. Whereas you're stuck with your 1600 cc dinosaur looking for ancient parts and technology to keep it struggling to keep up. Enjoy it while you can, but the asteroid has already hit.
@@jimmyboy2 ICE wokeness is about fear and nostalgia, not science.
@@crinolynneendymion8755 it's not about electric motors. I have recently retired from the Navy after 36 years in Submarines - so I might just know a bit about battery power and propulsion given that our Submarines are effectively hybrids.
The motors and ancillary systems are not the issue...but like an ICE car they need to be maintained just as much. Yes electric motors are lubricanted and cooled by....oil. Oh no.
The issue is batteries, especially lithium ion batteries and similar.
They are very expensive and resource intensive to manufacture. They start to degrade immediately, their best years being the first 5 or so, then their capacity degrades severely.
They are expensive to replace and atm cost 4 times more to recycle than manufacture, especially given the toxic nature of their components, all of which have to be mined and manufactured.
As yet there is no means of putting out an EV battery fire as a result of an accident or battery/switchboard failure. They can burn for several days.
Yes my car is original and maintained iaw the service manual...which is why I still own it.
So sure, you go and by an EV. I'll stick with my reliable, efficient, cost effective and easy to recycle ICE vehicles thanks.
It would be interesting to see a comparison including hybrids as well. Smaller lighter batteries than a full EV but with the ability to provide regen under braking vs a traditional ICE.
Hybrids are almost as bad as regular ICE according to research in Denmark (on actual real life usage). Mainly because most people don't charge them. Their emissions are twice as high as they were suppose to be to get the government tax break for "green" cars, so the tax breaks on hybrids is getting axed. And this is talking plug-in hybrids. Regular hybrids are just a joke.
Such comparisons have been done numerous times for years. Rory had this discussion with Robert Llewellyn 12 years ago and despite Rory lying about the CO2 figures for EVs they still came out way ahead of hybrids. Yes, that's right. Rory decided he would reject the official CO2 figures for EVs and just doubled the figure and EVs still left hybrids behind and ICEs nowhere to be seen. EVs are just cleaner and nothing anyone does or says can make them dirtier no matter how hard they try.
8:16 Yes! Producing smaller batteries (EV's with smaller batteries) is one of the most important keys to making a positive environmental impact with personal transportation. Thanks for this excellent video presentation! Keep up the good work.
Well, no. Or at least, maybe not as much as you may think.
There is also greening the electricity supply, which as the numbers in the video show can have a very large impact on lifetime emissions.
Also, there is the battery production. Most of the energy here (at the factory) is expended in the electrode drying ovens. Using a dry battery electrode process saves an enormous amount here. (Size of plant is reduced by maybe an order of magnitude, capital expenditure on battery plant is IIRC more than halved, costs are reduced significantly - not 50%, but 20%, 30% or maybe more and plant CO2 emissions are slashed).
There is efficient battery management and drive trains. Tesla is commonly reckoned (as Jim Farley at Ford has admitted) to get significantly more range from the same sized battery as other manufacturers.
Finally, it doesn't matter if you produce a smaller vehicle with smaller batteries if nobody buys it. Part of the solution is persuading high polluters to pollute less and the less you ask them to change their accustomed life style to do so, the more success you will have. The more you try to force people to change their lifestyle, the more opposition you will create and the slower the whole process will be.
There is also considerable room for improvement in material extraction, Mines could operate using solely electrical equipment, which would then automatically get cleaner as electricity production produces less carbon dioxide - which is happening more and more for purely economic reasons, as renewables are becoming cheaper than fossil fuel powered generators and batteries are cheaper and more effective than gas peaker plants. In refining, aluminium already uses electrical means (always has). Steel, however, uses a lot of coal in blast furnaces, most of it either to heat the iron ore or to "burn" the oxygen in the ore to produce metallic iron. This could be done with (hopefully green) hydrogen, and is starting to happen.
@@colindavidson7071 Thank you for your thought provoking reply. I especially appreciate your holistic approach. I'm looking forward to what the future holds! :)
@@colindavidson7071 What about the hideous nature of making spent batteries not as bad for the environment as conventional nuke waste? Hydrogen is just a complete joke, it's just way waay too problematic to store and handle on a massive scale, also the whole Green movement is just progressive marxism and Agenda 2030 'Hunger Games' end game, there's 7K volcanoes hiding under the sea spewing Sulfur Dioxide and Hydrogen Sulfide by the shitload yearly, that's the actual greenhouse gas, not inert harmless carbon, a plant food, but everyone's a lemming zombie sheep that loves a hysterical narrative.
man 's CO2 has no significant effect on the weather, it's never been anything but a big lie to get you to surrender your freedom and lower your standard of living.
@@c.a.r.s.carsandrelevantspecs so wholesome
This is one of the best monologues I've heard about EV's V ICE - thanks Rory, very well said.
Thanks for this. These questions have been rattling around in my mind for a while and this goes a long way towards answering them. Well done, as usual. 👏👏👏
By far the best car reviewer there is….you can’t help but listen to this lad.,even if your not particularly into the car that he is reviewing.Well done.👊👏👍
As our energy gets cleaner over time the production and running of EV’s will get better too. It’s the direction we’re headed in that’s most important.
I'm living in a country with extremely backwards energy grid and politicians concerned more for the coal industry than climate restoration. I was considering getting an EV next but after this news I don't think I'll be able to reach the break even point before swapping the EV for a new car.
Excellent point. But the challenge with your assumption is that the growing demand for EVs would eventually place a correspondingly higher demand on energy production, which, according to several papers, cannot be supplied by renewable energy sources alone (at least for the time being). Power producers would therefore become more dependent on non-renewable fuels(crude and coal) for energy generation in order to meet this demand. Of course government restrictions can always be used to control the usage of crude and oil, but that would result in higher energy prices, an example of which is already happening in some parts of the world.
except the LIBs are made in China with Coal.
Well done Auto Trader and Volvo, however I still feel that my 48 MPG gas vehicle is not being taken into consideration. It could take the EV that competes with my car 120 thousand miles to catch up, therefore both vehicles would have been crushed by that time, making the gas vehicle the less polluting one.
You are comparing your "small" car (normal sized for Europe) with a large EVs. Currently the EV market is about large, long range EVs, mostly because of the USA market.
A smaller EV can easily get away with a half sized battery. This halves the initial CO2 footprint, and the smaller EV needs less energy to go, just like your smaller car.
In Central Europe we would absolutely love smaller and cheaper EVs, 100 miles of range would be more than enough for most people who commutes regularly. For example, from Budapest, you can access half the country without stopping for a charge.
If you stop for a charge, you can access the whole country with a tiny 100 mile range car.
Not no mention that you can go to Poland and charge there without even stopping in Slovakia.
@@adamrak7560 i agree, the calculations are based on volvos large batteries, most EVs in europe have 30-50kwh sized batteries, which are considered small to meddium in europe. Also it is an unknown, how efficient is volvos manufacturing in general. Also energy in eurpoe is way cleaner than in the USA
@@adamrak7560 Your comment is quite accurate; in fact I just finished looking at my friends large N A EV and found out that it has 2 motors, front and back. He and I are in a Town where electricity is almost 13 cents a Kil Hour, so my point is my friend's EV would never pass my car for emissions efficiency.
Back to your point, we couldn't use a small EV as although I live in a town, I have to go 100 km to see a Doctor or go to a Golf Course.
@@adamrak7560 how long & how many EV cars do you think humans can produce before we can’t mine / find the much scarcest material to build batteries etc for EV cars & Solar panels / batteries for houses ??
Fossil fuel won’t last for ever either, but there is much more oil/coal etc in the earth than raw material required to build EV.
@@benlondon8467 I do not worry about the sustainability of these technologies, because there are lots of raw material for making EVs and solar cells:
battery:
- lithium is practically infinite if we use the clay deposits (with salt ion exchange).
- current non-clay (super high lithium clays may be included) reserves of lithium are enough for about 200 million cars. Clay reserved are much bigger, but will need newer slightly more expensive tech for extract.
- if lithium clay fails, we can extract from seawater
- Earth has massive amounts of nickel, but it may be very expensive to mine it, but there are already nickel free batteries in production (LFP).
- Cobalt is problematic, but we already have cobalt free batteries in production (LFP).
- Copper is expensive, and will stay expensive, this should still be sustainable because we have enough copper for at least 20 billion cars in identified deposits
- we can use sodium instead of lithium, this could halve the capacity but extremely abundant and cheap. This would still work for cheap small lower range cars, those need less than half of the capacity compared to a large Teslas
body:
- Aluminium is practically unlimited, but we need electricity to produce it, we can use solar energy to offset that.
magnets:
- Rare-earths for the magnets may be a problem, because they are too diluted but we can build EV motors without them, it will cost a few percent of efficiency (10% range reportedly).
solar cells:
- the cheapest solar cell is made of mostly silicon, glass and copper/silver. Dopants for the silicon are needed in extremely small quantities.
- silicon is made from silicone dioxide which is extremely abundant, it needs relatively lot of power to make. Significant part of the cost of solar cells is the energy cost for processing the silicon (and the glass). Using solar energy to make solar cells would be a huge help here, and it would close the CO2 gap.
- there are even carbon based solar cells now in labs. Basically we can make solar cells from many-many materials, the most sustainable are silicon and carbon(graphene or other organic).
- solar cell materials are highly sustainable, but we have to be careful to recycle solar cells with heavy metals(lead, cadmium). Personally I would not allow large scale heavy metal based solar cells at all, we have so many choices, we should not use the most toxic types.
Rory, thanks for this vid. We need tough conversations in the open, so I am glad this is starting to happen.
Another point to take note: raw materials. The amount of lithium, cobalt, copper etc available via mining is limited. To bring more online, higher prices for the commodities will be needed. This will also cause enviro damage and should be factored in.
It would be interesting to see new power storage technologies put into vehicles other than lithium ion. Things like sulfur or graphene based cells, even structural batteries, shouldn't be too far away.
I just made this same comment and then saw yours. Also the way that Cobalt is mined involves low pay child labour. It makes me wonder if BEVs were manufactured ethically, if they would become unfeasibly expensive.
@timemachine_194 until you need to replace all the batteries in the car for about the same price you paid for the car when it was brand new, to get at most sources of lithium you have to strip mine the topsoil away, which even done "ethically" still takes its toll on the earth and no they are not recyclable not at cost anyway, heck in Washington state we have the very LAST glass recycling plant in the US why do you think they shipped off most of that junk to China when China would take it? Because recycling is not cheap and each time you reuse the material you have to put more energy in and get less out due to refuse material (sometimes called slag). It's a pipe dream not a terrible alternative especially if one lives in the cities, but for a country like the USA it won't work because people don't want to have to get lunch waiting for their car to recharge.
Many companies are working on better battery designs, it'll be very surprising if 10 years from now the current lithium batteries aren't replaced by a superior alternative with far better energy density and little to no use of lithium and cobalt. Hell Tesla says that their batteries already use zero cobalt.
Once the cars days are numbered the batteries are toxic yes? What about that issue because toxic waste is worse than CO2 that we all breath out and trees use to survive of I would have thought
I have a Tesla Model 3. I absolutely LOVE the car, which I've owned since 2018. On the record - I did not buy this car for environmental reasons! I bought it because it is totally BADASS! It's fast, comfortable, and extremely dependable! ZERO maintenance - except for tires! I've owned over 20 cars in my lifetime. This car is heads above the rest!
If I had a EV I would totally consider getting flexible solar panels to cover every square inch of the car allowing you to extend the drive distance significantly and to never have to plug in to charge.
Not sure why they dont come factory like that.
The most environmentally friendly car is the one you already have, fix it, treat it well and keep it for as long as you can.
Great work Rory and very interesting research Volvo!
This doesn't really make sense. When you sell a car someone else drives it, then some else, etc typically until about 150K miles. To make a car greener by keeping it, you would need to be keeping it for longer than it's normal life.
@@smc812 that’s exactly what he said, i mean the guy literally said: "fix it, treat it well and keep it for as long as you can". if one person owns a car then it completely changes their mentality versus the car changing hand multiple time. A long-term owner will take better care of the car both in terms of service/repair and have more mechanical sympathy for the car, as he understands that hurting the car now will hurt his pockets in the long run. whereas this new movement of leasing a car for just a couple of years and then moving on really hurts cars, as each individual owner will take less care of the car as they don’t have to bear the long-term consequences of not giving a hoot. and 150k is pathetically low milage, might be typical, but thats the root of the problem, we need a fundermental change of what should be considered normal/typical. A good car should last at least 200k. next time you’re in a Prius that is a taxi look at the odometer, you will be surprised to find how much cars can last if they are properly taken care of. My local Toyota dealer (drammen/norway) gave really good deals on the plus versions for taxi companies, most of these cars are still on the road, with 350k miles +, some people in Oslo bought model s to use as a taxi, even though they are 2-3 years newer than the Prius plus, you still never see them around(as taxi).
@@dndfm keep it, or sell it to someone else who then looks after it would be the same. Keeping an ev (even a mild hybrid like the prius) makes perfect sense. Keeping an ICE doesn't as it's emissions from use eventually outweigh the cost of making a new EV. Using Volvo's figures that would be 150000 miles, I dispute their methodology and expect it to me more like 100000.
@@smc812 I have to disagree, if one person is responisble for a car on a long term basis, more than 5 years, he or she will take better care of the car than someone owning it on a 2 year lease plan. on your second point, for me it depends on the car, if its an older diesel/petrol car without particulate filter and its not somones pride and joy it should get of the road, 100% agree there. However, if its a small car(I mean small in personal car i.e sedan wagen etc, not truck/pickup) with euro 6 engine then why not? lots of cars with euro 6 engine produce less than 100g co2 per km, seems wasteful to get those cars of the road, might as well use them until the wheels fall of, by that time the electric cars avilable on the market will be far superior to the ones we already have. i just personally think that we need to teach people to take better care of their cars, its easier than people think, and we can get more out of our cars no matter if they are ICE or EV.
@@smc812 regarding the Volvo figures, I see your point, but I also see Volvo’s point. people will never agree on the figures, I mean where do you even start, just look at the life cycle analysis of the petrol, if it’s from troll station in Norway or if it’s from a station in Basrah in Iraq then the carbon footprint behind it is incredibly different. I don’t think anyone can make a study than can satisfy everyone, I think we need location specific studies as the petrol and electricity you get is probably very different to where I am.
A bold move from volvo everyone is pushing ev can’t say I’ve heard of many people discussing the footprint of the vehicle over time well done volvo
It’s sad that posting real data is called a bold move, in a day where profits matter over anything, especially the truth, I guess it’s necessary to cheer it on, rather than simply expecting it
@@nick_0 This is a SCAM! Artificially set a limit of 124,000 Miles to benefit ICE.
There’s been plenty but most don’t agree with this one. Most put the estimate at more like 20,000 miles, although a bit more for an SUV like the XC40.
@@Neojhun not really, you could see from the graph that the EV and ICE lines are consistent, so it doesnt take much to see where the graph goes... you could also argue it benefits EVs since their batteries will need replacing at around the 15 year mark, so there is another bump in emissions. also volvo have committed to be EV only by 2030 so not in their interests to big up ICE 😂
it’s good to see more mainstream channels discuss this topic, as an engineering student I have had so many heated discussions with morons that are at the extreme ends on EV vs ICE. Both are right, and both are very wrong. It is important that the average person understands that EVs are only 20% to 40% less polluting than old ICE driven cars, not because people shouldn’t buy EV's, but because it highlights the real issue here: NO NEW CAR WILL EVER BE GREEN, if we actually want to be green then we have to take better care of the cars already on the road, and I’m not talking here about old diesel trucks from the 90's, but newer cars that form to euro 6 and above. If people serviced these cars more regularly and took actual good care of these vehicles then the planet would be better off, as all the energy required to build these cars has already been used. And for this to happen we as a global community must actively support the right to repair movement.
Volvo's figure was that an EV would break even after 77000kms on a typical car life of 200000kms, so it's more like 60% more efficient, as Rory mentioned that's also assuming that the cars actually achieve their 'tested' CO2 emissions, which we know isn't the case, infact WhatCar tested the XC40 and found it's real mpg to be about 2/3 of that claimed, so really we should say that the EV is 75% or more less polluting.
It depends on the MPG of the old car. If your old car gets 25 MPG (e.g. a 2005 Camry), the EV break even point (Tesla Model 3) is about 36,000 miles. As EV emissions continue to improve, this number drops further. However, this argument does hold up if you are driving an old Prius, for example
@@smc812 yeah, but the EV also uses more electricity than advertised as you get less miles per charge than what polestar claims, not to mention the efficiency in the grid and the chargers, most home chargers are 95% efficient, but some fast chargers lose 15% electricity as heat. so again, we could play this number game all day long. we will as global society be better off if people took better care of the stuff they own. same goes for EVs, imagine in 10 years’ time when the batteries must be recycled, to this very date, no one knows how to practically reclaim the lithium during recycling, a Norwegian/Swedish study group found a method that worked in a lab and the got a Nobel prize for their work, however they estimate that the technology won’t be ready before multiple decades.
@@callresponse2574agree, as i mentioned in my orginal comment, i am talking about cars with euro 6 engines, that is is 2014 and above.
@@smc812 forgot to mention, never use mpg as direct indicator of CO2 emissions, if a car uses 10% more fuel that does not mean that it produces 10% more CO2 than advertised. in many cases its actually the opposite. in an ICE engine the fuel is not there just to burn/explode, as the fuel enters the cylinder it will cool down the air as it being compressed, the cooler the charge, the less co2 you get from the exhaust as higher burn temperature result in more CO2 and other harmful gasses. that why in dieselgate the cars produced more harmful gasses but had better fuel economy than advertised, because less fuel was shot in the engine resulting in a lean mix and high burn temperature.
thats why older cars can actually get better fuel rates per hp than modern engines, they run lean mixtures that use less fuel, but by doing so they produce so much more harmfull gasses. lower mpg does not equal more gasses out of the exhaust.
Honest, straight forward, intelligent, respectful…well done. In the end it is how we are as human beings with each other that truly matters!
If car companies where actually clever, and cared about the environment they would focus on recycling old cars. What I mean here is they take your old car. They rework an electric motor into it for a set price and than instead of building a new car you pay for extras they can retro fit into your car. This would be incredible for classic cars and drive the market in such a different way!
Recycling of the scrap, used in cars & general heavy industry does happen though & it's actually cheaper to outright build new cars on a new manufacturing line.
Retrofitting is too boutique & custom to serve the mass market. Aside from Tesla most manufacturers' margins are too thin, as achieving economies of scale is always the desired outcome which means they need to seek standardisation & build EVs from the ground up.
That being said, recycling batteries is something that should & will play a bigger role as batteries are the most expensive components in the cars.
It happens at a small scale just now. You can buy a kit to retrofit your classic Mini for a mere £20k!
@@pumpkinhead456 that’s the problem it’s 20k.. haha
EV west in california has been retro fitting classic vws and porches with electric motors well before ev scene became a thing
In most developing countries, electricity is still produced by coal. So EVs here are pointless
Even when the electricity is produced by coal, it can help to drive around in a car with a 95% efficient motor instead of a 35% efficient one (best case scenario if you get an efficient mazda)
This is false, even running 100% from coal, an efficient EV will have a significantly smaller overall carbon footprint than an efficient ICE vehicle. And to top this off, when unleaded and diesel are refined, do you realise that wealthy countries get the best quality fuel and the dirty remains are shipped over to poorer markets to pollute their streets even more?
@@charliecollin3361 oh. I didn't know that happens with fuel as well. That's sad. The same happens with everything here in India. We have very high quality fruits, cofee, tea and much more but all the good stuff is either exported or consumed by the locals. Rest of us get the low quality stuff.
@@simpskywalker7216 It's a sad reality that this happens! I know new EVs are super expensive right now but I really hope cheaper alternatives become rapidly available in large markets such as India - the developing markets could be the ones to benefit most, even when the power stations are still burning coal.
One big thing missing from this report is refinements in efficiency. You're comparing a 100+ year old vehicle design with a < 20 year old vehicle design.
100 years is a long time to refine a design and make improvements (think unleaded gas, less oil, better emissions).
* ICE vehicles are already working at the "best possible" CO2 footprint.
* EV vehicles are just getting started and already beat ICE in "most cases". LifePO4 batteries have a lower CO2 footprint (and multiple EV manufactures think they are the future) as an example.
If you're arguing that a brand new tech is only moderately better than a 100-year-old tech you're not really making a good argument. 20% less CO2 multiplied across 25% of the driving world's population is a massive potential shift for our planet.
Exactly. If 100 years worth of serious development had gone into energy storage, instead of ideas being bought up and shelved by the oil industry, who knows where we'd be at now.
Electric cars were about before petrol ones, they weren't very efficient in them days so petrol won
ICE cars are not 100+ year old designs. The current operating systems of ICE vehicles didn't even exist 30 years ago. That's like saying electric cars are 100+ years old designs too, as some of the first cars ever built were actually battery powered.
@@uni4rm nobody said the ice car was a 100 year old design. They are saying ice has the benefit of 100 year's of development. Hence the state of its engineering today.
@@yodab.at1746 Correct. The ICE has obviously gone through multiple major iterations. @1SLUGGO1 is completely missing the point and just spreading FUD.
You can't innovate on BEV's if you're not making them. The Leaf and early Tesla show the technology's entrance to the main-stream as a viable option. We have gone from 80 mile per charge to 300+ miles per charge in less than a decade. That meets feature equivalency with ICE vehicles. I guarantee the next 10 years will focus on improving battery tech. Faster charging + Cheaper batteries == cheaper materials == better overall CO2 emissions == more ROI for EV producers.
The electrification of our vehicles is win-win the further out you look.
I am all fir EV's however the reality is this. I wrote a report on this six years ago. When I got done factoring resources, manufacturing, updating the electrical grid and the fact that the majority of electricity comes form coal, (It doesn't matter if you buy green it all comes from the same supplier, you are only supporting green energy) I concluded that the EV's damage is at least 5.7 times that of a internal combustion engine. Keep in mind just like solar and wind power a majority of the components cannot be recycled without creating a tremendous amount of pollution.
I find it strange none of the cost figures calculate in replacing the batteries. Yes the batteries last a good length of time, but still they need to be replaced at some point.
So does your engine and water pump and transmission and brakes and coolant and OIL !
No they don't. They can be refurbished, just like an ICE engine.... You obviously never heard of battery refurbs....
No they don't. They can be refurbished, with the failing modules replaced with good ones. This usually costs just a fraction of a complete battery replacement. You need to do more research.....
@@Brian-om2hh You need to research on how many people have bought used Teslas just to find the whole battery needs to be replaced. There is a great video of a man finding out after he bought a used Tesla he was quoted by Tesla it would cost him $40,000 to replace the batteries. Instead he made a video of blowing up the Tesla.
Glad to have this conversation, I hope that the new method of battery manufacturing (dry cathode instead of wet) will help reduce the amount of CO2 in battery production.
You do know that Carbon Dioxide is the Gas of LIFE! Reduce the CO2 < 150 PPM and that will kill all the plants and trees on EARTH! The earth ship will have to replace the P and add a "T".
While increasing the CO2 to 1,200 or 1,500 PPM will increase top and root growth of plants and trees, while using less water and fertilizer. That sounds Good to me.
Regardless, unfortunately I didn’t buy my EV to save the environment. Hate to admit it, but I only bought it for the driving experience and I hate paying for gas and filling up at the stations.
Since I was a kid I always wanted an electric car like my RC toy set.
I charge at home 99% of the time and I find that more convenient.
Bingo. I bought an EV cause it's fun to drive and cheap to operate with my level 2 home charger. I don't have to dress up my purchase decision with environmentalism. I love my EV, but also love my ICE SUV.
With the price of petrol being huge in comparison to electricity, cost is a real factor for me in considering an EV. (Admittedly that probably won't last long when the government start to lose money as the tax from petrol disappears meaning they'll have to get it another way)
Likewise. I couldn't give a stuff about hugging trees or any environmental benefits (although I'm ok with knowing there are some). No, I bought my EV because it's much cheaper to run than any petrol car I've ever owned.
Even if I was completely convinced by the "hybrid theory" I can't afford one. Can't afford a new car at all. I've always driven old clunkers that I had to fix up a little. It's all I've ever been able to afford.
Unless you are a mechanic this is a horrible idea. People who make 50k+ "average income" can afford a Nissan Leaf or Chevy Volt.
@@Je_suis_Jefe if someone is making 50-60k a year they absolutely shouldn't buy a brand new car, that is a massively irresponsible financial decision.
Remember kids. You'll own nothing and be happy!
The point is you won't have a car anymore, they're destroying the middle class. Eat bugs and take public transport to your cubicle apartment after you got your 50th booster shot to get your rations, citizen.
@@CrypidLore i never said they should. I said they can. You should do what ever you want.
Brilliant, informative & hopefully AT LAST, a BALANCED view! Thank you so much & very WELL DONE RORY AND VOLVO! Like you, I have a fully renewable green tariff so 29,000 miles or so sounds about right &, more importantly, workable.
Be interesting to see with the massive numbers of 8 + year-old ICE cars still around, whether the same will apply eventually to BEVs, in which case, greenness may prevail at last. Of course, that is much less of a guide because the CO2 comes largely from the battery pack which needs replacing more often than the car, at present.
The batteries should last at least 200k miles before needing to be replaced but that all depends on how they are treated (since letting them fully discharge often significantly reduces their lifetime). Of course different and better batteries will also be coming in the future to replace current lithium ion.
Engineering explained also did a great video on this. Including buying used ice over new ev
The problem I never hear included in these arguments is how your going to deal with the batteries at the end of their lives and what environmental impact that's going to have.
Very true. Also the used buyers will just scrap the car if the replacement battery costs too much.
There is actually a lot of research and discussion about this if you take the time to look or listen.
An EV battery should take about 10 years before it's no longer able to hold enough capacity to be ideal as a car battery. At which point it can be repurposed as energy storage in homes for example. There are many sports stadiums in Europe for example that repurpose used EV batteries as backup "generators." This should add another 10-20 years of usefulness out of an EV battery before it needs to be recycled.
@@MNKYfilms And then what?
@@HoratioFitzbastard I don’t follow? After it gets recycled?
@@MNKYfilms You haven't addressed the original query , merely said that they'll use them for something else for a bit longer.
Where are all these batteries going once they can't be repurposed?
It’s not just the Co2 created while mining the metal for the batteries, there’s also an ethical implication.
The mines themselves are damaging the local environments in which they are situated and I’m sure people are being exploited working in these mines within certain countries.
The need for the metals is only going to get bigger along with the size and amount of mines on the planet.
It’s already been stated that the EV targets set by some governments is totally insane and will require more mines as the ones opening now won’t be able to fulfil the demands.
They’ll start mining comets and the moon with Space X tech when the supplies start to dry up.
How many miles will an EV need to travel to break even in that case?
Greens are mentally ill. They refuse to accept the entire argument.
Digging for oil isn’t clean.
Just where are you going to put the dead battery of EV car?
@@wesss9353 they get recycled or reused for energy storage for either buildings or the grid
@@joeschroedernz Not only is it not clean, it's not ethical. The oil spills, the pollution, the wars fought over oil. People who just complain about what mining the metals needed for electric cars does to the environment, are either paid shills for the oil companies, or morons. Just look at what oil has done to our planet. Don't start feigning concern for birds who fly into windmills and dying, when they have no problem with oil spills, and the birds they kill.
Good on Volvo for their honesty. The amount a car pollutes depends greatly on how it is used. 90,000 miles is 10 years for a lot of drivers and 20 years driving for many.
And an EV should last 50 years.
@@crhu319 Lots of evidence for that I suppose? How long did the batteries last in your phone / tablet / laptop?
Very good point. I have a 21 year old 2001 Ford truck I bought new that just this month turned 120k miles. Most of those trucks reached that mileage in their first 4-5 years of ownership.
@@crhu319 Petrol and diesel cars can and have. An EV will never make it on the original battery, which is a massive part of it's footprint. And the final part of every cars footprint is it's destruction, ie scrapping, which will again be much greater for the EV.
@@matthewjenkins1161 BEVs can and have. and on the original battery too. the majority of the actual vehicles are the same (steel, rubber, plastic, copper, is the same) so we can probably use the same methods for both. the differences will be how well it gets dine, we have been using ICE vehicles for almost a century now ( oddly enough the original vehicles were electric) so we have a lot of experience with it. but we still have to deal with things like oil, and fuel. their are ways to recycle the BEV's big battery too. just dont have as much experience for that. course we need to look at more than the vehicles them selves, because each has its own infrastructure and sources. that when they playout (like oil, the hole is supposed to be correctly plugged, which isnt always done, and so you end up with a mess from that), same with mines, ships, tanker trucks, and cant forget pipelines.
The EV's footprint shrinks as the electricity Grid becomes cleaner.... independently of the car owner. Also the rare elements will never leave the EV battery pack, so they can recycled entirely. You can't recycle the petrol you've already burned.
"Recycling" carbon burnt in e.g. ICE engines by e.g. growing trees is already a major part of "carbon neutrality"
@@FlyingPhysicist tell that to Amazon lover Bolsonero.
You know that CO2 helps A Lot of plants to grown faster?
@@Ren_1106 only when all the other conditions are met.
@@FlyingPhysicist pretty sure we can still plant more trees...whilst ALSO not using ICE cars. ICE + planting trees = Carbon neutral. EV + plant the same number of trees = Carbon negative. ;)
A few comments. First, thanks to Volvo for attempting to quantify all of this information. Its refreshing to see a bit of honesty and rational behavior around this conversation. Two, let's also be honest and recognize that CO2 is not a pollutant. Its a naturally occurring chemical that is essential to the healthy existence of the planet. Research of earth core samples have shown that CO2 was exponentially higher during the early stages of the planet when life and nature thrived, and when ICE engines obviously did not exist. Its the other chemicals emitted from internal combustion that are bad for the environment, but car manufacturers have made huge strides over the past 30 years at significantly reducing those pollutants. Three, and this IMO is the more interesting and important discussion about the future of EV's. Where is the power to fuel them going to come from if a paradigm shift does occur and most people move from ICE cars to EV's. Wind, solar, and hydro are all mostly clean, yet they are completely incapable of providing even a fraction of the energy needed in that future environment while being both unreliable and far most expensive than coal and natural gas. Nuclear is out because, well, it's been demonized relentlessly. Petro based energy generation is being relentlessly attacked with countries around the globe promising to fully do away with it on some (many times unrealistic) schedule. So where's the energy going to come from to power my shiny new EV. Here in the US we have a wonderful example of this phenomenon. The state of California has decreed that ICE cars will no longer be sold there by 2030 and is pushing EV's like candy to children. California has also shed numerous sources of petro energy production in their never ending quest to be 'green'. All of this has landed California in a position where the state is currently unable to keep the power on to people's homes and businesses throughout much of the year, while it begs for more 'higher priced' energy from adjacent states driving everyone's energy costs way up. And this is at a time when EV's represent only a very small fraction of the total vehicles in the state. Not exactly a model most countries would want to emulate.
Let's face reality for a moment. The biggest 'pimps' for EV's are governments staffed by some of the dumbest and most incapable/incompetent people on the planet. Hoping this group of corrupt, self serving, entitled, incompetent clowns are going to get anything right associated with the future of EV's is next to zero. Personally, I still think EV's are a stepping stone to what comes next, a technology that no one sees yet, but that will solve many of the issues with today's EV technology.
This completely ignored the cost of extracting, refining and transporting petrol. Whilst also ignoring that electric grids are becoming increasingly green.
What did I expect from a car review channel I guess.
Agenda driven hit piece.
Worth adding that drivers of ICE vehicles who predominantly do short journeys disproportionately add to these CO2 estimates. The engine never properly warm up, causing disproportionate wear and shortening the life of the engine; their car's catalyst never fully warms up, meaning poisonous gases aren't converted predominantly to CO2.
This is generally appreciated by most drivers, I think, but it sets a general rule that if drivers tend to do short journeys in urban environments then EVs are disproportionately better for themselves and for everyone around them.
What about building gas stations? Or setting up chargers? Or the energy used to build the machines that produce the parts?
This is so difficult to calculate, and people will keep finding a way to adjust these numbers.
Every analysis proves the ICE dirtier and dirtier.
@@crhu319 We need a breakthrough in Solar Panel development and deployment - - on every feasible rooftop to help offset the power-grid drain of all these electric cars.
Also super-insulating homes to reduce heating and cooling costs and solar hot water heaters too.
"At the street level." Thank you, sir. You got that one right on. If all you look at is a brand new EV on the road and nothing else, they're great. Thanks for pointing out some of the realities of the pollution required to produce an electric car.
and there are issues when the car is crashed (accident) or when it is at the end of its life + batteries (maintenance, recycling, etc)
Nobody wants to talk about worn out wind turbines or lithium batteries, Pete. Still to me, the environmental factors of extracting the lithium tend to get glossed over. This appeared to me to only talk about the "carbon" emissions generated.
If your batteries get damaged your screwed
@@mcdevious2229 the issue is well lithium is very dirty and dangerous to mine we need batteries that are lighter and better for the planet
That, Gulf City, is the sixty-four dollar statement. Lithium works pretty well. Extracting it is a whole 'nother thing.
its good that you do the stuff they not telling people about electric cars. the inforstructure for electric cars needs to pick up a pace its nowhere near ready and somehow i dont think it will. in 1914 they had electric cars with a range of just shy of 90 miles in all that time we havent really improved alot in that time. great videos as always
Glad this is being looked at,, but still missing a few points that come into play.
1. after 150K-200K miles, you may need to change out the battery in an EV. Then it becomes worse than a gas car again. (assuming it's viable to change the battery)
2. Look up Demand response programs. These exist because the power grids can't handle everyone turning on their AC on a hot summer day. A typical home AC takes 240V 30A. The recommended circuit for EV charging is a 240V 50A. They take more power than your AC..... Now imagine a hot summer day where everyone is turning on their AC while also charging their cars.. We NEED to upgrade the grids to handle those loads. On those hot summer days, the power companies fire up peaker plants to keep up with demand while also asking factories to cut back. Those peaker plants are gas powered and not green at all.
3. Too many people simply don't have a garage to park their car for charging. We need a solution on how they can charge as well.
I think the solution here needs to be something like inductive charging built into the roads. If we do something like that, the EV's would need smaller batteries. BUT, that would require rebuilding every major road with coils, and that may not be feasible.
it's all nonsensical.. too many people living with too much polluting habits.
everyone wants airco, everybody wants to go places around the world, etc. etc..
industry is by far the biggest polluter and no government is touching that in any significant manner.
to be honest, it all seems quite hopeless unless you could convince people to change their wants, which will never happen.. people most likely will burn everything down before making any significant changes, we're too primitive as a species
LFP batteries address the need for battery replacement, this part at least is a solved problem. Also batteries can be a solution rather than a problem for the grid. Currently we need to add storage to cope with intermittent supply from renewables. EV batteries can help with that. Other people have done good work analyzing this, but way above my pay grade 😂
So 1 EV battery at the end of it's life is equal to 30,000 gallons of spent fuel in our air???????? Batteries can be recycled. How do we recycle global warming?
"Those peaker plants are gas powered and not green at all" Maybe battery powered plants then? 😵💫
@@DANNY40379
Simply manufacturing enough batteries to make it feasible negates making it "green". Those peaker plants are typically 1Mw or larger and typically running for 8-12 hours when they are fired up.
There's never much said about the waste batteries what happens to them and who's recycling them. I can see this as a environment problem for years.
Oh, the materials in the batteries are much too valuable not to be recycled.
Volkswagen already have a battery recycling plant up and running in East Germany. A UK based company - Technology Minerals - is also to begin looking into processing older EV batteries. They are said to be planning 5 sites in the UK. A number of other organisations are looking to do the same globally. It is estimated that eventually there could be 150+ EV battery recycling sites globally.
Batteries have a significant value for second-life applications like domestic storage beyond the 200,000km Volvo have used here. It may be a long time before the economics make recycling the preferred option. I see this as a major omission in the report as, if I am reading it right, they are assuming it will be recycled at that point. As the primary difference in upfront carbon between ICE and BEV is the battery pack, ignoring second-life potential puts the BEV at a disadvantage. I don't think Volvo is being disingenuous, they have just followed a methodology that assumes 200,000km is end-of-life for everything. They have strived to maintain like-for-like, but that tends to lead to doing things the "old way". However, whether we are talking about materials extraction, manufacturing, energy generation, logistics or recycling it is important we strive to avoid finding new ways to be bad for the environment. We have not always been good at learning the lessons of the past.
@@andrewhowe4266 "methodology that assumes 200,000km" WHICH IS SCAM! Minimum should be 200,000 MILEs.
@@Neojhun I think scam is a bit harsh. I think the EPA uses 200,000 miles for car life, but they assess annual mileage as 15,000mpa. In Europe, the average is only 12,000kmpa which is far lower. All the assumptions they make alter the result.
Good overview! Better, but won’t “save the planet” since EVs still take a lot of emissions and other environmental impacts to produce. Good for Volvo for publishing a level-headed comparison and not taking a biased stance
Not level heaved and way beyond biased. It's a freaking bogus SCAM!
Ironic how every just ignored the 124,000 mile limitation. That exact number was chosen to best help ICE's numbers. The longer the BEVs drive the cleaner the outcome. In reality vehicle category like XC40 should be a minimum of 200,000 mile lifespan. Luckily both BEV & 4 banger Petrol cars survive about the same mileage. Sad we're not getting the real numbers.
Production is a more centralized source, making it easier (and cheaper) to monitor, regulate and control than millions of private vehicles spread out all across the world.
I've seen these comparisons before, and they always stop at the break even point.
I wanna know what happens afterwards.
How does it effect once it needs a battery?
Also all the people who can afford an electric car, are also all the people who generally change cars every 5ish years, I know everyone is different but will they have even reached that break even point? Even going off the 52,000 range is again roughly the 40-60 range is when these people change car. For various reasons, latest model, maximum resale value before it plummets after that 60 mark, etc.
And so then it would reset that comparison again and yes I know the car would then go on the 2nd market but that's just my point, they'll always be making another car.
And before ppl say I'm just a dinosaur, I wish I could afford an electric car, would be great for me running backwards and forwards to work, as it's only a short commute.
On many EVs the batteries can be serviced. They can replace bad modules without having to replace the entire bank of batteries. The batteries also last 10+ years which is as long as the average lifespan of modern ICE cars. The batteries are also recyclable and can be used with relatively low effort to make new batteries.
@@timfennell3380 car engines last longer than 10+ years, sure performance can start petering off but they last.
@@KingWeir you also forgot that the car will be used further by a new owner, and not trashed :)
@@Karonar I didn't forget, I did mention about getting on the 2nd hand market but that they still be making more cars, just like ICE, there's always a newer model to tempt somebody.
also how much carbon dose it take to recycle it after as well?
Really interesting video, but if electric cars ever need the batteries replacing mid-life then the environmentally benefits are lost. Time will tell if the batteries last!
The best thing to do is to keep a car running as long as possible, EV or ICE.
I'm coming on on year 10 in the life of a Nissan Leaf. The battery still has a capacity of 11 of its original 12 bars. As long as you treat batteries well -- don't let them sit at 100% charge, try to avoid dipping below 20% -- their lives can be very long.
@@Steve-wz5pz Probably the hard part, right? If everyone is super fast charging, that reduces their life too, which seems to be the big push for those who kept ICE cars for their range.
Batteries are +90% recyclable to recover elements for reuse in new batteries, and dramatically reduce the energy needed to make new batteries versus raw virgin elements. It is IMPOSSIBLE to recycle fuel for reuse.
Go Li-Cycle ♻️💵♻️
Most new EV's have an 1 million mile battery expectancy. Except the very cheap ones.
@@piccalillipit9211 Sounds like a nice manufacturer PR pitch, but I know lots of people shelling out for replacement or reconditioned batteries for their Prius, leaf, i3, or Tesla between 60k and 90k miles. Warranties are nice but that doesn’t mean the battery will last, it just means the mfg will eat the cost of replacement.
I think that a lot depends on the timescales you work on. Because the lithium, cobalt and so forth in the batteries, and the neodinium in the magnets isn't consumed but is available to be recycled at the end of the vehicle's life, EVs look far more sustainable if you look over longer periods. Especially as wind and solar electricity have got so cheap.
Wind and solar is heavily subsidised by the carbon tax paid by us the people don't be fooled look it up
@@roberteccles3896 I have looked it up. Sadly the carbon taxes haven't really got off the ground. Early wind and solar did indeed get subsidies, but now? The costs have dropped below the level that fossil fuels can compete with them.
Where is the wind and solar panels manufactured
@@jonathancardy9941 ps who paid if it wasn't carbon tax
@Robert Eccles a carbon tax is a tax on carbon. Like income taxes are taxes on earning income and gambling taxes are taxes on gambling. Income taxes, property taxes, gambling, tobacco and alcohol taxes are widespread across the world. But that isn't really relevant now that solar and wind have fallen in price to the point where they are often the cheapest energy option. This is capitalism - the technology has improved to the point where the market is enabling consumers to buy solar and wind power.
So clear, Educated,precise,well presented, direct.. Impeccable mannerism. Keep up the good work of bringing about awareness...So proud of you. 🙏
This is a topic to be discussed among many teams of engineers, not car enthusiasts on the internet
Or maybe everyone can discuss it?
That's dumb. Where does demand come from? Consumers coming up with things they want or need, or the producer taking a risk and developing something with no feedback? Are all consumers experts? No? So I guess the next time I go car shopping I need to find a Car-Expert-Lawyer.
@@uni4rm if you think this is about what consumers want you’re the reason the discussion should be between scientists
Great video guys! More of this type of content please. This is an important debate to have and hopefully by doing that we can get solutions that benefit the planet and all in it. Rory...you da man!
Volvo, like all legacy car makers, have a massive investment in combustion engines and their transition to making EVs will be expensive and difficult. Producing a report with skewed numbers to make combustion cars seem almost acceptable is absolutely in their commercial interest. It’s a smokescreen.
Except Volvo have committed to not making combustion-engined cars from 2030.
Nope. Volvo wants to go to EVs ASAP. They're being honest in their study.
The climate hoax is the real smokescreen
@@benjaminsmith2287 Heh, talk is cheap though. I remember how much talking VW did back in the day about their commitment to environmental protection with their cutting edge "clean diesels". I have a feeling if governments abandoned their plans to ban new sales of ICE vehicles in 2030-35, many of these auto corporations would quickly follow suit with cancelling/delaying their plans to go full BEV.
@@Mike.W.Dasher Volvo is not VW. Did you see Volvo's presentation? They're implementing their plans right now. They're not just talking. Before you go on any further with a jaded mindset, listen to their plans first. They aren't an ICE loving company at all. They did a responsible study and maybe some people don't want to accept their conclusions. So, let another company do one.
Rory, you're a fantastic host. I don't have much else to say, but you genuinely are.
Less than a minute into the video, I can say I agree with you. My car burns gas. An EV car often burns coal (remotely). And the mining of lithium is very anti-environmental. Then you have to replace the batteries. Much like wind and solar power, they have their own set of problems with the environment. Nuclear energy for our electric needs is the most practical answer.
Until the Nuclear Power Plant Blows up and kills every living thing within a hundred KM radios then the land can't be used for human inhabitation for the next 500 years, then any animal that tries to bread on that land will mutate.
until there is a nuclear accident ala 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl or Fukushima.
@@mochiebellina8190 No. There's no 'until.' Nuclear is still better even when you take accidents into account. Remember that the alternative for electricity is mostly coal and coal mining results in many many more accidents - less newsworthy individually, but in the aggregate more costly in terms of lives lost and damage done.
In uk we dont use coal in our grid (well less than 5%). All grids are getting cleaner quickly. Even lagards like the US. Nuclear power is 3 times cost, takes a long time to build and has million year storage issues. The environment issues are less from lithium, more from the rarer elements. Cobalt is a concern but modern batteries are cobalt free. Please inform yourself better before spouting media misinformation.
@@andycampbell193 I was curious - so I looked it up. looks like UK electricity is approx:
2% coal, 24% wind (that's very impressive), 12% bio energy (that's also impressive), 4% solar, 2% hydro, 3% oil, 16% nuclear and 36% gas.
New to this channel. Was so ready to hear some petrolhead bozo make a big song and dance about the emissions and downsides of EV production and usage. Pleasantly surprised to hear a fair and balanced approach to this complicated topic with a reasonable and logical conclusion. Picking a side and only seeing things one way seems so common these days. Love hearing someone who has actually taken the time to properly understand a topic and not just present the information they like.
My question is, what happens to the toxic battery at the end of its life cycle? Love the video, Im a ICE enthusiast that is starting to warm up to EV's, and this puts it in a nice perspective. However, the way batteries are going to be recycled/processed after the lifetime cycle is over, and the fact that once they start burning in an accident, they just do not stop, all the while leaking chemicals into the environment, have me got sceptical still.
Simple enough. It can be 90% recycled in a battery recycling plant, like the one Volkswagen already have up and running in Eastern Germany.
Simple enough. It can be 90% recycled in a battery recycling plant, like the one Volkswagen already have up and running in Eastern Germany. Please explain what might "leak" from an electric car battery, because there is no liquid content........
Use google and you will find the answers blow everything you say out of the water. Still, make a comment without doing research.
Er, an EV battery has no liquid elements inside it to leak out..... Have you done *any* research at all on EV batteries??? And have the 160'000 plus ICE cars which catch fire each year in the US, registered on your radar at all? Were you even aware that statistics presently show there are just 3 fires per 100'000 electric cars?
you are 100% correct. Mining the lithium and cobalt for a battery takes 7 years worth of fossil fuel a ice car would use. and the battery only last about 5 years if it is well cared for. just do the math.
internal combustion engines last for decades and decades which is better for the environment because you don't have to keep manufacturing cars and batteries
What utter garbage! Almost all EV batteries come from new with an 8 year warranty! Never mind about maths. *You* need to do more research.... You probably don't even know the oil companies have mined cobalt for decades. They need it to remove sulphur during the refining process. My friend's BMW engine didn't last for "decades". He had to buy a new engine after 4 years. It cost him thousands.
Great video mate very balanced, just curious have they included having to change the battery after so many miles/years in those figures, as surely that would take them longer to equal the co2 out put of an ice car.
There is no need to change the battery in an EV, it will outlive the car. Some of the early technology back in 2009 and 2010 had batteries that degraded fairly quickly due to many things but new technology it does not happen.. I have an EV made in 2013 (63 Reg) and my battery still has 98% state of health, so that change of batterie3s does not happen.
@@juliandavies7890 Battery packs can and do fail.
I'm not suggesting that is common, but lets keep things real.
@@juliandavies7890 From a perspective point of view it would be nice to know the make , model and specification of your car. Was it bought new and how many miles has it done please?
@@juliandavies7890 How many times have you ran your batteries down to below 5% charge, you know on a long road trip or something. Is it all city miles or highway miles. Are you in a extreme hot or cold location ? Point is just because you have not had it happen post 2013 doesn't mean it hasn't happened to others.
You can’t buck physics. Nearly all EVs run on Li Ion based batteries. ALL batteries lose capacity overtime due to number of charge cycles, temperature cycling and internal degradation. Even with perfect software controlled charging, elaborate cooling and ideal use (for Li Ion use between 85%-10% charged) after about 8 years the battery capacity will have fallen to about (that’s approx folks!) 30% of original capacity assuming typical daily use and charge cycles. Yes you can still use the EV but with only 30% of the new battery range. An expensive new battery pack needed every 9 years or so……
bro. my father in law literally disregards every source I've shown him with similar math. saying that EV's are greener over their lifetime but worse out of the gate. You have explained this super well and he is a VOLVO fanboy. So he won't disregard this time! HA! great vid
Imagine if cars were meant to last longer but if you took your ice-powered car and instead of making a new model every year you made a new model every other year and then made parts to keep the car running and then instead of getting a new car every 5 years you drove the wheels off the car that you had that would be greener for everybody
Yes, but you've disregarded the majority of the video which agrees exactly with your father in law!
he literally just said that EVs are greener
The CO2 output of EVs is great, its the down stream effects of so called renewable energys, the life span of EVs and especially their batteries that concerns me. No one asks about the disposal of heavy metals in the batteries, in solar cells, the disposal of hundreds of tons of fiberglass per wind mill. These questions need to be answered and weighed.
If that hasn't been figured out, then why have so many governments transferred money from middle-class people to upper-middle-class people to buy an EV ?
The life span remains to be seen, much like the first few years of automobiles in 1908, but we all know how that turned out since 100 years later cars are more reliable than they've ever been in the past, especially with regular upkeep. Disposal wise everything gets recycled or repaired, Tesla and Redwood Materials out of Nevada recycles ~95% of the batteries, Gruber Motors repairs battery packs along with Rich Rebuilds, and Global Fiberglass Solutions in Texas recycles the turbine blades.
@@suserman7775 It has more to do with wasteful spending/programs than a $7500 tax break on a new EV I assure you.
And also that ICE car can be driven for more than 20 years with proper mantainance from any mechanic and spare parts brand that fits. An EV is garbage after 5-10 years and maintenance can only be done by the producer.
@@TomsPropertyCare How do they recycle the blades?
Imagine someone actually publishing some facts - good for Volvo. However, there's also also all the horrid rare earths and such in the batteries and electric motors that we don't really have any good way of recycling yet. Those are yet another way EVs aren't as clean and green as we wish. Battery tech advances are needed.
That’s what separates Tesla from the rest
they use 0% cobalt and other dirty minerals it’s only nickel and lithium
You forgot to mention the actual use of slavery to mine these rare earth metals.
@@George-qw8ss NO!
Lithium batteries are +90% recyclable with the hydrometallurgical process and there are plenty of companies already doing this
Li-Cycle (LICY) is one that has been on the NYSE for a few years and has plants in the US, Canada, and starting in Europe.
Nothing is perfect and humans are never going to mine our way out of climate disaster and ecosystem damage, but the #1 thing that we can do is to recover and recycle every single element that we mine and refine. This will dramatically reduce the amount of energy and land degradation while moving to a more circular economy.
So please learn how to recycle PROPERLY and then recycle everything that you can. ♻️🌳🌎🌍🌲♻️✌️
@@andyjohnson3790 Wish I could give you more then 1 thumbs up!
My neighbor had a paid off great running truck. Told me he was tired of paying $200/mo on gas. Well, he bought a Tesla and now has a much higher insurance bill and $1000/mo car payment. He’s really saving money now! Not to mention he complains of his higher electric bill.
What a great explanation. It's good that Volvo have put this out. Anyway most mere mortals can not afford these type of cars.
Right? Now that cars are going up in price by 2030 the average price of a small sedan will cost 60k
@@VioFax yeah same here but you know that with time all cars become a pain in the ass to fix unless you rebuild them
@@VioFax Which is crazy because you are contributing a lot more to saving the planet than producing more new electric cars. Thats a given. So Volvo is not as honest as it makes out. They have most governments convinced.
I have never owned petrol or diesel car that actually does it’s claimed mpg, so did Volvo account for that???
true
And EVs take more electricity to charge because of Phantom Drain, and losses (10-15%) for Wall-to-Wheel.
And EVs range estimations are typically way off too by about 20%.
I think we have known this for several years now. Musk has talked about this. Electric cars are only better over the whole life of the vehicle. Volvo is not the first to release data like this. Even if electric cars are powered by coal plants they still produce less CO2 over the whole life of the vehicle. This is well known among informed EV enthusiasts.
Only problem is, they are wrong. As the basis for the enthusiasts argument is reliant on the end cycle of the vehicle. Which is a made up travel units to swing in the way of the electric car. Petrol cars go much further before it needs retiring, and can even be refurbished. The electric car has a much shorter operating time span and refurbishment is more damaging than a petrol car running for many more miles.
The statement "Even if electric cars are powered by coal plants they still produce less CO2 over the whole life of the vehicle. " is the problem. It is a fixed untruth for the reasons above.
@Robert Stanley Sort a side issue, but you are talking universally anyhow. Maybe you should try and work out the amount of electricity to make an electric vs gas powered vehicle. This is why it is rather irrelevant for comparison purposes. And good luck calculating it.
One point is if you have an old classic car and run it on petrol or deisel for many years. You travel emmisions are producing way less emmisions compared to purchasing a new electric car every few years. Yet governments are inserting laws to ban petrol driven cars by 2030. They are assisting in making things worse as the laws are not well considered.
@@OM617a Battery defect do happen and I hope they have gotten better but it is also about how you treat you cars battery.
Although I believe Volvo may have stretched the numbers as they'd prefer to keep on selling the ICE cars which are more profitable for them, there is a key difference between ICE And EV. Oil is a natural resource that will inevitablly run out. The materials in EVs can be recycled >95% and it is much more economical to recycle these materials than to mine and refine new material. We're nearing the end of the ICE age.
unfortunately
Where are you getting these figures that EV's can be recycled >95%. EV are the future but battery like Li-Ion isn't. We talk about polluting the environment with CO2 but what about polluting the environment that mining for the raw material causes. The destruction of the land, mountains, and especially polluting the water system. These raw material are toxic and hard to recycle. Only a handful of companies actually recycle EV batteries They repurpose them, not by breaking them down to make new batteries. They reuse them for something like battery packs for homes. It is like saying plastics are recyclable because it has the recycle symbol on it. It's getting recycled because I always put it in the blue bin to have it recycle. What a crock! Also, the renewable energy of solar panel and wind mills sounds great now but it's already creating issues of what to do with them after their 10 years life cycle. If you take out the battery, both ICE and EV are the same if you are talking about recyclable materials. There is no difference in how cars are made. A gas motor is more recyclable than the huge battery pack. And no, it's not more economical to recycle a lithium-ion battery. Gas motor >recyclable> EV battery pack.
It's funny that Rory said that driving an EV will benefit the clean air around you but what about the polluted waters in the areas where the raw materials are mined. Those people surely aren't singing the same praises.
EV's are the future but we are not there yet with a good sustainable energy that powers an EV. That is why Toyota is still looking at hybrids and Hydrogen is still being looked at. I do not think Li-Ion is the future for EV's, at least not the ones that are in Telsas or any of the current EV vehicles.
@@peterniepel6218 I meant to say 95% of the battery can be recycled, as of course that is the main carbon footprint contributer. I got that from Redwood materials CEO JB Straubel. I
I believe battery recycling will become a new industry over time as it's more economical than mining new materials.
Great review Rory! Thoughtful and balanced discussion. I'm from US so our affordable EV choices are more limited than Europe at this point. Out of the box thinking from companies like Electric Brands x-bus and others that may address the affordability and versatility of EVs world wide. BTW, your discussion on EV vs ICE in this video persuaded me to subscribe to this channel. Well done!
This was very insightful, thank you. It would be interesting to know if Volvo factored in the cost of disposing EVs at the end of their usable lifespan; or are they meant to live forever?😜
There are Volvo's with a million miles, so perhaps they are meant to live forever 😄
Well, luckily it already makes economic sense to recycle it. Also, batteries aren't just thrown out.
The report indeed covers the end-of-life phase. (The impact of this aspect is tiny compared with the materials production and the vehicle use phases.) The importance of recharging EVs from a 'green' source is strikingly clear, and perhaps we should extrapolate from this when making choices beyond just car usage.
@@Wayfarer-Sailing Yep, I agree. That is Tesla's mission. They hope to make every Supercharger station reliant on their own local solar energy, thereby giving Tesla full control of price. Then they could also keep the price consistent nationwide.
We own an EV and a solar system for charging, however, I still feel a gas powered Honda Civic might have the lower environment impact when you consider recycling the batteries and the longevity of the vehicle. I could be wrong
there is no recycling, that's another "green" lie
Running the vehicle is 80% of the lifetime CO2 emissions of a vehicle. You are almost certainly doing a net positive. There's still downsides but from purely a climate change standpoint you are doing the right thing.
As an example if you're in a state with a very dirty grid (let's say West Virginia) the dirtiest EV (Audi E-Tron) and an ICE Honda Civic have similar lifetime emissions using the 2021 power grid. When you consider the fact that you have solar panels, probably drive a less polluting EV, and are likely on a far cleaner grid you're doing a net good. That doesn't even consider the fact the electric grid will probably be 2-3 times cleaner by the time the vehicles go out of service.
Recycling the battery isn't a negative. Recycling the battery results in new batteries being made with the lithium etc at a significantly lower environmental impact than mining new materials, and companies are even managing to do it cheaper.
Only problem with recycling is that the batteries are lasting so much longer than expected that there's not a lot of them going to recycling despite tesla being mainstream for a decade.
@@matthiashejlskov5008 I own an 18 yr. old Prius and it's still going strong on its original battery. I also bought a Tesla (worried that my Prius would eventually give up and leave me stranded somewhere). I think a lot of the battery dying early stuff is FUD.
@@kenbob1071 absolutely, people think a car battery works the same as their phone batteries or something. 😅
Both sides of this wreched debate should be glad to see this honest,factual, relatively unskewed discussion. Thank you. The world these days needs more focus on reality, and less hyperbole and sensationalism.
It's interesting to see Volvo's number be that high, since other reports have much lower numbers. Reuters analysis last year by the Argonne National Laboratory in Chicago calculated a break even point of 13,500 miles, while Tesla's impact report states that a Model 3 breaks even with equivalent ICE vehicles after only 5,340 miles.
To be fair, Rory's point about making vehicles more efficient also holds true, the Model 3 is rated at 243Wh/mile but the Volvo C40 Recharge guzzles 357Wh/mile. That's nearly 50% more!
Honestly I'm just looking forward to a day where I can walk down the street without choking on exhaust fumes from buses and trucks and cars. I still have a fond recollection of taking a walk during the first lockdown when there was practically no traffic and I could smell the flowers in neighbours gardens rather than the diesel fumes. Even if all we do to start with is centralise pollution production to power stations, quality of life in our towns and cities will be so much better.
@@eugenux same could be said about you, bud. 6 different articles about this ONE Volvo study reported 6 different numbers... (No one said 90,000 though, I've no idea where Autotrader pulled that number)
The truth is somewhere in the middle. Jason from Engineering Explained had a good video about it, and his conclusion was in the 2~ year mark.
Also what is it with petrol sheep talking only about Tesla all the time? All serious car manufacturers make EVs now.. is that not enough of a hint that you're plain wrong?
@@eugenux Exactly! Same applies for believing beyond biased Reuters news! Great analogy with the crApple brand btw!
@@eugenux I would always take Tesla's numbers with a healthy does of scepticism, but it's a demonstration that every study comes up with a different number and Volvo's numbers are way higher that I have seen anyone else come up with. However, the universal conclusion across all these studies is that an EV produces significantly less CO2 in it's lifetime, and the break-even point gets smaller all the time as your electricity source gets greener every year.
Volvos numbers are high because they aren’t yet sourcing renewable generated electricity for manufacturing and are manufacturing in China on their standard high CO2 mix. Some others only use renewables (e.g. VAG) or use a lot of renewables (e.g. Tesla)
For ICE cars you can just drive a hybrid to lower your emissions greatly. A Prius gets over 50 miles per gallon. I'm positive it's overall emissions are less than my P85DL Tesla. By the way if you include the extra front end cost of an EV to a comparable ICE the ICE is less expensive to own over the life of the vehicles.
You have that backwards. The list of things that can fail is always longer on a ICE car.
@@MrJturner74Modern ICE vehicles are very reliable as long as you do required maintenance. Problems that do arise tend to be electronic. Very seldom is it the drivetrain. Now I do most of my own maintenance on my ICE vehicles but can't do as much on the Tesla. As an example there is a 12 volt battery on the Tesla that lasts less time, about half, as on my ICE vehicles. I can easily change the battery on my ICE vehicles but not on the Tesla. I have had to replace the main screen on the Tesla and there was a driveline failure repaired under warranty. I also had one of the door handles fail. Cost to have Tesla repair it is about $1000. I found parts online and did the repair myself for around $25 but it took me a long time. I've also had a couple of routine checkups by Tesla. The first one cost $1,200. This was a recommended routine maintenance by Tesla. That has now changed and the second checkup was less costly. However overall, especially when I do routine maintenance on my ICE vehicles, the Tesla has had higher maintenance costs.
@@MrJturner74 I agree but most of them don't fail. Overall I agree maintenance should be higher on ICE vehicles but it hasn't been my experience. By the way I really like the Tesla but my wife doesn't even though It's her car. I like all the wizbangs and how quick it is. She doesn't like the wizbangs and has range anxiety.
@@rayshepherd2479 The problem is you are comparing apples to oranges. I can assure you that a ICE car priced like a Tesla will have worse maintenance costs, can I point you at porsche, maserati, or any other high end car?
@@rayshepherd2479 Most of them don't fail???The amount of mechanic shops would make me press x to doubt.
So I've just done 29k miles in my Nissan Leaf using 100% renewable electric through Octopus energy tariff in 18 months, so my car is now for the rest of it's life greener than any petrol or diesel on the planet. So the answer to your headline grabbing title is YES EV's really are Green!
Buy you will need a new battery at some point. That resets the countdown
I’d concur, particularly based on your use case. My leaf is even greener as it’s done more than twice the distance. 😀
@@wanmanda Unlikely and EV batteries are not 1 battery they are made up of many cells that can be individually replaced if needed and recycled. What happens to the components of a cam belt change, Oil, Filters, Plugs, exhaust etc? Plus the battery in my car can also power my house.
@@wanmanda No they won't. There are many many Leaf's on the road, they are getting on in years and miles and are fine, they don't need a replacement batteries. They'll easily last 10-11 years, which is the average age of an ICE car.... or more. Batteries, motors and electronics will last a lot longer than the body work and will be good for 2-3 decades if harvested for use in ICE conversions.
He didn't mention Diesel. The break even for Diesel is higher and in some studies isn't reached in the lifetime of the vehicle. True greens would be thinking more in terms of Hydrogen though. Especially now when it's starting to be produced as a by product of other energy production or using renewable energy sources.
its only a minefield because we've been fed EV propaganda; as it is in the politicians special interest to convert us to electric. thank you for telling the truth. I've had a tesla model S since 2013 and have been well aware of the downsides. My driving choice has went from being laughed at - to praised - in the last decade
Really great video, just a quick question, will the battery pack last for 124k miles? The carbon footprint will increase every time a new battery pack is needed. Bring on new battery tech
13100 kg of CO2 (75kWh * 175 kg/kwH). Just to manufacture the battery in China. Not operate it.
That's more emissions than from operating an ICE car for abut 100,000km
So it's probably about 8 years. Just for the battery. And that's assuming that the EV battery is 100% powered by CO2-free electricity. Which it's not.
And after about 8 years, the battery will be toast, and the cycle continues.
@@ChrisWells1 very interesting stats bud. Where are you getting your figures?
It wasn't a problem for the Tesla Model S owner who posted a UA-cam video of his car. That had covered 400'000 kms on it's original battery..... Lots of UK based taxi companies have Nissan Leafs which have covered 200k miles, and are still going.
@@ChrisWells1 You aren't comparing everything. You also have to back out the CO2 with producing the engine and all it's related systems. Batteries last the life of the chassis, not 8 years. Volvo stopped their test at 144k miles because it looked good to do so but the battery will go 400k if the car suspension and frame can manage to. Then the battery will go into grid storage use. You can sell a Tesla battery with 200k miles on it for $20k.