Thanks to MANSCAPED for sponsoring today's video! Get 20% OFF + Free International Shipping with promo code "AEJC" at manscaped.com/autoexpert ! #FathersDay
Sorry, you can do it again cause it is completely wrong based on our research cent KIT and Munich University who had done that already multiple times. AND bad for australia: It will not take that long till the amount of lithium will have been pulled out of the earth and the recycling figure from the german recycling industry are over 93% are recycled and used again, not down cycled. Lithium will be reused on the material level so looks quite good cause we have already used one lfp for over 10 years and now when it should have gone into the recycling the university wants to get the cells to do further investigations and cycling cause that battery should be testet how long that outdated model could last beyonf those 2750 cycles we had used it before. 2 7 5 0 is an equivalent (based on a 60 kWh of 2750 x 400 km = 1.100.000 km I guess that even the old mercedes did not get close to that - at least those robust model from the 80s like the taxis W123 and W124.
John, I always find your videos insightful and informative. However on this one you don’t seem to have been even handed in your analysis. Regarding the ICE vehicle you haven’t included the emissions relating to the exploration, extraction, refining, transportation and delivery of fuel (filling station) to the Mazda 2 to enable a true comparison.
Things to also consider, the EV battery will be fairly worn after 10 years and battery replacement incurs another hit of co2 penalty factored in for this. Another thing to think about on the safety front is that put simply, a two tonne car takes longer to stop from speed, when the kiddies run out, than a one tonne car, due to physics..... :-) Nice One @John Cadogan
COMPARING THOSE TWO VEHICLES IS LIKE COMPARING A ROTTEN APPLE TO A PEANUT. THOSE THAT CAN AFFORD OR NEED A BIGGER VEHICLE AREN'T GOING TO CHOOSE THE MAZDA SH!!TBOX
Sneaky, but the opposite is happening. The US, EU, Canada and Turkey have imposed import taxes of 17-40% and up to 100% (US) on Chinese BEVs due to government subsidies being provided to lower prices.
Minor correction to these figures - you need to include CO2 in production and transport of petrol, which adds about 30% (less for diesel). I realize you've left out some production emissions around generating electricity from coal as well, but best to include both for a more solid comparison.
But if he added CO2 production for the refining and transport of oil, his numbers wouldn't show that ICE cars produce 10% less CO2. And if he chose to choose comparable cars with more realistic mileage efficiency, it would be worse again. The ONLY way he can support his argument is to used unrealistic numbers, flawed logic and dishonest tactics. He's made that abundantly clear.
@@cross8manroberts119 yep. I didn’t mind his channel. I thought he was tough but fair. But this report has shone a light on his true motivations. He’s not stupid, so these omissions are 100% intentional
@@DIYMick Argonne labs in the US have found the well to tank process for motor fuel to be 80% to 85% efficient. This would add about 20% to the CO2 emissions for the Mazda. He also said he didn't add the GHGe emissions from fugitive emissions in mining the coal used to generate the electricity for the Tesla (about 5%). His figures also likely didn't include extra CO2 from grid losses between the coal power plant and wherever the Tesla is charged (about 10%), or due to losses in the charger (about 5%). It probably also doesn't include the CO2 from the manufacture of solar cells and wind turbines either..... He also said himself that the Mazda wasn't equivalent to the Tesla, but he used it to demonstrate that if you really wanted to save CO2, you could buy the smaller, cheaper, Mazda (which also produced less CO2 during manufacture btw), instead of the Tesla.....
@@DIYMick This guy has become a clown show for the petrol industry and a traitor. The biggest oil producers are Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela. Think about it.
I purchased a Mazda 2 on your recommendation back in 2016. Awesome little car. Highway driving it would get 4.9l per 100ks. Traded it in for an Alfa Romeo Giulia Quadrifolio. Even the Alfa would get 8.1L per 100 highway.
I bought a second hand Mazda 323 back in 92 for about a hundred quid and ran it into the ground for another 4 years and scrapped it for 70 quid all I had to buy for it was tyres and brake pads, cracking little cars and always have been
@@sheepyracing2774 Get a zero out of your 0.05/100 and multiply by 2 (unless your gas in Australia is $3/L ). And recall, the video is about overall CO2 emission, not the cost of running on subsidized plans. As I read, average electricity rates are in 20-30 c/kwh range, so if you paid market electricity rate, you would be paying around the cost of 3 liters of gas per 100 km
You’ve awakened my PTSD from the lectures I took during analytical methods lectures studying civil engineering at uni. Despite the fact that I’m wrapped in a cold sweat this is great content John. You’re doing the work that no one else is prepared to do. When you boil the numbers down it’s ever more clear that EVs really are just greenwashing and virtue signalling done by those who knit yogurt and wear lentil based clothing.
There is plenty of people doing the work but no one will report on it except the oil companies and when they do it gets considered about as accurate as the tobacco industry's research into lung cancer . Lots of mining & metal processing groups have crunched the numbers from all sorts of angles to prove without a question 100% EV can never ever happen . I could tell you that VW cancelled an entire range of EVs back in 2018 because they could not a guaranteed cobalt supply contract for the estimated life of the model range . Mercedes had a similar problem with Niobium so they changed the entire drive train . Then there is thallium , another metal that is crucial for the high efficiency electric motors, they don't call them "Rare Earth Metals" so they can bump the ticket price up higher .
@@I-have-a-brain_and-use-it "crunched the numbers from all sorts of angles to prove without a question 100% EV can never ever happen" Really! have you not seen what has happened in the last 50 years with battery & motor technology! They are already here, they are happening, and like everything else in the technology space, they will get better, lighter, smaller, cheaper and more efficient, like computers, phones, laptops, tablets. John @AutoExpertJC is not saying they are not viable ever, he is just saying the numbers don't currently stack up as much as they are hyped by certain groups now.
A few UA-camrs shouting into the ether and a handful of scientists publishing reports on scientific websites that no one will even find online let alone read does not balance out governments enforcing EVs as all new vehicle purchases, with £17.5k fines per ICE/PHEV/HEV by 2030 in the UK. If you’re reading this you already know what a stupid decision this is but it’s going to happen unless a lot more people refuse to buy EVs. The market will dictate the future. All the big car makers are pulling away from EV production already. If the consumer refuses EVs then it may change but only if they reject EVs out of hand.
A couple of old mates became politicians after university. Most of us just said, “what a shame. He had so much potential” maybe the potential was just a cunning act
Also not accounting for the fact that it's incredibly easy to write off a Model Y and then you have to start that over again, or if it needs a battery replacement under warranty (which is hardly unheard of) - in which case you have to add another 7 tons. And there are heaps of 20 and even 30 year old Mazdas still running around which simply will not happen with EVs. They will be replaced with newer ones.
It all depends on battery tech. If it’s the same shite batteries, at these prices (adjusted for inflation), the EVs will be disposable. However, the electric motor is extremely reliable and pretty hard to kill. Not that much that can go wrong with them.
Exactly. A 20 year old Mazda, that has been well maintained, will still be just as efficient as it was when new. Can't say or expect the same from that Tesla, in fact the Tesla will have been consigned to the breakers long before it gets to 20 years of age - because battery degradation and replacement cost (if it's even available) will be too expensive to be worthwhile.
@@meuknowwho7041 theoretically yes, but a lot of EV motors have been replaced - and the bottom line is that the battery is the most important part of the vehicle and once it's no longer serviceable that is realistically the end of life for that car.
@@mahcooharper9577 yeah that was my point. The battery. Of course you’re going to get dud motors. But generally, in most electric machines, the motors are very durable. If you know electric motors, especially brushless, you know that there isn’t much that can go wrong with them if wired etc properly with a good controller and hall sensors
I suck at maths, but with your explanation this demonstration was made quite clear. When I first saw the whiteboard, I said 'Nope. I'm out', but wound up watching until the end. Thank you!
I put man made climate change down to attending communist university and taking antidepressants and having ADHD and not being able to afford a house and trying to cancel capitalism.
Which one of those afflictions does John suffer from, if you skip to 6:30 you'll see him stare very clearly that man made climate change is real and it's a serious problem
It’s the same with the fake stories about the poor treatment of aboriginals and natives; it never happened, they have always had it better then the rest of us, but the media just wants you to feel guilty so they make up stories and rewrite history.
Lovely calculations Mr Cadogan but they did not seem to include the CO2 cost of extraction and transportation of oil, the CO2 cost of refining that oil to diesel and petrol and the associated CO2 cost to transport it to the distribution hubs. Also you compare the opportunity cost of a 31k Mazda with a 90k Tesla when a punter could buy a 45k MG or BYD EV which would be a much closer match.
Ripper video John- thanks for building some clarity around the hysteria, MALS! I was recently in Indonesia and was shocked to see how much better the Indonesians ranked on the CO2 per capita charts! This is besides every second house burning their own plastic rubbish. Interesting that 99% of the vehicles were either kei trucks or scooters, no 2.5 tonne shit boxes carting a single flog around. They’d rather put 4 flogs on a moped and enjoy the “fresh air”. This would be a really interesting study that I could do in more detail I suppose in my spare time. Anyhow, love the show and roolly roolly hope you read this out in the bogan voice!
Hi John. It doesnt matter if you have Solar or not. When charging your EV the power is not going into the grid. The grid has to replace this power. This will be at the average grid carbon intenity of 680 g/kwhr (NSW), close to your estimate of 650 BTW.
Have you wondered why electricity retailers these days are now paying a pittance for feed in power from PV systems? It's because on even moderately days when PV systems are producing, the grid has an excess of PV power.....to the point where the wholesale price of power often goes negative. For someone like myself with a decent sized PV system....economically it makes sense to direct excess power from my system into a home battery or EV rather than sell it into the grid for 5c/kWh.
From this I take the following: - SUVs are unnecessarily thirsty, whether EV or ICE. - Australia’s grid is very dirty meaning the green potential of EVs in Australia is not currently of value.
The fun thing about statistics is that you can cherry pick them to say whatever you want, but it takes a lot of tinfoil to deny the massive upsurge in cancer and lung\breathing issues. Interestingly enough, they used statistics to advertise the health benefits of cigarette smoking for a long time to increase the adoption rate until it was considered ignorant NOT to smoke to improve your health and the health of those around you.
Hi John, once again, i always appreciate your imput on this matter, and i hope i can get a response. As an electrical engineer and part time statistician, i have a couple of faults with this analysis. Firstly: no one would ever compare the masda to a tesla, theyre not equivalent vehicles, one is probably for someone that GENUINELY enjoys driving, one is for someone that enjoys taking journeys and needs a commuter or buisness vehicle and probably doesnt care for the car more than how it performs (generalisation) but i wouldnt class them in the same category. If you want a smaller 4/5 seater EV, a good example would be a dacia, voxhaul, or a vw id. I completely agree with your estimate about materials and production for the overall vehicle, however, and one thing i believe that is missed out about the batteries here are 2 things: The majority of co2 estimates come from fossil fuel burning for electricity to produce the batteries. (So essentially the cleaner the grid of the country you manufacture, the cleaner the batteries). This also means that the more that a country invests in renewables, the cleaner making a battery becomes. (I believe Australia and china burns alot of coal) however the assumption that our grid will never get any greener is one of the biggest fundamental flaw in most arguments against EVs. And 2, some (not all) battery plants are powered by 100% renewable energy and only use the grid to top up any lack in power. A massive factor that you havent included is the amount of refining and production that goes to manufacturing fuel, it doesnt just come out of the ground and go straight into the car. In fact nearly the exact same amount of energy goes into refining the fuel as does lithium refining (same weight). This utterly ruins any argument against EVs by itself but... The other is massive transport costs to transport the gasoline by boat and truck. Times any of this by 10 years and including this into any calculation, it absolutely destroys any comparison to any EV car. - primarily because electricity is often pumped (gas), or is generated within the country (neuclear, solar, wind). Coal is a big exception, however alot of countriees are phasing this out. I agree with alot of your maths, and will trust that the sources you found are reliable. However, Even Conservative estimates of EVs show that EVs reduce by over double if not tripple the Co2 consumption when compared to a 100% dirty grid.
GENUINELY enjoys driving in Australia with a 110 KPH limit? Refining coal into electric power? vast holes mining and transportation. Try Perth airport every morning of the week going to work on jets to mine rare earth metals. The solar panels require the same metals. If you are happy to have a Nuclear power station give us your post code.
@@DS9FANINDADEFIANT Speed limits are a cash cow in Australia. Traffic police behind every saltbush and no lane discipline. Most Australians barely go over 60. Given the inexperience of most drivers, car makers hand them a weapon that does 0-100 in 2.3 seconds, what could go wrong? Even in the dark, the Kangaroos get you. I used to drive high-performance cars, these days I look and my brain switches on. Why bother?
@sustainart5207 you don't have to make a turbocharged V6 in a car... you don't have to put a 180+KW motor in a tesla or any other EV. Some EVs are slow, unfortunately it's alot easier for an electric motor to be powerful (and it's more efficient for it to be) so it has to be software limited to cap speed and torque. Which is fine, but then people complain that they don't have full power.
@@sustainart5207 nuke power is fantastic and very safe. Happy to have it near me, in the USofA but i'd be happy to have it in a less spacious country as well if i lived in one.
Recently attended Belrose Supa Centre in NSW. EV charging points in the bottom level of the carpark, which has 4 or 5 levels above. Chargers are located right next to the moving escalators/lift well that continues up to the top floor of the building. There is a rooftop carpark, which is open air. Surely a better place for chargers!
From what I understand, the car parks are not engineered to take the weight of Evs on the upper floors. The charging stations are likely near the lifts because the structure is stronger there and the electrical lines are there as well. Safety is not considered.
@@pizzaearthpancakesandother2549 As long as it’s not the toilet of a parlour where you sell that disgusting thing you call pizza. You’d need a concrete drill to get through the cheese clogging.
Excellent video and analysis John. The CO2 emission results for EVs are actually significantly worse than you have already noted after you factor in all the CO2 emissions associated with doubling the electricity generation capacity, and replacing every single piece of electrical infrastructure (generators, transmission towers, transmission lines, sub-stations, transformers, local transmission lines and local transformers). After years of assertions that an EV vehicle fleet would only add a few percent to power generation and distribution requirements, both Elon Musk and the US electrical energy suppliers have, in recent months, noted that the size of the grid needs to be doubled just for EVs. And then increased another 50% for all the additional load associated with massive data storage associated with AI and cloud storage.
Agreed....unfortunately the majority [talking 99.9%] of the people watching this great informative video already question EV v's ICE and Climate Change [or whatever the current politically correct gender identity title / pro noun is] and therefore won't be persuaded in to the EV market. Because of 'the Global Elite / WEF / The Agenda there's no mainstream media or journalist who will publish or cover this even if to try to discredit because they know they can't and if they tried the 'aforementioned' would remove funding and shut them down. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you wish but only after you've provided indisputable facts that I'm wrong
Data centers in A.Murica are another energy challenge for the grid competing with EVs. Getting trucks electrified too has been problematic with just one Tesla truck needing a megawatt charger. Even doubling the grid would not be enough for this utopia we are being sold.
Another problem that doesn’t get reported enough is that we are running out of sunlight and wind due to the solar panels and wind turbines; if we keep building them, we will end up with deserts everywhere as no wind cools them and everyone in the dark as we used up all the sunlight. We need to drill more, the earth makes more then enough crude to last forever! No more solar and wind, stop using up those limited resources!!
@@rattusfinkusretired power company electrician here, increasing the grid power demand to accommodate the EV charging also dramatically increases the line losses of delivering that power to the point of consumption! Sorry dude!
So you compare 500+ horsepower, 3.8 sec 0-60 AWD SUV with 900+ liters of cargo space with a Mazda 2? Why? Why not against some Audi Q6 4.2 liter gasoline? Or Range Rover? Or on the other hand - why not Renault Zoe or Nissan Leaf? Or Fiat 500 EV vs the Mazda 2?
Yawn. Try to keep up: Both are roughly equivalent on planet-saving potential. One is far easier to deploy to the masses. The other is the most popular EV in the world... Not all comparisons have to be dollar-for-dollar or on the basis of being in the same segment. (This is a very grown-up concept. Don't let it trouble you.)
@@AutoExpertJC well, dear grown up agenda pusher, you either compare apples with apples, or compare stuff, disrespectful of specs, if it fits your narrative. If you were the first to play this game cherry picking would not have been invented. Unlucky you - no "first ever" award for your stunt. P.S. trying to be smart does not work every time.
@@AutoExpertJC yes. I look in a mirror sometimes, and that is what i see. I drive 50-70 000 km yearly since 2010. Between 2010 and 2020 i have driven 3 consecutive brand new Mazda 6 Wagons. But my family grew and lately i have even used 520 liter top box. It burns 8-9 l per 100 km, not 6.5. So when my last Mazda 6 Wagon become 250 000 km old i had to change it. I got Telsla model Y. Or i should get 2x Mazda 2? Or Mazda 2 + trailer? Now i've got 20 kWp rooftop solar and 65 kWh batteries, and i charge from solar day or night at least 9 months yearly (winter is worse, sure). On top of that my job is to deal with health consequences of tailpipe emissions, of which you are somewhat quiet. Why is that? You are aware that obese people are even more likely to get cancer or cardiovascular disease, aren't you? Mirror? So what you preach is total BS for a lot of use cases. Compare apples with apples, or quit talking for sciense.
@@AutoExpertJC You're clearly not a grown-up when you compare a city car with an SUV. You're grasping at straws trying to make EVs look bad. You can't compare different car segments' emissions, I thought you were grown-up enough to understand this :P You may as well compare Australia's #1, the Ford Ranger to the #6 Toyota Corolla and then go "look how much worse the CO2 is on the Ranger vs Corolla". Well DUH! Because as you say: "Not all comparisons have to be dollar-for-dollar or on the basis of being in the same segment." It's just as pointless. If someone is replacing their ICE SUV they not going to go buy a small car like a Mazda 2 unless their life situation has changed drastically. And you also completely ignored the emissions from extracting, refining and transporting petrol or diesel. Not everyone has a dirty coal fired grid like Australia, and the energy mix is getting greener every year. ICE cars will not change much in emissions. Manufactures struggle already to meet new demands resulting in these tiny engines and cars that are extremely dull to drive.
John called out the obvious disparity in size between a Mazda 2 and a Model Y, with the mazda 2 being significantly smaller than the Tesla, especially boot space. Why not compare the Mazda to something like a BYD Atto 3 which is also far closer in price and size.
You included the CO2 emissions to generate the fuel for the EV, but you did not include the CO2 generated in producing the perrol for the Mazda. That should probably be added to the Mazda's emissions
If he was to include the CO2 of the fuel production, I guess he should have also considered the CO2 of the manufacturing of solar panels, inverters and wind farms. 🤔
Sorry John, but your numbers for the Tesla are wrong. You have not factored in the degradation of the battery over those 10 years. That 430km range will be barely 340km in 10 years time (80% remaining capacity). No doubt that won't be the original owners problem - they would have traded the old donk in at 5 years. But reality still matters, and those batteries are not made of magic, they will degrade. The numbers for the Tesla are even worse than your +10% compared to the Mazda 2.
A friend of mine bought a ID4 last year. From snooping around in the car his "average" is ~25KWh/100k. He drove 60k kilometers in that time, replaced 2 aircons, this summer used 2 sets of tires, and his battery capacity dropped by like 5%. ;)
There is a 2020 Tesla Model 3 in QLD that just hit 300,000km and it has 89% of the original capacity. The batteries are very well managed in modern EVs.
@@foylemaIs’nt that nice… My 2011 3.2 ltr Diesel Pajero just ticked over 320k this week..but strangely I still have 100% usability of my 70ltr fuel tank.
You forget the CO2 released from manufacturing the internal combustion engine, transmission, fuel tank and everything associated with the propulsion system of the ICE car. The comparison of CO2 emissions from ICE and EV has been done by real scientists many many times. The result is that EVs make up the increased CO2 released during manufacturing in about 2 years of operation. After that the EV is all cleaner.
He didn’t forget. He purposely omitted them as the’s the only way he could his paltry 10% difference between a Y and a small lightweight ICE car using unrealistic mileage
Hi John. I have a couple of points for you to consider in your calculations. You have calculated the tailpipe emissions of the Mazda 2 but you haven't accounted for the CO2 emissions involved in getting oil out of the ground, refining it and transporting it. If you can find figures for this your calculation will change significantly. As a side issue you could find the amount of electricity used to refine the road fuel and how far the Tesla could travel on just that. Estimates I have seen are in the range of 4kWh for each imperial gallon of petrol refined. Also your politicians are clever enough to have solar panels that can charge the Tesla at night, here in Brexitistan our solar panels only work during the day. I would be delighted to see your figures reworked to include road fuel carbon emissions. Kind regards. Jack
I'm not a massive fan of Mazda myself, but they seem to be the only manufacturer still trying to innovate with internal combustion engines. The other companies just put all their eggs in the EV and hybrid basket because they can claim to be innovating without actually inventing anything new.
@@Patrick-857I think Toyota too. It's just that Toyota are far more conservative in terms of engine design, erring on the side of robustness. They still innovate, but are less willing to push the envelope lest the deliver a shit quality power plant.
Also there’s the recycle lifespan to consider too. The Mazda will be a fully viable used car after 10 years usage. Whereas the Tesla wouldn’t be so viable due to the 8 year warranty has ran out and end of life disposal of the batter costs and C02 cost. I’ll stick with my fully serviceable ICE vehicle. Great video John 👍
which makes the opportunity cost of the expensive EV even worse from a financial standpoint. As the grid has more pressure on it electricity prices will continue to rise making public charging even more expensive further impacting the financials. I also fear the quality of the horde of chinese made EVs, which may be cheaper upfront, but not over the lifetime, which is likely to be much less thatn quality made vehicles.
Your one obvious mistake was that the present grid CO2 intensity is 550g/kWh which is 8% less than your number. This changes your equivalence right now in favour of the Tesla. Projections estimate that the grid in 2050 will have an intensity of 100g. This blows your argument out of the water
Nope - grid intensity hasn't actually changed significantly since last year, - percentage of fossil fuels in the grid mix only went down slightly, so the figure he's using is still pretty applicable. Umm, I think he was talking about the comparison right now, not what might (or might not) happen in 25years?
I have bought 2 cars in my life , When I first got my licence in 1995 I bought a GQ Patrol currently it has done 480k original motor , a decade later I bought an X-Trail for the missus it currently sists at 145k. Both cars still drive perfectly and I don't plan on buying new cars as I have no need on one. I would like to see an EV last half as long.
Another thing to consider is refueling vs charging time - you can fill up a Mazda in 5 minutes, an EV charge is at least 30 minutes even on a fast charger. Not exactly practical while travelling.
Yeah but the EVangelists seem to all need 30 minutes or more to pee and stretch their legs and get some coffee so it's just like owning an ICE!. I do all that and am back on the road in a maximum of 10 minutes and have 450 miles of range. No EV can come close to matching that. I have an EV as well I just leave it at home when I need to go somewhere more than 200 miles a day.
@@joecoolioness6399same here. I recently drove from sydney from Melbourne and back. I took my Audi Q5 rather than my BYD Atto 3. I don't want to stop 50 million times to charge, wait for charging to complete, or go further while hoping the chargers at the next stop are working. Sure it costs more to drive the Audi but it's more convenient and less stressful.
Part of that consideration is how often you actually do more than 300 miles a day. For most people it is not really a problem. If it is then get a diesel. In 20 years time almost everyone will choose the EV over the diesel.
If you compare a 150cc scooter to a Hummer EV, the scooter is much better for the environment. We need to get away from electric bikes and smart cars and use the environmentally friendly 3 ton UTEs for short commutes and daily chores.
Yes, you are correct. There is a reason why Toyota head office in Japan and Kia/Hyundai HQ in South Korea is focusing on hybrids currently in Australia - and not EV's. Year to date (end July), hybrid sales have increased by over 114% in Australia. Led by the RAV-4 hybrid. Currently EV's only represent 8.3% of the total market of 1.2 million new car sales per annum in Australia.
This was a great exercise but there are many missing pieces that are worth considering. Many people with rooftop solar consider their total electricity consumption and adding an EV would be included in that calc, ideally. Keep in mind that EVs have developed to where they are (still somewhat early adoption) in a little over 10 years whereas the ICE vehicle industry has had roughly 100 years; things are changing quickly. For this reason, it is also not great to use averages because the available data is skewed by older technologies while not updated to account for the current and coming technology. One huge oversight in such exercises is not accounting for just how much energy is wasted along the way from mining to burning/conversion for electricity generation to grid/distribution to propelling vehicles. Burning fossil fuels to do all of this is actually quite inefficient, with as much as 80% or so lost to inefficiency/waste/heat. This is perhaps the most compelling argument for the push we are seeing to electrify as much stuff as possible. In theory, the efficiency gains alone can justify much of the enormous investment. Electric motors are inherently much more efficiency than combustion engines, for instance. You also compared two very different vehicles. The Model Y is larger and can seat up to 7 people and supposedly a SUV, for example, and it's often much less than $90k, at least in the US where they can be had for half that. Then there's also often tax incentives to offset the costs (whether you agree with them or not). Then again, we also tend to subsidize very mature and profitable industries such as the fossil fuel ones as well, similar to renewables but without the same logic. There are emissions other than CO2 to be concerned with. EVs tend to require less maintenance and batteries can be recycled even though we haven't implemented efficient ways of doing so. These are just points to consider but I also think it's a worthy exercise to do these comparisons and be as objective as possible. I drive a big SUV with a V8 btw.
how much co2 is emitted to refine fuel and bring it to the gas station though? EV makes no financial sense to me, nor does hybrid so I got an ICE 2 months ago. And if we consider purchase cost, we should also consider energy cost. Even your own solar isn't free, the panels, inverters and home battery have a finite life so I would amortize the cost over the warranty duration.
@simoncrooke1644 Fair play, I shouldn't drink, comment and post without first proof reading. My bad, thanks for the catch. I now hang my head in shame.
That Mazda 2 with a high compression, dedicated, liquid injection, LPG engine would emit 10 to 15% less CO2 again than the petrol version, with no loss of performance. It would else emit less NOx and virtually zero particulate matter. The Aus LPG conversion rebates only finished a decade ago, and then the whole infrastructure was allowed to implode. One can't help but wonder if the billions spent on the newest government golden child, the EV, will end up with the same fate?
LPG helped the transition from carburettors and points ignition to fuel injection and better ignitions along with catalytic convertors etc. Not the great advantages there were back then. I would still have an LPG car for the clean running but the conversion costs are not economical nowadays. My XF did about 18,000 ks to break even on a $1600 conversion cost in 1991 and it paid it self off about 3 or 4 times over after that. When gas was cheap and petrol was dear, I saved about 60% and about 30% when gas was dear and petrol was cheap. Oil used to stay clean on the dipstick for 8000ks. My current car, a Holden Cruze running on mainly E10 is about the same condition on the dipstick at 12000ks thanks to the fuel and the engine design.
@@rjbiker66 In New Zealand in the 1980s we had Compressed natural gas (CNG) which could be added to a petrol vehicle with a tank in the boot.I had it in a Ford Cortina and there was an art to changing fuels on the go. From petrol to CNG you would switch the fuel off until the carburettor ran dry then turn on the gas. Obviously primitive by today’s standards but it worked well. Slowly died in NZ however my car was stolen before this.
The calculation looks good to me. The problem is that it doesn’t work for me here in Denmark. The grid emissions here is 130 grams per kWh and that tips the scales towards the EV. I did it for my diesel car and I do emit 6 tons more over 10 years. I still don’t want one for all the other reasons.
Then it would be Norway, and an EV would actually be significantly cleaner than an ICE vehicle. But it's not Norway, it's Australia, and we get about 60% of our grid electricity from coal on average. Overnight, when most people will be charging their EVs, the grid mix changes to between 70% and 80% coal. Consequently, an EV in Australia in most cases isn't really that clean....
@@peeemm2032 If the proper comparison is done it will not look like the EV is worse. You have to compare cars in same segment/size to get a proper picture. A similar size EV to a Mazda 2 will be below 20t in Australia. Even replacing the Model Y performance with the base model will be better or close. And you save 40k AUD to spend on solar and battery. No one in the market for a Mazda 2 would spend 80k AUD on a Model Y performance.
@@Gazer75 so I think you've very succinctly encapsulated the EV fanboy attitude - "If the EV doesn't look better, then it must be wrong, right?". EV fanboys like you just don't realise how ridiculous some of the things you say actually are, and don't appear to to understand the logical contradictions and impossibilities you get yourselves into, in order to justify your biases.... Did you even watch the video? He wasn't trying to demonstrate that an equivalent ICE vehicle is cleaner than a comparable EV. The whole premise of his argument was that if you want to reduce carbon emissions in Australia, you can do it just as effectively (if not more so) by buying a smaller, lighter, more affordable ICE. He did this quite effectively.....tough sh!t if it doesn't fit your preferred narrative...... If objective reality doesn't fit with your narrative, it's the narrative that needs to change - not objective reality 😀😂🤣😃
@@peeemm2032 That premise is just silly. A family of 4 is not going to go from a big SUV to a small city car. Unless its a second car used by one of the adults for commuting. Maybe if the economy was tight enough and they had to cut cost. But sure, if you ignore that fact then obviously a smaller car reduces CO2 emissions. This would be true anywhere in the world, not just Australia. You would reduce the emissions even more going from an ICE SUV to a small EV, but I guess that doesn't fit the narrative. Comparing the Mazda 2 to a similar sized ICE SUV as the Model Y would also favor the Mazda 2. No idea how you got the impression I'm a "fanboy", you don't know me at all. I'm pretty neutral on the whole subject tbh. I just want to stop people from doing silly comparisons to fit their narrative. He could have compared the Mazda 2 with a Rivian R1 or a Ford F150 lightning to make it look even worse. But it only makes the comparison look even more silly. As others have pointed out the electricity production is getting greener over time in Australia. ICE not so much. I've not done more calculations, but if you reduce the average by 50-100g CO2/kWh they numbers might look a bit different.
Thank you for working this out. However, I would have preferred that you had done a base Model Y on the basis that anyone watching this who doesn't agree with you and who has a clue will say that you used the Model Y Performance to skew both vehicle price and range/efficiency. Basically, this was cherry-picked - not awfully bad, but I don't think it's being intellectually forthcoming. They employ similar tactics so I believe it would be readily apparent to them.
Your arguments are correct. I have just done a research report on the characteristics of the sun's Global Horizontal Irradiation which applies to PV solar and if one wanted to charge an EV overnight, let's start with energy figures that may differ depending on individual circumstances. For example, assuming a household wants to have rooftop PV solar and a storage battery, and use the battery for providing power for the household, the 10A power capacity for an electric shower, cater for the hot-water system, capacity for split system heat pumps, charging the EV. In terms of energy, let's assume 13 kWh for the household (daily), 7 kWh for charging the EV overnight (for an average of 50 km daily range), one might contemplate using a 20 kWh battery, or let's say 2 x Tesla Powerwall 3 systems in parallel for something similar. To charge the battery, or let's say to keep it topped up by taking advantage of charging when the sun shines, the PV solar system needs to have a capacity of around 10 kW, to charge the battery as quickly as possible and to leave some energy for the household while the sun is shining. Now, the problem is as I see it, to put a 10 kW PV solar system on the roof, one might need close to 30 panels which raises the question as to how many rooftops in Australia have the area to mount so many panels. While in the UK the price per kWh for battery systems varies from 500-750 Pounds per kWh, the Telsa 3 power wall being at the lower end of the scale and also very innovate as it has capacity for two-way EV charging communication allowing ESP and USP (that is the EV providing the power for the household in case of grid outage). My estimate is that a system with the feature set described above, including the multi-way and a few dedicated string-inverters, the software control and BMS, room for future expansion, ease of installation, and user-friendly and reliable operation will not only cost between $25,000-$35,000, but the number of PV panels required will not fit on most rooftops.
1) large model Y compared to a tiny ICE car (MG4 would be fairer) 2) no CO2 allowed for extraction, refining and transporting of fuel, oils and add all those filters, so you need to add 40% to your ICE car. 3) grid is getting greener and it's already greener than you think because much of the solar is behind the meter so it isn't in your numbers 4) V2G will reduce emissions 5) at the end of 10 years a LFP battery has another 10 years of grid service left in it so it continues to reduce grid emissions where as you ICE car is blowing smoke and ready for scraping 6) batteries are getting far greener and are using less CO2 to make year on year 7) so no allowance at all for solar charging is not kosher either, you need some sort of allowance as 60% of EV owners do have solar and those that don't are on cheap plans that prioritise renewable energy by making it cheaper to charge at times when renewable energy is plentiful.
@@rattusfinkus RE: point 2), in regard to adding 40%, you also need to add a range of percentages to the EV operation. For example the constant change of tyres, the damage done to the road, the ultimate recycling of the battery, the need to replace the EV with the slightest damage to the battery, the enormous damage done in case of an EV fire, the quick 10 year turnaround and disposal of EVs all adds further CO2 as well.
@@Ernst12 where do you get 10 years from, MG offers lifetime warranty on the battery, power electronics and motor in Thailand and in Australia they off 10 years/ 250,000km. CATL has truck batteries with 1.5 million KMs warranty.
II have been hoping you would do this video. The calculation I would now like to see is "buy and Mazda" and spend the change from the Tesla on a home battery.
I acknowledge that I am by your definition the "green zealot, with the perfect job, massive solar array and ideally located etc.) I used your numbers to calculate the impact of my EV (a Mini Cooper SE) and found that it results in 18.5 tons of CO2, which puts me ahead in terms of emissions-even when considering your grid charging CO2 figures. I also fit the ADHD example you mentioned-I have a 14kW solar array on my house and charge my EV entirely from solar power, only plugging in when there's surplus energy. Over the car's lifetime, my EV will be significantly more environmentally friendly than a comparable ICE equivalent. While I understand that I'm an outlier and that you're focusing on the average consumer, it's worth noting that I am not some hairy hippy greenie, but some of us can still achieve a better outcome in terms of CO2 emissions. One thing missing from the discussion is that many people choose an EV because it offers a superior driving experience for daily use, not for perceived environmental reasons.
The EV driving experience is certainly great. I have only driven one briefly but apart from retarded controls ( model 3 indicator is actually cruise resume but why?) I loved the smooth continuous acceleration and ever came to grips with the one pedal driving pretty easily. Having 13.2 kW of solar wont be 100 % of my charging solution but with the shifts I work it would give me about 2 hours of charge time most days to keep a floating charge and then a bit more on days off. Once we get a simple (read cheaper) EV without all the frippery and it has a battery that's safe to park next to my front door I'm in.
I had a Hyundai Ionic5 inflicted on me over the weekend by my wife. It is a 3 year lease and was her "dream" so the saying, "it is cheaper to keep her" applies. I still have carburetor motorcycles that I use daily to commute to work. Yeh, work I work in aviation, so nothing is greener.
Thanks John, but for the foreseeable future, I am very happy with Internal Combustion Engines in my motor vehicles. Maybe in another 75 years, but not now and not for me😬🇦🇺
Great video John. A few other things that might be taken into account in ICE / EV comparisons include 1. the environmental cost of upgrading the grid (at least here in the UK) to provide the extra power for EV charging (steel, concrete etc). 2. CO2 cost of extra road maintenance due to heavier vehicles. 3 CO2 cost of manufacturing solar arrays. There will of course be extras on the other side of the equation like new oil exploration etc. Calculations might be a bit more difficult for all the extra costs on both sides of the equation.
I was just thinking today that the world is lacking efficient drivers more than it is lacking efficient cars. Happy to see that I am about a decade late. Not happy that the situation has not improved.
It's ironic I bought my EV for equanomic reasons as I figured that the trend of the price of petrol was only headed up. As for other reasons, yelling about "climate change" while trying as hard as possible to bury the raw data doesn't fill me with confidence about the claims. Another thing is the ever increasing complexity of doing anything but the most basic maintenance on a new petrol car myself. I kept my last car 13 years from new.
We just had an electric semi go off the I-80, the major E-W artery in north CA. Let’s conservatively call it $1 million per hour in lost revenue while THAT highway is closed! (Of course, there is the minor matter of an unquenchable fire in a forest during the height of Fire Season.) 😱😱😱😱😱 Did any of those AUS electric cement trucks get sent to the USA? Can just see the chaos if this happens during the LA Rush Hour! WHO YA GONNA SUE? 😂😂😂😂😂
Sweet! Thankfully driver walked away, happened in early morning so might be driver tiredness. I have a feeling JC may be covering this next! Thanks for the heads up.
How can you carry out an analysis of CO2 emissions from EVs versus ICE vehicles without including CO2 produced during the extraction and processing oil into diesel/petrol???
Why make up your own scope 2 number for electricity? It’s published by the department. And why exclude scope 3? That number is also provided. These numbers are also provided by state and there is a LOT of variation. You can apply the national average if you like, but difference in location is enough to swing your argument either way. But only when you are heavily stacking the argument against EV by excluding scope 3 emissions for petrol. Which are not insignificant like they are for electricity, and are also published by the department.
Critical analysis time (I am also an engineer BTW): 1) You have chosen a wanker EV not a cheaper one with lower cost and smaller battery. Why not compare a Mustang V8 against an MG4? 2) You have made the assumption that CO2 emissions from power generation will remain static and not decrease with a greater proportion of renewable generation in the next 10 years. 3) Although you discuss home solar, you assume that it contributes nothing at all to the charging of the EV. Suppose somebody has no home solar at all, buys it when they buy the cheaper EV (because they can afford to when they do not buy the wanker Tesla) and does not drive their car on the weekends. They could get maybe 10 good hours of charging on the weekend and maybe 1 hour on other days, which is enough to power the car for the week. They never had solar before so they could in fact claim that the whole benefit of the solar goes towards the car. I know it is extremely difficult to estimate how much of home solar would *typically* be used for the car but it is certainly more than the zero that you have assumed. So your argument is reasonable as it stands but it seems you started from the position of wanting the EV to lose this debate and made up an argument to suit your conclusion.
Fo many people including myself charging nearly 100% on self generated solar is straightforward, especially working from home and other factors. Also John said 40% renewables of total electricity. I read somewhere that about 65% of Australia’s electricity during the day in 2023 was renewable and the figure for 2024 is above 70%, so even if you don’t have solar John’s equation is out the window. Also factor in disconnection of grid scale renewables on the middle of the day due to oversupply of electricity and inverter throttling then his green energy scam is also irrelevant.
EVs a stupid solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Dr Vincent Gray: “The [IPCC] climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.” Dr Mike Hulme: “Claims such as ‘2500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous … The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was only a few dozen.” Dr Kiminori Itoh: “There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only ‘greenhouse gases’ is nonsense and harmful.” Dr Yuri Izrael: “There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate.” Dr Steven Japar: “Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them.” Dr Georg Kaser: “This number [of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC] is not just a little bit wrong, it is far out by any order of magnitude … It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing.”
had to post this again as it seems the first time it got deleted, now why would anyone do that? yeah science so settled all dissent has to be erased. Dr Vincent Gray: “The [IPCC] climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.” Dr Mike Hulme: “Claims such as ‘2500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous … The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was only a few dozen.” Dr Kiminori Itoh: “There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only ‘greenhouse gases’ is nonsense and harmful.” Dr Yuri Izrael: “There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate.” Dr Steven Japar: “Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them.”
Good work mate. Mostly factual presentation. Tesla battery degradation: 15-25% loss after 10 years/300,000km for nmc lithium 10-15% loss after 10 years/300,000km for lithium iron phosphate. In 30 years you will still see Tesla's getting around. Just as you see 1992 Toyota Camry's getting around now. And they don't need servicing
I would say over the next 10 years CO2 used per kw of power generated would be reduced. Also, how much CO2 moving all that fuel from the Middle East vs having power locally and already having all the power infrastructure available?
I would have also included the tires for both. The ev tires need to be so much stronger and cost more to produce etc they also wear a lot quicker due to the weight if the car, so more carbon and a lot more micro plastics in to the environment
You have forgotten the effect of the additional EV weight on the road. Heavier vehicles wear roads faster, and there is a notable Co2 impact. All the machines and products have a Co2 cost, being generous to EVs, they are destroying roads 50% faster than ICE vehicles.
@@HighFell looked up the tesla curb weights, they're no heavier than ICE cars/cuvs, so i'm not buying that argument except for true ICE Suv's where the equivalent would be a heck of a lot heavier in EV
@@18_rabbit like for like EV versions of vehicles are substantially heavier than ICE equivalent. Surely you are not arguing different? John’s video compares a Mazda 2 with a Tesla model Y. The Tesla is nearly a tonne heavier, it’s same right across vehicle types. If you compared a Ford Focus or Mazda 3 with the Y, the Y is 500kg more, 1/3rd heavier. Batteries are heavy. Of course you can always find a lardy ICE vehicle too and that’s fair enough, they are also wearing out roads at a more rapid rate than lighter vehicles.
Not CO2 related but another issue with EV: Because they are so heavy the micro particles from tires and brakes will increase a lot. Those buggers are extremely bad for the health when floating around in the environment
I live on a busy street with speed humps and a 20mph limit. Around our doors and windows a fine black dust collects, which is effectively soot and heavy particulates from tyres and brakes. The amount of black dust is concerning and we clean it regularly, least twice a week. As EVs replace ICE vehicles this will only increass. This dust is highly toxic and is known to cause all kinds of respiratory illnesses. Very few people are raising this issue at a government level.
EVs typically use very little brake material thanks to regen, its why a lot of EVs are using rear drum brakes again. On the topic of tyre wear, the 100s of thousands of dualcab utes and large SUVs sold every year essentially pumping both brake and tyre particles into the atmosphere. EVs with the comparatively tiny sales are not absolutely are not the problem here
Tyre & brake dust are not really a problem as they are heavy , tend to be chemically inert and become part of the soil over time The micro fine particulates from Diesel engines are the ones that cause respiratory diseases which is why heavy vehicles now have to wet scrub their exhausts . A MIT research project placed some lab rats in Melbourne and 100% of them died from respiratory failure . They repeated it with mice & I think rabbits just in case there was a problem with the test animals Results were identical . It made the news for 1 & one only broadcast then vanished because governments want ordinary people to live in high rises crowded into cities because this is convenient for the political parties & service providers . The fact it generates massive profits for the "right people" adds it the situation.
@@JelloTypeRI lived in a flight path for the first 16 years of my life. Everything was covered in fine black particles that have nothing to do with cars. I also copped a lot of soot from passing ships. The black particles came from somewhere. In my case it wasn’t cars
Anthropogenic CO2 amounts to 0.000012 of the atmosphere i.e. 12 parts per million. Amazing how this trace amount of a trace gas is the thermostatic knob of planet earth.
The CO2 is a very small component of the atmosphere. You missed the bit about a) humans being able to do something about CO2 in the air b) methane being 12x more effective as a GHG and c) CO2 or methane concentrations increasing atmospheric moisture (clouds) which actually does the damage not the CO2. Learn the atmospheric science and stop talking. Just stop
@@theairstig9164 you just don't get it, do you, methane is a much larger problem than CO2, yet you bundle them together. CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere, and yet you still think that's the problem.
it also has a reduced warming effect for every additional PPM ... even at 400 PPM the warming effect of each additional PPM is starting to flatten off ... 800 PPM does not cause double the warming of 400 PPM
you understated the limitation of not having a garage or carspot -- i think you'll find about HALF of the cars on the road don't have access to such a spot. Let alone that even if i did have a three car spot (for me, the spouse, and young kid) -- i wouldn't put an EV anywhere near my home .. especially when i am trying to have a peaceful sleep not worrying about burning to a crisp in my bed.
1. You compare a small fuel-efficient ICE car to a performance SUV, so right from the start your comparison is flawed 2. A comparison by VW of the difference in building an ICE vs EV Golf was 3.2 tonnes of CO2, not the 7 tonnes that you guess at 3. I average 141 Wh per km, not the 184 that you use, there's another 4 tonnes off your estimate 4. I commute 60km every day and charge my car on the weekend completely from solar, so I have zero grid emissions - it can be done 5. You haven't factored in the huge carbon costs of pumping oil out of the ground, transporting it to the refinery, refining it, transporting it to Australia by ship, transporting it to the station by diesel tanker, and pumping it into the car. Totally ignored, not even mentioned. 6. You ignore the health impacts of emissions from ICE engines 7. You talk about EV batteries burning but ICE cars are 7 times more likely to catch fire 8. As the grid gets greener EVs that are charged from the grid will reduce their emissions, while ICE cars will always be dirty 9. The next 10 years of use would see the EV further pull ahead 10. Basically you're a shill for the oil industry
No totally on topic. The " You can plug your car in to your home and run of the car battery, no blackouts! " crowd. Where is that power coming from in the first place? The only way this works is that you charge your car at work ( company pays for this ), you drive home, "Oh no you are down to 90% battery left", and plug in to charge your home battery, that has been running the house while you are away, up, even with your 3kwh solar. The next day you arrive back at work to charge your car on "fumes", that is it is almost flat. You are not being green, you are ripping off the company for your power.
Had this exact discussion with an American last week, a smart one. He cared about his household footprint and agreed that his Tesla only reduced his yearly emissions by 4% and that the same CO2 savings could have been made by buying a condensing clothes tumbler dryer that only costs $700. Another thing; If you have solar at home, you have to charge your EV when the grid has surplus, otherwise, it just removes that CO2 free energy from the grid, so equivalent to charging on dirty power sources. However most people are not home midday, so that requires batteries at home too.
1) large model Y compared to a tiny ICE car (MG4 would be fairer) 2) no CO2 allowed for extraction, refining and transporting of fuel, oils and add all those filters, so you need to add 40% to your ICE car. 3) grid is getting greener and it's already greener than you think because much of the solar is behind the meter so it isn't in your numbers 4) V2G will reduce emissions 5) at the end of 10 years a LFP battery has another 10 years of grid service left in it so it continues to reduce grid emissions where as you ICE car is blowing smoke and ready for scraping 6) batteries are getting far greener and are using less CO2 to make year on year 7) so no allowance at all for solar charging is not kosher either, you need some sort of allowance as 60% of EV owners do have solar and those that don't are on cheap plans that prioritise renewable energy by making it cheaper to charge at times when renewable energy is plentiful.
@@rattusfinkus Why, would that be more fair?, You decide the size of your EV too when you buy an EV and you could buy a small one. Emissions from gasoline production does not add 40% That is insane. Refining spends 5 kWh for heating and pumping per barrel. A barrel of oil contains 1700 kWh, add a little extra for transport, but that is on average only 4% more. Grid is getting less dirty, but only by a few grammes per year, US and average Europe is still far away from Norway and France in that regard.
Nothing better than watching a family rugged up in their Tesla at the local shopping centre running nothing so they can charge the car quicker in winter.
The fundamental flaw in John’s calculations is the emissions of the ‘fuel source’, ie electricity, are included for the EV. But they aren’t considered for the ICE vehicle. When adding the emissions created from pumping the oil from the ground, transporting it to a refinery, refining it, transporting it to servos & pumping it into the car the additional emissions rise significantly. So much energy is used in just this process, 70+ Million EVs could be powered each month for no more emissions produced. Over its entire lifetime, the vehicle manufacturing, petrol creation & engine combustion emissions of a small car are closer to 41 tonnes of C02. John’s figure of 25 tonnes for the EV aligns with analysis from other organisations. Though, to be fair, if the emissions for the extraction & transport to a refinery are counted for crude oil then the emissions for the mining & transport of coal to a power station should be included too. So the 25 tonnes figure would increase slightly. Though, as grid decarbonisation improves over the next 2 decades these emissions will drop back to 25 tonnes as both solar & wind have lower nett emissions when compared to coal & gas produced electricity. For those who question the figures supplied: www.mynrma.com.au/electric-vehicles/basics/are-evs-better-for-the-environment ua-cam.com/video/apY9DXlXtIA/v-deo.htmlsi=gKThvHdJdaTo-cw6 The other aspect being overlooked is Australian made electricity powering Australian driven EVs means thousands of Australian jobs. Which is better than sending $Billions overseas to make oil sheiks even more obscenely rich.
You mean overseas "solar sheiks". None of the infrastructure is made here..... I find it interesting you prefer to enrich solar sheiks whilst simultaneously championing a significantly reduced duty cycle.
Sorry missed that bit where you dug the rare earth minerals out of the ground, shipped them to a port, shipped them to be refined, refined them, shipped them to a battery maker, made a battery, shipped the battery to a Milk Float maker, made the Milk Float (with all those other bits shipped in), shipped the Milk Float to the Port, shipped it to the Country it's going to be sold, shipped it to the Main Stealer. Possibly the DRC has a thriving Car industry which is being lost in the clamour about their nasty rash as a result of 'interfering' with Monkeys and that's why those points have been missed or is it more 'Greengineering' as all of the 'Green' bullshit is?
Well EVs are not answer if you electricity production emissions are 650g/kwh. That is dirty on modern standard. First build nuclear power to push that under 200g average.
I do find it interesting that a by all accounts tiny hatchback, with a grid as dirty as that, only manages 10% in the end. Would be interesting to re-run this with something like a base model 3 or an ID3 or anything with a smaller battery pack considering these giant high hp SUVs are 9/10 times just micropenis compensation.
I once did energy efficiency calculations based on US grid data. Old diesel Sharan with ~40mpg vs Tesla. There was only a little difference in favor of EV, about the same 10% or so. Thought it was quite fair calculation, considering quite similar car weights (~1800 vs ~2000kg). But Sharan is more spacious (8 seater) and has 1000-1200km range (outside city).
Meanwhile - Straya’s CO2 emissions have increased despite all of the renewable power generation and electric cars. If only there was some way all of that science stuff could help… 🤦♂️
It's like at ship stuff overseas that increases our numbers. And due to tax incentives for tradies and businesses twin cab utes don't need log books so their numbers increasing is an issue.
CO2 emissions have increased because renewables aren’t rolling out faster than we’re digging up coal-in no small part because a decade of a complete vacuum of an energy policy from a Coalition stuck in the 1800s. EVs are a tiny percentage of vehicles sold, and as JC has stated many times: have near zero impact on our emissions.
1) large model Y compared to a tiny ICE car (MG4 would be fairer) 2) no CO2 allowed for extraction, refining and transporting of fuel, oils and add all those filters, so you need to add 40% to your ICE car. 3) grid is getting greener and it's already greener than you think because much of the solar is behind the meter so it isn't in your numbers 4) V2G will reduce emissions 5) at the end of 10 years a LFP battery has another 10 years of grid service left in it so it continues to reduce grid emissions where as you ICE car is blowing smoke and ready for scraping 6) batteries are getting far greener and are using less CO2 to make year on year 7) so no allowance at all for solar charging is not kosher either, you need some sort of allowance as 60% of EV owners do have solar and those that don't are on cheap plans that prioritise renewable energy by making it cheaper to charge at times when renewable energy is plentiful.
So why the hell didn't governments with all their smart advisors concentrate on reducing the size and weight of ICEs being sold rather than going with the mandatory change to EVs? As far as I can see it's a choice between a negligible cost change giving a moderate but guaranteed drop in CO2 emissions increasing with every year the policy is in place, compared to a very expensive option giving an uncertain, possibly non-existent drop in emissions for the immediate future and little guarantee it will get any better.
@@philiphumphrey1548 , That was never going to be in the programme. Terminated technology like battery powered cars, using resources like never before, is a one shot phase to get us cloistered into 15 minute villages.
I am not surprised he has yet to pick up on the Tesla electric semi crash in California that caught on fire that closed one of the most important interstates . The batteries burned at 1000 degrees . They had to bring in a water dropping helicopter . The fire department struggled to get it out . Hazmat people from Tesla were on sight and toxic fumes were released . After they finally did get it out and they loaded what was left back to Tesla in Nevada it needed a fire escort because it was possible the batteries could runaway again for the ones that hadn't burned the first time
@@SoulTouchMusic93 Who knows which Porsche model he's driving, or where he's driving it, or how large the "gallons" are that he's filling it up with. However, Fuelly says (in America): "Porsche Cayenne Diesel MPG 3.0L V6 DIESEL" 2016: 24.0 2015: 22.6 2014: 24.0 2013: 25.4 So, OP was clearly *_lying._*
Great video. The most practical way to reduce emissions would be to keep effecient cars running well, as not buying a new car saves CO2 and money. All of the saved cash could go to home solar, batteries and insulation and wind turbines, grid storage and solar farms to get rid of those coal power plants. And if that means the fewer wealthy people can charge without CO2 emissions and at a low energy price, no other incentives will be needed for those who choose to switch to EV's. In the Netherlands we are almost done with coal. Solar and wind are putting them out of business when the weather is nice and home batteries will kill them off completely in the next few years. And even then an EV is not great because of the impact on the grid and public charging mess we will need to endure for years to come.
There are definitely ideologues on both sides of the issue on Climate Change and the impact of CO2 as a "Greenhouse Gas" who have not done an ounce of research. As a layman I did due diligence and concluded that Climate Change is a reality, but that CO2 is not a substantial contribution to the decade's long reversing trend of Global Warming. The main cause seemingly is Cyclical Solar Factor's, but I would be interested in your insights on how an increase in CO2 ppm is justification for a NetZero Agenda. You seem to agree with the Electric God of EVs on that point if I'm translating your Ozzy perspective correctly. Much appreciated. 🙏
CO2 is a part of the problem, a reasonably large part , but a part just the same . Deforestation is almost as big a part Then there are hard surfaces that adsorb heat in the day & add to the radiant heat overnight . Now is every roof was fully covered with solar panels then we would be a long way down the solution pathway But cutting down forests to grow palms for bio-diesel or plant solar farms so far away from the users that you are loosing better than 20% as transmission losses will not help one iota . People are basically lazy, stupid & greedy . So the greedy exploit the laziness of the stupid to become even more greedy . It generates the same pollution to make a vehicle that will run if service properly for 100 years as it does to make one that will be lucky to last 100 weeks . So we make 100 week vehicles and encourage people to buy new ones every 100 weeks . I just had to throw away 2 perfectly good iphone 4's because the government shut down the G3 network so more spectrum can be devoted to the G5 network so my curtains can talk to my air conditioner & my fridge can talk to my car to go past the shop & get more milk on the way home . Because the G5 signal is so low energy we will need 20 times as many phone towers to get the same coverage ( more like 40 times if you take vegetation into account ) . So that is 20 times the steel and 20 time the broadcast transmitters + 40 times the electricity for no real net gain .
You also assume that the Tesla battery will last 10 years. According to the Tesla website the battery warranty in Australia is 8 years. So that's another 7 tonnes of C02 for at least a proportion of Tesla owners. Assuming they don't bin the 8 year old Tesla with a dead battery.
About 20 minutes in. Remember that the mazda has a working engine/fuel tank to be about the same weight as the non functional, no battery Tesla. So the 'manufacturing cost' for a "rolling shell" is still higher for the EV.
I almost bought a Mazda 2, because I have had a Mazda 3 for over 20 years, fantastic cars both. But I ended up getting a VW Polo R-Line, purely because the ride was much better, in my opinion. I get about 2.5 times the MPG and only emit a third of the CO2, compared to the 20 year old Mazda 3. There you go, thats my real contribution to the environment for 2024 🙂, jobs a goodun.
You don't mention the infrastructure cost regarding the additional weight of the EV.I was an IT consultant to a road authority, specialising in road and bridge information. I was reliably informed by an engineer that, all things being equal, domestic vehicles, such as the Mazda you use here, roll out the road and improve its lifespan. They don't put excessive stress on bridges either. Trucks, however, and by implication ruddy great EVs tend to destroy roads. The really heavy ones can delaminate the wearing surface, which then gets full of water which finishes the job. So EVs are bad for other road users too. I assume that additional weight will also wear tyres at an accelerated rate. How much CO2 does it take to make a tyre? May I humbly suggest you check out Patrick Moore, the joint founder of Greenpeace, regarding the veracity of global warming, then Bjorn Lomborg about the best way to spend money.
10.000 years ago, there was 3 km ice over Scandinavia, where I am from. So why did this immense ice package melt by year 5000? It sure wasn't due to man made CO2 emissions. Btw, on another topic, nuclear is the only solution if you want zero emissions. ua-cam.com/video/N-yALPEpV4w/v-deo.html Even Australia understands that, since they are now building nuclear submarines.
Talking about adding double glazing still is an Oz thing? ( Maybe ZA as well) pretty much standard on all of developed northern hemisphere with cold winters , including retrofitting nearly all older housing stock.
Thanks to MANSCAPED for sponsoring today's video! Get 20% OFF + Free International Shipping with promo code "AEJC" at manscaped.com/autoexpert ! #FathersDay
Sorry,
you can do it again cause it is completely wrong based on our research cent KIT and Munich University who had done that already multiple times.
AND bad for australia: It will not take that long till the amount of lithium will have been pulled out of the earth and the recycling figure from the german recycling industry are over 93% are recycled and used again, not down cycled.
Lithium will be reused on the material level so looks quite good cause we have already used one lfp for over 10 years and now when it should have gone into the recycling the university wants to get the cells to do further investigations and cycling cause that battery should be testet how long that outdated model could last beyonf those 2750 cycles we had used it before. 2 7 5 0 is an equivalent (based on a 60 kWh of 2750 x 400 km = 1.100.000 km
I guess that even the old mercedes did not get close to that - at least those robust model from the 80s like the taxis W123 and W124.
John, I always find your videos insightful and informative. However on this one you don’t seem to have been even handed in your analysis. Regarding the ICE vehicle you haven’t included the emissions relating to the exploration, extraction, refining, transportation and delivery of fuel (filling station) to the Mazda 2 to enable a true comparison.
Things to also consider, the EV battery will be fairly worn after 10 years and battery replacement incurs another hit of co2 penalty factored in for this. Another thing to think about on the safety front is that put simply, a two tonne car takes longer to stop from speed, when the kiddies run out, than a one tonne car, due to physics..... :-) Nice One @John Cadogan
GO SEARCH
CO2 DROUGHT
COMPARING THOSE TWO VEHICLES IS LIKE COMPARING A ROTTEN APPLE TO A PEANUT.
THOSE THAT CAN AFFORD OR NEED A BIGGER VEHICLE AREN'T GOING TO CHOOSE THE MAZDA SH!!TBOX
Government solution: 200% sales tax on Mazda 2
Or the government could SIN tax the EVs 😮
@@toml8142The government just doesn't want anyone driving - per km tax for EV and per litre tax for liquid fuel cars
Sneaky, but the opposite is happening. The US, EU, Canada and Turkey have imposed import taxes of 17-40% and up to 100% (US) on Chinese BEVs due to government subsidies being provided to lower prices.
In essence you are saying Chris Bowen is a total bell end …?
I love him. He's perfect.
Just to disambiguate, there's a difference between a bell end and a bellend.
Personal opinion. Personal opinion. Personal opinion.
@@ScottMurrayBestFamilyCars thanks 🔔end 👍
We all know which one @@ScottMurrayBestFamilyCarsis
Inarguable
Minor correction to these figures - you need to include CO2 in production and transport of petrol, which adds about 30% (less for diesel). I realize you've left out some production emissions around generating electricity from coal as well, but best to include both for a more solid comparison.
But if he added CO2 production for the refining and transport of oil, his numbers wouldn't show that ICE cars produce 10% less CO2. And if he chose to choose comparable cars with more realistic mileage efficiency, it would be worse again. The ONLY way he can support his argument is to used unrealistic numbers, flawed logic and dishonest tactics. He's made that abundantly clear.
@@DIYMick yes starting to lose any ounce of respect I had for him because of this absolute nonsense
@@cross8manroberts119 yep. I didn’t mind his channel. I thought he was tough but fair. But this report has shone a light on his true motivations. He’s not stupid, so these omissions are 100% intentional
@@DIYMick Argonne labs in the US have found the well to tank process for motor fuel to be 80% to 85% efficient. This would add about 20% to the CO2 emissions for the Mazda.
He also said he didn't add the GHGe emissions from fugitive emissions in mining the coal used to generate the electricity for the Tesla (about 5%). His figures also likely didn't include extra CO2 from grid losses between the coal power plant and wherever the Tesla is charged (about 10%), or due to losses in the charger (about 5%). It probably also doesn't include the CO2 from the manufacture of solar cells and wind turbines either.....
He also said himself that the Mazda wasn't equivalent to the Tesla, but he used it to demonstrate that if you really wanted to save CO2, you could buy the smaller, cheaper, Mazda (which also produced less CO2 during manufacture btw), instead of the Tesla.....
@@DIYMick This guy has become a clown show for the petrol industry and a traitor. The biggest oil producers are Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela. Think about it.
I purchased a Mazda 2 on your recommendation back in 2016.
Awesome little car. Highway driving it would get 4.9l per 100ks.
Traded it in for an Alfa Romeo Giulia Quadrifolio. Even the Alfa would get 8.1L per 100 highway.
I bought a second hand Mazda 323 back in 92 for about a hundred quid and ran it into the ground for another 4 years and scrapped it for 70 quid all I had to buy for it was tyres and brake pads, cracking little cars and always have been
With Alfa Romeo you also need to add into the account the CO2 your car mechanic is using to get to their shop to keep your Alfa running 😁
@@1888sparky By big ass BMW 520D does under 4l per 100km on the motorway, diesel is the way to go, a lot less CO2 also.
@@1888sparky a tesla model 3 does 0.05L/100km … half a litre equivalent to go 100km on an 8ckWh ev plan .. I hope you feel better now 😆😂😂
@@sheepyracing2774 Get a zero out of your 0.05/100 and multiply by 2 (unless your gas in Australia is $3/L ). And recall, the video is about overall CO2 emission, not the cost of running on subsidized plans. As I read, average electricity rates are in 20-30 c/kwh range, so if you paid market electricity rate, you would be paying around the cost of 3 liters of gas per 100 km
TL;DW: Facts don't hurt. No EV's are not "eco friendly". They're actually worse if you don't look after them.
You’ve awakened my PTSD from the lectures I took during analytical methods lectures studying civil engineering at uni. Despite the fact that I’m wrapped in a cold sweat this is great content John. You’re doing the work that no one else is prepared to do. When you boil the numbers down it’s ever more clear that EVs really are just greenwashing and virtue signalling done by those who knit yogurt and wear lentil based clothing.
There is plenty of people doing the work but no one will report on it except the oil companies and when they do it gets considered about as accurate as the tobacco industry's research into lung cancer .
Lots of mining & metal processing groups have crunched the numbers from all sorts of angles to prove without a question 100% EV can never ever happen .
I could tell you that VW cancelled an entire range of EVs back in 2018 because they could not a guaranteed cobalt supply contract for the estimated life of the model range .
Mercedes had a similar problem with Niobium so they changed the entire drive train .
Then there is thallium , another metal that is crucial for the high efficiency electric motors, they don't call them "Rare Earth Metals" so they can bump the ticket price up higher .
😂
@@I-have-a-brain_and-use-it "crunched the numbers from all sorts of angles to prove without a question 100% EV can never ever happen" Really! have you not seen what has happened in the last 50 years with battery & motor technology! They are already here, they are happening, and like everything else in the technology space, they will get better, lighter, smaller, cheaper and more efficient, like computers, phones, laptops, tablets. John @AutoExpertJC is not saying they are not viable ever, he is just saying the numbers don't currently stack up as much as they are hyped by certain groups now.
A few UA-camrs shouting into the ether and a handful of scientists publishing reports on scientific websites that no one will even find online let alone read does not balance out governments enforcing EVs as all new vehicle purchases, with £17.5k fines per ICE/PHEV/HEV by 2030 in the UK.
If you’re reading this you already know what a stupid decision this is but it’s going to happen unless a lot more people refuse to buy EVs. The market will dictate the future. All the big car makers are pulling away from EV production already. If the consumer refuses EVs then it may change but only if they reject EVs out of hand.
it takes 7.5 kWh of electricity to refine one gallon of gasoline... this guy is clueless
" Being a dumbshit" is also a prerequisite to become a politician in my opinion
Yeah - otherwise you fail the first interview. IQ needs to be under the room temp in deg C
A couple of old mates became politicians after university. Most of us just said, “what a shame. He had so much potential” maybe the potential was just a cunning act
ahem, "a corrupt, lying dumbshit"
ahem "being a lying, corrupt dumbshit" if you don't mind
In politics, ignorance is not necessarily a disadvantage.
Also not accounting for the fact that it's incredibly easy to write off a Model Y and then you have to start that over again, or if it needs a battery replacement under warranty (which is hardly unheard of) - in which case you have to add another 7 tons.
And there are heaps of 20 and even 30 year old Mazdas still running around which simply will not happen with EVs. They will be replaced with newer ones.
It all depends on battery tech. If it’s the same shite batteries, at these prices (adjusted for inflation), the EVs will be disposable. However, the electric motor is extremely reliable and pretty hard to kill. Not that much that can go wrong with them.
Exactly. A 20 year old Mazda, that has been well maintained, will still be just as efficient as it was when new. Can't say or expect the same from that Tesla, in fact the Tesla will have been consigned to the breakers long before it gets to 20 years of age - because battery degradation and replacement cost (if it's even available) will be too expensive to be worthwhile.
planned obsolescence - pity the utopian central planners can't see that one - the corporate bean counters are right in the thick of it.
@@meuknowwho7041 theoretically yes, but a lot of EV motors have been replaced - and the bottom line is that the battery is the most important part of the vehicle and once it's no longer serviceable that is realistically the end of life for that car.
@@mahcooharper9577 yeah that was my point. The battery. Of course you’re going to get dud motors. But generally, in most electric machines, the motors are very durable. If you know electric motors, especially brushless, you know that there isn’t much that can go wrong with them if wired etc properly with a good controller and hall sensors
I suck at maths, but with your explanation this demonstration was made quite clear. When I first saw the whiteboard, I said 'Nope. I'm out', but wound up watching until the end. Thank you!
I put man made climate change down to attending communist university and taking antidepressants and having ADHD and not being able to afford a house and trying to cancel capitalism.
Which one of those afflictions does John suffer from, if you skip to 6:30 you'll see him stare very clearly that man made climate change is real and it's a serious problem
Get help!
JHFC
@@dereksollows9783 his opinion, don't have to agree... who needs help?
It’s the same with the fake stories about the poor treatment of aboriginals and natives; it never happened, they have always had it better then the rest of us, but the media just wants you to feel guilty so they make up stories and rewrite history.
I'll stick with my 91 gq 4.2 turbo diesel patrol no fucked up electronics. hand throttle and no air bags coz we die like real men haha
Fuck yeah!
My mum had a bronze one back in the late 90s/early 2000s. A proper whistlin' diesel.
If you're driving a GQ you're more likely to just end up severely mentally impaired
Gu owner here .. definitely not a green machine that’s for sure lol
I also stick with my old Kia Sportage 2008, no gratuitous electronics just a simple, comfy, solid car.
The "prayer room" was renamed "Pyne's Parlour" in 2021. Try to keep up.
I missed that meeting...
@@AutoExpertJC sorry to hear it. It was quite the occasion, every attendee was given a fleshy flute to play.
John had me riveted at that first statement.
"This is gonna be good", I thought.
Lovely calculations Mr Cadogan but they did not seem to include the CO2 cost of extraction and transportation of oil, the CO2 cost of refining that oil to diesel and petrol and the associated CO2 cost to transport it to the distribution hubs.
Also you compare the opportunity cost of a 31k Mazda with a 90k Tesla when a punter could buy a 45k MG or BYD EV which would be a much closer match.
Still better than the cost to setup charging stations for Everyone, all the copper, earthworks, parking etc etc imo
Ripper video John- thanks for building some clarity around the hysteria, MALS!
I was recently in Indonesia and was shocked to see how much better the Indonesians ranked on the CO2 per capita charts! This is besides every second house burning their own plastic rubbish. Interesting that 99% of the vehicles were either kei trucks or scooters, no 2.5 tonne shit boxes carting a single flog around. They’d rather put 4 flogs on a moped and enjoy the “fresh air”.
This would be a really interesting study that I could do in more detail I suppose in my spare time. Anyhow, love the show and roolly roolly hope you read this out in the bogan voice!
Hi John. It doesnt matter if you have Solar or not. When charging your EV the power is not going into the grid. The grid has to replace this power. This will be at the average grid carbon intenity of 680 g/kwhr (NSW), close to your estimate of 650 BTW.
Have you wondered why electricity retailers these days are now paying a pittance for feed in power from PV systems? It's because on even moderately days when PV systems are producing, the grid has an excess of PV power.....to the point where the wholesale price of power often goes negative. For someone like myself with a decent sized PV system....economically it makes sense to direct excess power from my system into a home battery or EV rather than sell it into the grid for 5c/kWh.
From this I take the following:
- SUVs are unnecessarily thirsty, whether EV or ICE.
- Australia’s grid is very dirty meaning the green potential of EVs in Australia is not currently of value.
All good numbers John , BUT !!!
You forgot to add the ' Carbon Footprint ' the Tesla made during manufacture ,, it's 4-5x that of the Mazda !
The fun thing about statistics is that you can cherry pick them to say whatever you want, but it takes a lot of tinfoil to deny the massive upsurge in cancer and lung\breathing issues.
Interestingly enough, they used statistics to advertise the health benefits of cigarette smoking for a long time to increase the adoption rate until it was considered ignorant NOT to smoke to improve your health and the health of those around you.
Hi John, once again, i always appreciate your imput on this matter, and i hope i can get a response.
As an electrical engineer and part time statistician, i have a couple of faults with this analysis.
Firstly: no one would ever compare the masda to a tesla, theyre not equivalent vehicles, one is probably for someone that GENUINELY enjoys driving, one is for someone that enjoys taking journeys and needs a commuter or buisness vehicle and probably doesnt care for the car more than how it performs (generalisation) but i wouldnt class them in the same category. If you want a smaller 4/5 seater EV, a good example would be a dacia, voxhaul, or a vw id.
I completely agree with your estimate about materials and production for the overall vehicle, however, and one thing i believe that is missed out about the batteries here are 2 things:
The majority of co2 estimates come from fossil fuel burning for electricity to produce the batteries. (So essentially the cleaner the grid of the country you manufacture, the cleaner the batteries). This also means that the more that a country invests in renewables, the cleaner making a battery becomes. (I believe Australia and china burns alot of coal) however the assumption that our grid will never get any greener is one of the biggest fundamental flaw in most arguments against EVs.
And 2, some (not all) battery plants are powered by 100% renewable energy and only use the grid to top up any lack in power.
A massive factor that you havent included is the amount of refining and production that goes to manufacturing fuel, it doesnt just come out of the ground and go straight into the car. In fact nearly the exact same amount of energy goes into refining the fuel as does lithium refining (same weight). This utterly ruins any argument against EVs by itself but...
The other is massive transport costs to transport the gasoline by boat and truck. Times any of this by 10 years and including this into any calculation, it absolutely destroys any comparison to any EV car. - primarily because electricity is often pumped (gas), or is generated within the country (neuclear, solar, wind). Coal is a big exception, however alot of countriees are phasing this out.
I agree with alot of your maths, and will trust that the sources you found are reliable. However, Even Conservative estimates of EVs show that EVs reduce by over double if not tripple the Co2 consumption when compared to a 100% dirty grid.
GENUINELY enjoys driving in Australia with a 110 KPH limit? Refining coal into electric power? vast holes mining and transportation. Try Perth airport every morning of the week going to work on jets to mine rare earth metals. The solar panels require the same metals. If you are happy to have a Nuclear power station give us your post code.
@sustainart5207 I am not sure of your point here, appologies.
@@DS9FANINDADEFIANT Speed limits are a cash cow in Australia. Traffic police behind every saltbush and no lane discipline. Most Australians barely go over 60. Given the inexperience of most drivers, car makers hand them a weapon that does 0-100 in 2.3 seconds, what could go wrong? Even in the dark, the Kangaroos get you. I used to drive high-performance cars, these days I look and my brain switches on. Why bother?
@sustainart5207 you don't have to make a turbocharged V6 in a car... you don't have to put a 180+KW motor in a tesla or any other EV. Some EVs are slow, unfortunately it's alot easier for an electric motor to be powerful (and it's more efficient for it to be) so it has to be software limited to cap speed and torque. Which is fine, but then people complain that they don't have full power.
@@sustainart5207 nuke power is fantastic and very safe. Happy to have it near me, in the USofA but i'd be happy to have it in a less spacious country as well if i lived in one.
Recently attended Belrose Supa Centre in NSW. EV charging points in the bottom level of the carpark, which has 4 or 5 levels above. Chargers are located right next to the moving escalators/lift well that continues up to the top floor of the building. There is a rooftop carpark, which is open air. Surely a better place for chargers!
From what I understand, the car parks are not engineered to take the weight of Evs on the upper floors. The charging stations are likely near the lifts because the structure is stronger there and the electrical lines are there as well. Safety is not considered.
Greetings from a murrica ya bogan
I love the Redneck Paradise.
@@AutoExpertJC Most ozzies would gladly crawl across the Texas border just to fulfill the dream of washing dishes in a Chicago restaurant
@@pizzaearthpancakesandother2549
As long as it’s not the toilet of a parlour where you sell that disgusting thing you call pizza.
You’d need a concrete drill to get through the cheese clogging.
Our mullets are better
"It's more important to be seen to be doing good, than to actually do good"
Excellent video and analysis John. The CO2 emission results for EVs are actually significantly worse than you have already noted after you factor in all the CO2 emissions associated with doubling the electricity generation capacity, and replacing every single piece of electrical infrastructure (generators, transmission towers, transmission lines, sub-stations, transformers, local transmission lines and local transformers). After years of assertions that an EV vehicle fleet would only add a few percent to power generation and distribution requirements, both Elon Musk and the US electrical energy suppliers have, in recent months, noted that the size of the grid needs to be doubled just for EVs. And then increased another 50% for all the additional load associated with massive data storage associated with AI and cloud storage.
Agreed....unfortunately the majority [talking 99.9%] of the people watching this great informative video already question EV v's ICE and Climate Change [or whatever the current politically correct gender identity title / pro noun is] and therefore won't be persuaded in to the EV market.
Because of 'the Global Elite / WEF / The Agenda there's no mainstream media or journalist who will publish or cover this even if to try to discredit because they know they can't and if they tried the 'aforementioned' would remove funding and shut them down.
Call me a conspiracy theorist if you wish but only after you've provided indisputable facts that I'm wrong
Data centers in A.Murica are another energy challenge for the grid competing with EVs. Getting trucks electrified too has been problematic with just one Tesla truck needing a megawatt charger. Even doubling the grid would not be enough for this utopia we are being sold.
A lot more emissions go into extracting, refining and transporting fossil fuels. Sorry dude
Another problem that doesn’t get reported enough is that we are running out of sunlight and wind due to the solar panels and wind turbines; if we keep building them, we will end up with deserts everywhere as no wind cools them and everyone in the dark as we used up all the sunlight.
We need to drill more, the earth makes more then enough crude to last forever! No more solar and wind, stop using up those limited resources!!
@@rattusfinkusretired power company electrician here, increasing the grid power demand to accommodate the EV charging also dramatically increases the line losses of delivering that power to the point of consumption! Sorry dude!
So you compare 500+ horsepower, 3.8 sec 0-60 AWD SUV with 900+ liters of cargo space with a Mazda 2? Why? Why not against some Audi Q6 4.2 liter gasoline? Or Range Rover? Or on the other hand - why not Renault Zoe or Nissan Leaf? Or Fiat 500 EV vs the Mazda 2?
Yawn. Try to keep up: Both are roughly equivalent on planet-saving potential. One is far easier to deploy to the masses. The other is the most popular EV in the world...
Not all comparisons have to be dollar-for-dollar or on the basis of being in the same segment.
(This is a very grown-up concept. Don't let it trouble you.)
@@AutoExpertJC well, dear grown up agenda pusher, you either compare apples with apples, or compare stuff, disrespectful of specs, if it fits your narrative. If you were the first to play this game cherry picking would not have been invented. Unlucky you - no "first ever" award for your stunt. P.S. trying to be smart does not work every time.
Did you look in the mirror when you said that? Top Gear and Prius vs M3???
@@AutoExpertJC yes. I look in a mirror sometimes, and that is what i see. I drive 50-70 000 km yearly since 2010. Between 2010 and 2020 i have driven 3 consecutive brand new Mazda 6 Wagons. But my family grew and lately i have even used 520 liter top box. It burns 8-9 l per 100 km, not 6.5. So when my last Mazda 6 Wagon become 250 000 km old i had to change it. I got Telsla model Y. Or i should get 2x Mazda 2? Or Mazda 2 + trailer? Now i've got 20 kWp rooftop solar and 65 kWh batteries, and i charge from solar day or night at least 9 months yearly (winter is worse, sure).
On top of that my job is to deal with health consequences of tailpipe emissions, of which you are somewhat quiet. Why is that? You are aware that obese people are even more likely to get cancer or cardiovascular disease, aren't you? Mirror?
So what you preach is total BS for a lot of use cases. Compare apples with apples, or quit talking for sciense.
@@AutoExpertJC You're clearly not a grown-up when you compare a city car with an SUV. You're grasping at straws trying to make EVs look bad.
You can't compare different car segments' emissions, I thought you were grown-up enough to understand this :P
You may as well compare Australia's #1, the Ford Ranger to the #6 Toyota Corolla and then go "look how much worse the CO2 is on the Ranger vs Corolla". Well DUH! Because as you say: "Not all comparisons have to be dollar-for-dollar or on the basis of being in the same segment." It's just as pointless.
If someone is replacing their ICE SUV they not going to go buy a small car like a Mazda 2 unless their life situation has changed drastically.
And you also completely ignored the emissions from extracting, refining and transporting petrol or diesel.
Not everyone has a dirty coal fired grid like Australia, and the energy mix is getting greener every year. ICE cars will not change much in emissions. Manufactures struggle already to meet new demands resulting in these tiny engines and cars that are extremely dull to drive.
John called out the obvious disparity in size between a Mazda 2 and a Model Y, with the mazda 2 being significantly smaller than the Tesla, especially boot space.
Why not compare the Mazda to something like a BYD Atto 3 which is also far closer in price and size.
Because he has an agenda.
Thanks for articulating this so well John, I have been trying to explain this to people for quite a while.
You included the CO2 emissions to generate the fuel for the EV, but you did not include the CO2 generated in producing the perrol for the Mazda. That should probably be added to the Mazda's emissions
If he was to include the CO2 of the fuel production, I guess he should have also considered the CO2 of the manufacturing of solar panels, inverters and wind farms. 🤔
Sorry John, but your numbers for the Tesla are wrong.
You have not factored in the degradation of the battery over those 10 years. That 430km range will be barely 340km in 10 years time (80% remaining capacity).
No doubt that won't be the original owners problem - they would have traded the old donk in at 5 years. But reality still matters, and those batteries are not made of magic, they will degrade. The numbers for the Tesla are even worse than your +10% compared to the Mazda 2.
A friend of mine bought a ID4 last year. From snooping around in the car his "average" is ~25KWh/100k. He drove 60k kilometers in that time, replaced 2 aircons, this summer used 2 sets of tires, and his battery capacity dropped by like 5%. ;)
There is a 2020 Tesla Model 3 in QLD that just hit 300,000km and it has 89% of the original capacity. The batteries are very well managed in modern EVs.
@@foylemaIs’nt that nice…
My 2011 3.2 ltr Diesel Pajero just ticked over 320k this week..but strangely I still have 100% usability of my 70ltr fuel tank.
@@foylema its lost 11% of its capacity in 4 years? That is not something to brag about...
@@foylemathat’s pretty good
You forget the CO2 released from manufacturing the internal combustion engine, transmission, fuel tank and everything associated with the propulsion system of the ICE car. The comparison of CO2 emissions from ICE and EV has been done by real scientists many many times. The result is that EVs make up the increased CO2 released during manufacturing in about 2 years of operation. After that the EV is all cleaner.
He didn’t forget. He purposely omitted them as the’s the only way he could his paltry 10% difference between a Y and a small lightweight ICE car using unrealistic mileage
Hi John. I have a couple of points for you to consider in your calculations. You have calculated the tailpipe emissions of the Mazda 2 but you haven't accounted for the CO2 emissions involved in getting oil out of the ground, refining it and transporting it. If you can find figures for this your calculation will change significantly. As a side issue you could find the amount of electricity used to refine the road fuel and how far the Tesla could travel on just that. Estimates I have seen are in the range of 4kWh for each imperial gallon of petrol refined. Also your politicians are clever enough to have solar panels that can charge the Tesla at night, here in Brexitistan our solar panels only work during the day. I would be delighted to see your figures reworked to include road fuel carbon emissions. Kind regards. Jack
I heard that in the real world Mazda NA engines return much higher fuel economy than other manufacturers with small turbo engines
I'm not a massive fan of Mazda myself, but they seem to be the only manufacturer still trying to innovate with internal combustion engines.
The other companies just put all their eggs in the EV and hybrid basket because they can claim to be innovating without actually inventing anything new.
@@Patrick-857I think Toyota too.
It's just that Toyota are far more conservative in terms of engine design, erring on the side of robustness.
They still innovate, but are less willing to push the envelope lest the deliver a shit quality power plant.
@@jaysdoodand yet they managed to do just that with the new V6...
@@wizzyno1566straight six with Mazda.
@@Patrick-857Mazda's are better than Toyota's I think.
Also there’s the recycle lifespan to consider too. The Mazda will be a fully viable used car after 10 years usage. Whereas the Tesla wouldn’t be so viable due to the 8 year warranty has ran out and end of life disposal of the batter costs and C02 cost.
I’ll stick with my fully serviceable ICE vehicle. Great video John 👍
which makes the opportunity cost of the expensive EV even worse from a financial standpoint. As the grid has more pressure on it electricity prices will continue to rise making public charging even more expensive further impacting the financials. I also fear the quality of the horde of chinese made EVs, which may be cheaper upfront, but not over the lifetime, which is likely to be much less thatn quality made vehicles.
Your one obvious mistake was that the present grid CO2 intensity is 550g/kWh which is 8% less than your number. This changes your equivalence right now in favour of the Tesla. Projections estimate that the grid in 2050 will have an intensity of 100g. This blows your argument out of the water
Nope - grid intensity hasn't actually changed significantly since last year, - percentage of fossil fuels in the grid mix only went down slightly, so the figure he's using is still pretty applicable.
Umm, I think he was talking about the comparison right now, not what might (or might not) happen in 25years?
Yours is one of the very few big auto channels that honestly and very knowledgeably talk about the EV/climate change issue. Well done, Sir.
I have bought 2 cars in my life , When I first got my licence in 1995 I bought a GQ Patrol currently it has done 480k original motor , a decade later I bought an X-Trail for the missus it currently sists at 145k. Both cars still drive perfectly and I don't plan on buying new cars as I have no need on one. I would like to see an EV last half as long.
Another thing to consider is refueling vs charging time - you can fill up a Mazda in 5 minutes, an EV charge is at least 30 minutes even on a fast charger. Not exactly practical while travelling.
Yeah but the EVangelists seem to all need 30 minutes or more to pee and stretch their legs and get some coffee so it's just like owning an ICE!. I do all that and am back on the road in a maximum of 10 minutes and have 450 miles of range. No EV can come close to matching that. I have an EV as well I just leave it at home when I need to go somewhere more than 200 miles a day.
@@joecoolioness6399same here. I recently drove from sydney from Melbourne and back. I took my Audi Q5 rather than my BYD Atto 3. I don't want to stop 50 million times to charge, wait for charging to complete, or go further while hoping the chargers at the next stop are working. Sure it costs more to drive the Audi but it's more convenient and less stressful.
Part of that consideration is how often you actually do more than 300 miles a day. For most people it is not really a problem. If it is then get a diesel. In 20 years time almost everyone will choose the EV over the diesel.
Plus it’ll cost you a fortune in pies and coffee for the whole family every time…
@@nathankendalThe servo pie? That's basically toilet abuse.
If you compare a 150cc scooter to a Hummer EV, the scooter is much better for the environment. We need to get away from electric bikes and smart cars and use the environmentally friendly 3 ton UTEs for short commutes and daily chores.
I will leave the calculations to you 😂😂, I spent too much time at school thinking about BOOBIES 😂.
Very interesting video.
I bought a brand new Mazda 2 last year. I can wear the smug face now 😂l
We've owned two of the earlier modes, an '02 and an '07. You can wear a smug face for some time to come. Fantastic cars.
So, would it be fair to say Hybrids are actually more compelling than EV’s, as is the prevailing view in Japan? Would love a comparison.
Yes, you are correct.
There is a reason why Toyota head office in Japan and Kia/Hyundai HQ in South Korea is focusing on hybrids currently in Australia - and not EV's. Year to date (end July), hybrid sales have increased by over 114% in Australia. Led by the RAV-4 hybrid.
Currently EV's only represent 8.3% of the total market of 1.2 million new car sales per annum in Australia.
This was a great exercise but there are many missing pieces that are worth considering. Many people with rooftop solar consider their total electricity consumption and adding an EV would be included in that calc, ideally. Keep in mind that EVs have developed to where they are (still somewhat early adoption) in a little over 10 years whereas the ICE vehicle industry has had roughly 100 years; things are changing quickly. For this reason, it is also not great to use averages because the available data is skewed by older technologies while not updated to account for the current and coming technology.
One huge oversight in such exercises is not accounting for just how much energy is wasted along the way from mining to burning/conversion for electricity generation to grid/distribution to propelling vehicles. Burning fossil fuels to do all of this is actually quite inefficient, with as much as 80% or so lost to inefficiency/waste/heat. This is perhaps the most compelling argument for the push we are seeing to electrify as much stuff as possible. In theory, the efficiency gains alone can justify much of the enormous investment. Electric motors are inherently much more efficiency than combustion engines, for instance.
You also compared two very different vehicles. The Model Y is larger and can seat up to 7 people and supposedly a SUV, for example, and it's often much less than $90k, at least in the US where they can be had for half that. Then there's also often tax incentives to offset the costs (whether you agree with them or not). Then again, we also tend to subsidize very mature and profitable industries such as the fossil fuel ones as well, similar to renewables but without the same logic. There are emissions other than CO2 to be concerned with. EVs tend to require less maintenance and batteries can be recycled even though we haven't implemented efficient ways of doing so.
These are just points to consider but I also think it's a worthy exercise to do these comparisons and be as objective as possible. I drive a big SUV with a V8 btw.
how much co2 is emitted to refine fuel and bring it to the gas station though? EV makes no financial sense to me, nor does hybrid so I got an ICE 2 months ago. And if we consider purchase cost, we should also consider energy cost. Even your own solar isn't free, the panels, inverters and home battery have a finite life so I would amortize the cost over the warranty duration.
"People cued up over the fucking horizon" is going to get yet another type of people upset at you.
Standing ovation is well deserved.
@mini_steve We're going to run out of slate.
Where's the pool room?😅
Queued.
@simoncrooke1644 Fair play, I shouldn't drink, comment and post without first proof reading. My bad, thanks for the catch. I now hang my head in shame.
@@simoncrooke1644 I honestly didn't catch it.
That Mazda 2 with a high compression, dedicated, liquid injection, LPG engine would emit 10 to 15% less CO2 again than the petrol version, with no loss of performance. It would else emit less NOx and virtually zero particulate matter. The Aus LPG conversion rebates only finished a decade ago, and then the whole infrastructure was allowed to implode. One can't help but wonder if the billions spent on the newest government golden child, the EV, will end up with the same fate?
yeah such a shame that LPG was let to implode. Very useful in many countries, including in Europe, for cars.
@@stocksucks9281 compressed natural gas can also be used in cars. And you can refuel at home. Honda usa used to sell a civic that ran on natural gas.
LPG helped the transition from carburettors and points ignition to fuel injection and better ignitions along with catalytic convertors etc. Not the great advantages there were back then. I would still have an LPG car for the clean running but the conversion costs are not economical nowadays. My XF did about 18,000 ks to break even on a $1600 conversion cost in 1991 and it paid it self off about 3 or 4 times over after that. When gas was cheap and petrol was dear, I saved about 60% and about 30% when gas was dear and petrol was cheap. Oil used to stay clean on the dipstick for 8000ks. My current car, a Holden Cruze running on mainly E10 is about the same condition on the dipstick at 12000ks thanks to the fuel and the engine design.
@@rjbiker66 In New Zealand in the 1980s we had Compressed natural gas (CNG) which could be added to a petrol vehicle with a tank in the boot.I had it in a Ford Cortina and there was an art to changing fuels on the go. From petrol to CNG you would switch the fuel off until the carburettor ran dry then turn on the gas. Obviously primitive by today’s standards but it worked well. Slowly died in NZ however my car was stolen before this.
The calculation looks good to me.
The problem is that it doesn’t work for me here in Denmark.
The grid emissions here is 130 grams per kWh and that tips the scales towards the EV.
I did it for my diesel car and I do emit 6 tons more over 10 years.
I still don’t want one for all the other reasons.
What if your country produces 85% of its energy from hydro?
I'm sure this guy would find a way to say that is not true :P
Then it would be Norway, and an EV would actually be significantly cleaner than an ICE vehicle.
But it's not Norway, it's Australia, and we get about 60% of our grid electricity from coal on average.
Overnight, when most people will be charging their EVs, the grid mix changes to between 70% and 80% coal.
Consequently, an EV in Australia in most cases isn't really that clean....
@@peeemm2032 If the proper comparison is done it will not look like the EV is worse. You have to compare cars in same segment/size to get a proper picture.
A similar size EV to a Mazda 2 will be below 20t in Australia. Even replacing the Model Y performance with the base model will be better or close. And you save 40k AUD to spend on solar and battery.
No one in the market for a Mazda 2 would spend 80k AUD on a Model Y performance.
@@Gazer75 so I think you've very succinctly encapsulated the EV fanboy attitude - "If the EV doesn't look better, then it must be wrong, right?".
EV fanboys like you just don't realise how ridiculous some of the things you say actually are, and don't appear to to understand the logical contradictions and impossibilities you get yourselves into, in order to justify your biases....
Did you even watch the video? He wasn't trying to demonstrate that an equivalent ICE vehicle is cleaner than a comparable EV. The whole premise of his argument was that if you want to reduce carbon emissions in Australia, you can do it just as effectively (if not more so) by buying a smaller, lighter, more affordable ICE.
He did this quite effectively.....tough sh!t if it doesn't fit your preferred narrative......
If objective reality doesn't fit with your narrative, it's the narrative that needs to change - not objective reality 😀😂🤣😃
@@peeemm2032 That premise is just silly. A family of 4 is not going to go from a big SUV to a small city car. Unless its a second car used by one of the adults for commuting. Maybe if the economy was tight enough and they had to cut cost.
But sure, if you ignore that fact then obviously a smaller car reduces CO2 emissions. This would be true anywhere in the world, not just Australia.
You would reduce the emissions even more going from an ICE SUV to a small EV, but I guess that doesn't fit the narrative.
Comparing the Mazda 2 to a similar sized ICE SUV as the Model Y would also favor the Mazda 2.
No idea how you got the impression I'm a "fanboy", you don't know me at all. I'm pretty neutral on the whole subject tbh. I just want to stop people from doing silly comparisons to fit their narrative.
He could have compared the Mazda 2 with a Rivian R1 or a Ford F150 lightning to make it look even worse. But it only makes the comparison look even more silly.
As others have pointed out the electricity production is getting greener over time in Australia. ICE not so much.
I've not done more calculations, but if you reduce the average by 50-100g CO2/kWh they numbers might look a bit different.
Thank you for working this out. However, I would have preferred that you had done a base Model Y on the basis that anyone watching this who doesn't agree with you and who has a clue will say that you used the Model Y Performance to skew both vehicle price and range/efficiency. Basically, this was cherry-picked - not awfully bad, but I don't think it's being intellectually forthcoming. They employ similar tactics so I believe it would be readily apparent to them.
Your arguments are correct. I have just done a research report on the characteristics of the sun's Global Horizontal Irradiation which applies to PV solar and if one wanted to charge an EV overnight, let's start with energy figures that may differ depending on individual circumstances.
For example, assuming a household wants to have rooftop PV solar and a storage battery, and use the battery for providing power for the household, the 10A power capacity for an electric shower, cater for the hot-water system, capacity for split system heat pumps, charging the EV.
In terms of energy, let's assume 13 kWh for the household (daily), 7 kWh for charging the EV overnight (for an average of 50 km daily range), one might contemplate using a 20 kWh battery, or let's say 2 x Tesla Powerwall 3 systems in parallel for something similar.
To charge the battery, or let's say to keep it topped up by taking advantage of charging when the sun shines, the PV solar system needs to have a capacity of around 10 kW, to charge the battery as quickly as possible and to leave some energy for the household while the sun is shining.
Now, the problem is as I see it, to put a 10 kW PV solar system on the roof, one might need close to 30 panels which raises the question as to how many rooftops in Australia have the area to mount so many panels. While in the UK the price per kWh for battery systems varies from 500-750 Pounds per kWh, the Telsa 3 power wall being at the lower end of the scale and also very innovate as it has capacity for two-way EV charging communication allowing ESP and USP (that is the EV providing the power for the household in case of grid outage).
My estimate is that a system with the feature set described above, including the multi-way and a few dedicated string-inverters, the software control and BMS, room for future expansion, ease of installation, and user-friendly and reliable operation will not only cost between $25,000-$35,000, but the number of PV panels required will not fit on most rooftops.
1) large model Y compared to a tiny ICE car (MG4 would be fairer)
2) no CO2 allowed for extraction, refining and transporting of fuel, oils and add all those filters, so you need to add 40% to your ICE car.
3) grid is getting greener and it's already greener than you think because much of the solar is behind the meter so it isn't in your numbers
4) V2G will reduce emissions
5) at the end of 10 years a LFP battery has another 10 years of grid service left in it so it continues to reduce grid emissions where as you ICE car is blowing smoke and ready for scraping
6) batteries are getting far greener and are using less CO2 to make year on year
7) so no allowance at all for solar charging is not kosher either, you need some sort of allowance as 60% of EV owners do have solar and those that don't are on cheap plans that prioritise renewable energy by making it cheaper to charge at times when renewable energy is plentiful.
@@rattusfinkus RE: point 2), in regard to adding 40%, you also need to add a range of percentages to the EV operation. For example the constant change of tyres, the damage done to the road, the ultimate recycling of the battery, the need to replace the EV with the slightest damage to the battery, the enormous damage done in case of an EV fire, the quick 10 year turnaround and disposal of EVs all adds further CO2 as well.
@@Ernst12 sorry chum an ice car also uses oil, filters and more brake pads and it also wears out tyres
@@Ernst12 a LFP battery lasts over a million KMs and will further reduce emissions by providing grid services before the natty is recycled. Sorry
@@Ernst12 where do you get 10 years from, MG offers lifetime warranty on the battery, power electronics and motor in Thailand and in Australia they off 10 years/ 250,000km. CATL has truck batteries with 1.5 million KMs warranty.
II have been hoping you would do this video. The calculation I would now like to see is "buy and Mazda" and spend the change from the Tesla on a home battery.
I acknowledge that I am by your definition the "green zealot, with the perfect job, massive solar array and ideally located etc.) I used your numbers to calculate the impact of my EV (a Mini Cooper SE) and found that it results in 18.5 tons of CO2, which puts me ahead in terms of emissions-even when considering your grid charging CO2 figures. I also fit the ADHD example you mentioned-I have a 14kW solar array on my house and charge my EV entirely from solar power, only plugging in when there's surplus energy. Over the car's lifetime, my EV will be significantly more environmentally friendly than a comparable ICE equivalent. While I understand that I'm an outlier and that you're focusing on the average consumer, it's worth noting that I am not some hairy hippy greenie, but some of us can still achieve a better outcome in terms of CO2 emissions. One thing missing from the discussion is that many people choose an EV because it offers a superior driving experience for daily use, not for perceived environmental reasons.
The EV driving experience is certainly great. I have only driven one briefly but apart from retarded controls ( model 3 indicator is actually cruise resume but why?) I loved the smooth continuous acceleration and ever came to grips with the one pedal driving pretty easily. Having 13.2 kW of solar wont be 100 % of my charging solution but with the shifts I work it would give me about 2 hours of charge time most days to keep a floating charge and then a bit more on days off. Once we get a simple (read cheaper) EV without all the frippery and it has a battery that's safe to park next to my front door I'm in.
I had a Hyundai Ionic5 inflicted on me over the weekend by my wife. It is a 3 year lease and was her "dream" so the saying, "it is cheaper to keep her" applies. I still have carburetor motorcycles that I use daily to commute to work. Yeh, work I work in aviation, so nothing is greener.
Stick a bit of AvGas in it
Thanks John, but for the foreseeable future, I am very happy with Internal Combustion Engines in my motor vehicles. Maybe in another 75 years, but not now and not for me😬🇦🇺
Great video John. A few other things that might be taken into account in ICE / EV comparisons include 1. the environmental cost of upgrading the grid (at least here in the UK) to provide the extra power for EV charging (steel, concrete etc). 2. CO2 cost of extra road maintenance due to heavier vehicles. 3 CO2 cost of manufacturing solar arrays. There will of course be extras on the other side of the equation like new oil exploration etc. Calculations might be a bit more difficult for all the extra costs on both sides of the equation.
I was just thinking today that the world is lacking efficient drivers more than it is lacking efficient cars. Happy to see that I am about a decade late. Not happy that the situation has not improved.
It's ironic I bought my EV for equanomic reasons as I figured that the trend of the price of petrol was only headed up. As for other reasons, yelling about "climate change" while trying as hard as possible to bury the raw data doesn't fill me with confidence about the claims. Another thing is the ever increasing complexity of doing anything but the most basic maintenance on a new petrol car myself. I kept my last car 13 years from new.
We just had an electric semi go off the I-80, the major E-W artery in north CA.
Let’s conservatively call it $1 million per hour in lost revenue while THAT highway is closed! (Of course, there is the minor matter of an unquenchable fire in a forest during the height of Fire Season.) 😱😱😱😱😱
Did any of those AUS electric cement trucks get sent to the USA? Can just see the chaos if this happens during the LA Rush Hour!
WHO YA GONNA SUE? 😂😂😂😂😂
Sweet! Thankfully driver walked away, happened in early morning so might be driver tiredness. I have a feeling JC may be covering this next! Thanks for the heads up.
How can you carry out an analysis of CO2 emissions from EVs versus ICE vehicles without including CO2 produced during the extraction and processing oil into diesel/petrol???
Because if he included it then he couldn’t manipulate the data to get a paltry 10% benefit for a compact mazda2 with unrealistic mileage
600K to dismantle one windfarm windmill >Whos paying for that ?
If you take into account replacement of the EV batteries, do they stack up?
Why make up your own scope 2 number for electricity? It’s published by the department.
And why exclude scope 3? That number is also provided.
These numbers are also provided by state and there is a LOT of variation. You can apply the national average if you like, but difference in location is enough to swing your argument either way.
But only when you are heavily stacking the argument against EV by excluding scope 3 emissions for petrol. Which are not insignificant like they are for electricity, and are also published by the department.
Critical analysis time (I am also an engineer BTW):
1) You have chosen a wanker EV not a cheaper one with lower cost and smaller battery. Why not compare a Mustang V8 against an MG4?
2) You have made the assumption that CO2 emissions from power generation will remain static and not decrease with a greater proportion of renewable generation in the next 10 years.
3) Although you discuss home solar, you assume that it contributes nothing at all to the charging of the EV. Suppose somebody has no home solar at all, buys it when they buy the cheaper EV (because they can afford to when they do not buy the wanker Tesla) and does not drive their car on the weekends. They could get maybe 10 good hours of charging on the weekend and maybe 1 hour on other days, which is enough to power the car for the week. They never had solar before so they could in fact claim that the whole benefit of the solar goes towards the car. I know it is extremely difficult to estimate how much of home solar would *typically* be used for the car but it is certainly more than the zero that you have assumed.
So your argument is reasonable as it stands but it seems you started from the position of wanting the EV to lose this debate and made up an argument to suit your conclusion.
Mazda 2 vs GWM Ora or Telsa vs Kia Stinger?
Fo many people including myself charging nearly 100% on self generated solar is straightforward, especially working from home and other factors. Also John said 40% renewables of total electricity. I read somewhere that about 65% of Australia’s electricity during the day in 2023 was renewable and the figure for 2024 is above 70%, so even if you don’t have solar John’s equation is out the window. Also factor in disconnection of grid scale renewables on the middle of the day due to oversupply of electricity and inverter throttling then his green energy scam is also irrelevant.
EVs a stupid solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
Dr Vincent Gray: “The [IPCC] climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”
Dr Mike Hulme: “Claims such as ‘2500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous … The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was only a few dozen.”
Dr Kiminori Itoh: “There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only ‘greenhouse gases’ is nonsense and harmful.”
Dr Yuri Izrael: “There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate.”
Dr Steven Japar: “Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them.”
Dr Georg Kaser: “This number [of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC] is not just a little bit wrong, it is far out by any order of magnitude … It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing.”
Indeed, John is NOT comparing same/similar priced and sized apples and oranges at all, so I would call that an engineering fail!
had to post this again as it seems the first time it got deleted, now why would anyone do that?
yeah science so settled all dissent has to be erased.
Dr Vincent Gray: “The [IPCC] climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”
Dr Mike Hulme: “Claims such as ‘2500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous … The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was only a few dozen.”
Dr Kiminori Itoh: “There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only ‘greenhouse gases’ is nonsense and harmful.”
Dr Yuri Izrael: “There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate.”
Dr Steven Japar: “Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them.”
Good work mate. Mostly factual presentation.
Tesla battery degradation:
15-25% loss after 10 years/300,000km for nmc lithium
10-15% loss after 10 years/300,000km for lithium iron phosphate. In 30 years you will still see Tesla's getting around. Just as you see 1992 Toyota Camry's getting around now. And they don't need servicing
I would say over the next 10 years CO2 used per kw of power generated would be reduced. Also, how much CO2 moving all that fuel from the Middle East vs having power locally and already having all the power infrastructure available?
I would have also included the tires for both. The ev tires need to be so much stronger and cost more to produce etc they also wear a lot quicker due to the weight if the car, so more carbon and a lot more micro plastics in to the environment
You have forgotten the effect of the additional EV weight on the road. Heavier vehicles wear roads faster, and there is a notable Co2 impact. All the machines and products have a Co2 cost, being generous to EVs, they are destroying roads 50% faster than ICE vehicles.
@@HighFell Yep, forgot to add that myself.
@@HighFell looked up the tesla curb weights, they're no heavier than ICE cars/cuvs, so i'm not buying that argument except for true ICE Suv's where the equivalent would be a heck of a lot heavier in EV
@@18_rabbit like for like EV versions of vehicles are substantially heavier than ICE equivalent. Surely you are not arguing different? John’s video compares a Mazda 2 with a Tesla model Y. The Tesla is nearly a tonne heavier, it’s same right across vehicle types. If you compared a Ford Focus or Mazda 3 with the Y, the Y is 500kg more, 1/3rd heavier. Batteries are heavy. Of course you can always find a lardy ICE vehicle too and that’s fair enough, they are also wearing out roads at a more rapid rate than lighter vehicles.
Not CO2 related but another issue with EV: Because they are so heavy the micro particles from tires and brakes will increase a lot. Those buggers are extremely bad for the health when floating around in the environment
I live on a busy street with speed humps and a 20mph limit. Around our doors and windows a fine black dust collects, which is effectively soot and heavy particulates from tyres and brakes. The amount of black dust is concerning and we clean it regularly, least twice a week. As EVs replace ICE vehicles this will only increass. This dust is highly toxic and is known to cause all kinds of respiratory illnesses. Very few people are raising this issue at a government level.
EVs typically use very little brake material thanks to regen, its why a lot of EVs are using rear drum brakes again.
On the topic of tyre wear, the 100s of thousands of dualcab utes and large SUVs sold every year essentially pumping both brake and tyre particles into the atmosphere. EVs with the comparatively tiny sales are not absolutely are not the problem here
Tyre & brake dust are not really a problem as they are heavy , tend to be chemically inert and become part of the soil over time
The micro fine particulates from Diesel engines are the ones that cause respiratory diseases which is why heavy vehicles now have to wet scrub their exhausts .
A MIT research project placed some lab rats in Melbourne and 100% of them died from respiratory failure .
They repeated it with mice & I think rabbits just in case there was a problem with the test animals
Results were identical .
It made the news for 1 & one only broadcast then vanished because governments want ordinary people to live in high rises crowded into cities because this is convenient for the political parties & service providers . The fact it generates massive profits for the "right people" adds it the situation.
@@JelloTypeRI lived in a flight path for the first 16 years of my life. Everything was covered in fine black particles that have nothing to do with cars. I also copped a lot of soot from passing ships. The black particles came from somewhere. In my case it wasn’t cars
Anthropogenic CO2 amounts to 0.000012 of the atmosphere i.e. 12 parts per million.
Amazing how this trace amount of a trace gas is the thermostatic knob of planet earth.
I’ve been saying the same thing, everyone looks at me like cursed at god, or I have made up this fact.
The CO2 is a very small component of the atmosphere. You missed the bit about a) humans being able to do something about CO2 in the air b) methane being 12x more effective as a GHG and c) CO2 or methane concentrations increasing atmospheric moisture (clouds) which actually does the damage not the CO2. Learn the atmospheric science and stop talking. Just stop
@@theairstig9164 you just don't get it, do you, methane is a much larger problem than CO2, yet you bundle them together. CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere, and yet you still think that's the problem.
it also has a reduced warming effect for every additional PPM ... even at 400 PPM the warming effect of each additional PPM is starting to flatten off ... 800 PPM does not cause double the warming of 400 PPM
@@pablorages1241 , 👍🏻
Exactly the argument Professor William Happer makes.
You mentioned the fact that home charging is about 90% efficient but didn't use it in your calculations so Tesla total is 27 Tonnes.
you understated the limitation of not having a garage or carspot -- i think you'll find about HALF of the cars on the road don't have access to such a spot. Let alone that even if i did have a three car spot (for me, the spouse, and young kid) -- i wouldn't put an EV anywhere near my home .. especially when i am trying to have a peaceful sleep not worrying about burning to a crisp in my bed.
1. You compare a small fuel-efficient ICE car to a performance SUV, so right from the start your comparison is flawed
2. A comparison by VW of the difference in building an ICE vs EV Golf was 3.2 tonnes of CO2, not the 7 tonnes that you guess at
3. I average 141 Wh per km, not the 184 that you use, there's another 4 tonnes off your estimate
4. I commute 60km every day and charge my car on the weekend completely from solar, so I have zero grid emissions - it can be done
5. You haven't factored in the huge carbon costs of pumping oil out of the ground, transporting it to the refinery, refining it, transporting it to Australia by ship, transporting it to the station by diesel tanker, and pumping it into the car. Totally ignored, not even mentioned.
6. You ignore the health impacts of emissions from ICE engines
7. You talk about EV batteries burning but ICE cars are 7 times more likely to catch fire
8. As the grid gets greener EVs that are charged from the grid will reduce their emissions, while ICE cars will always be dirty
9. The next 10 years of use would see the EV further pull ahead
10. Basically you're a shill for the oil industry
This guy just hates EVs and tries to find any argument he can to prove they are bad. His arguments are so easy to pick apart is almost funny.
No totally on topic.
The " You can plug your car in to your home and run of the car battery, no blackouts! " crowd. Where is that power coming from in the first place? The only way this works is that you charge your car at work ( company pays for this ), you drive home, "Oh no you are down to 90% battery left", and plug in to charge your home battery, that has been running the house while you are away, up, even with your 3kwh solar. The next day you arrive back at work to charge your car on "fumes", that is it is almost flat.
You are not being green, you are ripping off the company for your power.
So using this logic, we could encourage the use of both small ice cars or small EVs and have efficiency standards for both types of vehicle.
As always you have "put it on the numbers". Thank you.
Had this exact discussion with an American last week, a smart one. He cared about his household footprint and agreed that his Tesla only reduced his yearly emissions by 4% and that the same CO2 savings could have been made by buying a condensing clothes tumbler dryer that only costs $700. Another thing; If you have solar at home, you have to charge your EV when the grid has surplus, otherwise, it just removes that CO2 free energy from the grid, so equivalent to charging on dirty power sources. However most people are not home midday, so that requires batteries at home too.
_"so that requires batteries at home too."_
Further increasing the chances of your home being immolated.
1) large model Y compared to a tiny ICE car (MG4 would be fairer)
2) no CO2 allowed for extraction, refining and transporting of fuel, oils and add all those filters, so you need to add 40% to your ICE car.
3) grid is getting greener and it's already greener than you think because much of the solar is behind the meter so it isn't in your numbers
4) V2G will reduce emissions
5) at the end of 10 years a LFP battery has another 10 years of grid service left in it so it continues to reduce grid emissions where as you ICE car is blowing smoke and ready for scraping
6) batteries are getting far greener and are using less CO2 to make year on year
7) so no allowance at all for solar charging is not kosher either, you need some sort of allowance as 60% of EV owners do have solar and those that don't are on cheap plans that prioritise renewable energy by making it cheaper to charge at times when renewable energy is plentiful.
@@rattusfinkus 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@rattusfinkus Why, would that be more fair?, You decide the size of your EV too when you buy an EV and you could buy a small one. Emissions from gasoline production does not add 40% That is insane. Refining spends 5 kWh for heating and pumping per barrel. A barrel of oil contains 1700 kWh, add a little extra for transport, but that is on average only 4% more. Grid is getting less dirty, but only by a few grammes per year, US and average Europe is still far away from Norway and France in that regard.
@@Svenson612 prove me wrong, my child likes using emojis as well
Nothing better than watching a family rugged up in their Tesla at the local shopping centre running nothing so they can charge the car quicker in winter.
Totally agree with this video.
We need to do the right things to fix the climate, not to panic and push in a wrong/ ineffective direction.
The fundamental flaw in John’s calculations is the emissions of the ‘fuel source’, ie electricity, are included for the EV. But they aren’t considered for the ICE vehicle.
When adding the emissions created from pumping the oil from the ground, transporting it to a refinery, refining it, transporting it to servos & pumping it into the car the additional emissions rise significantly. So much energy is used in just this process, 70+ Million EVs could be powered each month for no more emissions produced.
Over its entire lifetime, the vehicle manufacturing, petrol creation & engine combustion emissions of a small car are closer to 41 tonnes of C02.
John’s figure of 25 tonnes for the EV aligns with analysis from other organisations. Though, to be fair, if the emissions for the extraction & transport to a refinery are counted for crude oil then the emissions for the mining & transport of coal to a power station should be included too. So the 25 tonnes figure would increase slightly.
Though, as grid decarbonisation improves over the next 2 decades these emissions will drop back to 25 tonnes as both solar & wind have lower nett emissions when compared to coal & gas produced electricity.
For those who question the figures supplied:
www.mynrma.com.au/electric-vehicles/basics/are-evs-better-for-the-environment
ua-cam.com/video/apY9DXlXtIA/v-deo.htmlsi=gKThvHdJdaTo-cw6
The other aspect being overlooked is Australian made electricity powering Australian driven EVs means thousands of Australian jobs. Which is better than sending $Billions overseas to make oil sheiks even more obscenely rich.
You mean overseas "solar sheiks". None of the infrastructure is made here.....
I find it interesting you prefer to enrich solar sheiks whilst simultaneously championing a significantly reduced duty cycle.
Sorry missed that bit where you dug the rare earth minerals out of the ground, shipped them to a port, shipped them to be refined, refined them, shipped them to a battery maker, made a battery, shipped the battery to a Milk Float maker, made the Milk Float (with all those other bits shipped in), shipped the Milk Float to the Port, shipped it to the Country it's going to be sold, shipped it to the Main Stealer.
Possibly the DRC has a thriving Car industry which is being lost in the clamour about their nasty rash as a result of 'interfering' with Monkeys and that's why those points have been missed or is it more 'Greengineering' as all of the 'Green' bullshit is?
@@398paul that was included in the paper where he had the CO2 emissions for battery manufacturing. So yes, it was factored in.
Well EVs are not answer if you electricity production emissions are 650g/kwh. That is dirty on modern standard. First build nuclear power to push that under 200g average.
I do find it interesting that a by all accounts tiny hatchback, with a grid as dirty as that, only manages 10% in the end. Would be interesting to re-run this with something like a base model 3 or an ID3 or anything with a smaller battery pack considering these giant high hp SUVs are 9/10 times just micropenis compensation.
I once did energy efficiency calculations based on US grid data. Old diesel Sharan with ~40mpg vs Tesla. There was only a little difference in favor of EV, about the same 10% or so.
Thought it was quite fair calculation, considering quite similar car weights (~1800 vs ~2000kg). But Sharan is more spacious (8 seater) and has 1000-1200km range (outside city).
Meanwhile - Straya’s CO2 emissions have increased despite all of the renewable power generation and electric cars.
If only there was some way all of that science stuff could help…
🤦♂️
It's like at ship stuff overseas that increases our numbers. And due to tax incentives for tradies and businesses twin cab utes don't need log books so their numbers increasing is an issue.
CO2 emissions have increased because renewables aren’t rolling out faster than we’re digging up coal-in no small part because a decade of a complete vacuum of an energy policy from a Coalition stuck in the 1800s.
EVs are a tiny percentage of vehicles sold, and as JC has stated many times: have near zero impact on our emissions.
Thanks for this well researched and presented video John. I could not have said it better. You knocked it out of the park.
The main issue is that the difference between the two is statistically insignificant. It’s like pissing into a cyclone.
Except one is literally THREE TIMES the price of the other.
@@77gravity correct ... and it's not pretending its reason to exist is to save the planet
1) large model Y compared to a tiny ICE car (MG4 would be fairer)
2) no CO2 allowed for extraction, refining and transporting of fuel, oils and add all those filters, so you need to add 40% to your ICE car.
3) grid is getting greener and it's already greener than you think because much of the solar is behind the meter so it isn't in your numbers
4) V2G will reduce emissions
5) at the end of 10 years a LFP battery has another 10 years of grid service left in it so it continues to reduce grid emissions where as you ICE car is blowing smoke and ready for scraping
6) batteries are getting far greener and are using less CO2 to make year on year
7) so no allowance at all for solar charging is not kosher either, you need some sort of allowance as 60% of EV owners do have solar and those that don't are on cheap plans that prioritise renewable energy by making it cheaper to charge at times when renewable energy is plentiful.
Pissing into a cyclone? never heard that one before. But the Mazda costs 1/3 so its actually better, also a LOT more practical. Nice little car!
So why the hell didn't governments with all their smart advisors concentrate on reducing the size and weight of ICEs being sold rather than going with the mandatory change to EVs? As far as I can see it's a choice between a negligible cost change giving a moderate but guaranteed drop in CO2 emissions increasing with every year the policy is in place, compared to a very expensive option giving an uncertain, possibly non-existent drop in emissions for the immediate future and little guarantee it will get any better.
@@philiphumphrey1548 ,
That was never going to be in the programme.
Terminated technology like battery powered cars, using resources like never before, is a one shot phase to get us cloistered into 15 minute villages.
@@paulsiebert4863 if only! Fact is there's literally no comprehensive plans of any type.
Absolutely love this program on this topic John well done
I am not surprised he has yet to pick up on the Tesla electric semi crash in California that caught on fire that closed one of the most important interstates . The batteries burned at 1000 degrees . They had to bring in a water dropping helicopter . The fire department struggled to get it out . Hazmat people from Tesla were on sight and toxic fumes were released . After they finally did get it out and they loaded what was left back to Tesla in Nevada it needed a fire escort because it was possible the batteries could runaway again for the ones that hadn't burned the first time
Takes a bit of time to do these articles so keep your eyes peeled in the next few days.And I also assume john has a life away from the fat cave.
Thank you John for another in depth thought experiment
this is true, i have a 4.2 V8 porsche diesel and i regularly get 37 to 38 mpg which i am very happy with
Goddamned, that's pretty amazing!
In which country?
@@SoulTouchMusic93 The devil's in the details. MPG claims are usually lies.
@@SoulTouchMusic93 Who knows which Porsche model he's driving, or where he's driving it, or how large the "gallons" are that he's filling it up with. However, Fuelly says (in America):
"Porsche Cayenne Diesel MPG
3.0L V6 DIESEL"
2016: 24.0
2015: 22.6
2014: 24.0
2013: 25.4
So, OP was clearly *_lying._*
@@aliendroneservices6621 no it’s true but I should have given more details it’s a 2014 4.2 V8 diesel cayenne s. I am in Ireland.
And that is why I have a 150cc scooter as my daily commuter - it’s a true CO2 minimiser
I hope it's a fully ported 2 stroke
Traffic hazard.
Great video. The most practical way to reduce emissions would be to keep effecient cars running well, as not buying a new car saves CO2 and money. All of the saved cash could go to home solar, batteries and insulation and wind turbines, grid storage and solar farms to get rid of those coal power plants.
And if that means the fewer wealthy people can charge without CO2 emissions and at a low energy price, no other incentives will be needed for those who choose to switch to EV's.
In the Netherlands we are almost done with coal. Solar and wind are putting them out of business when the weather is nice and home batteries will kill them off completely in the next few years. And even then an EV is not great because of the impact on the grid and public charging mess we will need to endure for years to come.
There are definitely ideologues on both sides of the issue on Climate Change and the impact of CO2 as a "Greenhouse Gas" who have not done an ounce of research. As a layman I did due diligence and concluded that Climate Change is a reality, but that CO2 is not a substantial contribution to the decade's long reversing trend of Global Warming. The main cause seemingly is Cyclical Solar Factor's, but I would be interested in your insights on how an increase in CO2 ppm is justification for a NetZero Agenda. You seem to agree with the Electric God of EVs on that point if I'm translating your Ozzy perspective correctly. Much appreciated. 🙏
You couldnt be more wrong. The planet is warming faster than at any time in the last 15 million years
CO2 is a part of the problem, a reasonably large part , but a part just the same .
Deforestation is almost as big a part
Then there are hard surfaces that adsorb heat in the day & add to the radiant heat overnight .
Now is every roof was fully covered with solar panels then we would be a long way down the solution pathway
But cutting down forests to grow palms for bio-diesel or plant solar farms so far away from the users that you are loosing better than 20% as transmission losses will not help one iota .
People are basically lazy, stupid & greedy .
So the greedy exploit the laziness of the stupid to become even more greedy .
It generates the same pollution to make a vehicle that will run if service properly for 100 years as it does to make one that will be lucky to last 100 weeks .
So we make 100 week vehicles and encourage people to buy new ones every 100 weeks .
I just had to throw away 2 perfectly good iphone 4's because the government shut down the G3 network so more spectrum can be devoted to the G5 network so my curtains can talk to my air conditioner & my fridge can talk to my car to go past the shop & get more milk on the way home .
Because the G5 signal is so low energy we will need 20 times as many phone towers to get the same coverage ( more like 40 times if you take vegetation into account ) .
So that is 20 times the steel and 20 time the broadcast transmitters + 40 times the electricity for no real net gain .
You also assume that the Tesla battery will last 10 years. According to the Tesla website the battery warranty in Australia is 8 years. So that's another 7 tonnes of C02 for at least a proportion of Tesla owners. Assuming they don't bin the 8 year old Tesla with a dead battery.
So your 5 year warranty on you ICE car means it dies in 5 years?
About 20 minutes in. Remember that the mazda has a working engine/fuel tank to be about the same weight as the non functional, no battery Tesla. So the 'manufacturing cost' for a "rolling shell" is still higher for the EV.
Thanks John, very satisfying video.
So the point is: small cars are the best way, regardless.
I almost bought a Mazda 2, because I have had a Mazda 3 for over 20 years, fantastic cars both. But I ended up getting a VW Polo R-Line, purely because the ride was much better, in my opinion.
I get about 2.5 times the MPG and only emit a third of the CO2, compared to the 20 year old Mazda 3.
There you go, thats my real contribution to the environment for 2024 🙂, jobs a goodun.
I am not sure the Tesla battery would last 150 000km, you might need to replace it one time also
You forgot to mention most houses have two cars. So no chance
You don't mention the infrastructure cost regarding the additional weight of the EV.I was an IT consultant to a road authority, specialising in road and bridge information. I was reliably informed by an engineer that, all things being equal, domestic vehicles, such as the Mazda you use here, roll out the road and improve its lifespan. They don't put excessive stress on bridges either. Trucks, however, and by implication ruddy great EVs tend to destroy roads. The really heavy ones can delaminate the wearing surface, which then gets full of water which finishes the job. So EVs are bad for other road users too.
I assume that additional weight will also wear tyres at an accelerated rate. How much CO2 does it take to make a tyre?
May I humbly suggest you check out Patrick Moore, the joint founder of Greenpeace, regarding the veracity of global warming, then Bjorn Lomborg about the best way to spend money.
Don't forget the 300,000 utes sold for tax purposes too.
10.000 years ago, there was 3 km ice over Scandinavia, where I am from. So why did this immense ice package melt by year 5000? It sure wasn't due to man made CO2 emissions.
Btw, on another topic, nuclear is the only solution if you want zero emissions. ua-cam.com/video/N-yALPEpV4w/v-deo.html Even Australia understands that, since they are now building nuclear submarines.
John mentioned you in his video.
Talking about adding double glazing still is an Oz thing? ( Maybe ZA as well) pretty much standard on all of developed northern hemisphere with cold winters , including retrofitting nearly all older housing stock.